(Homily delivered by Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CBCP President, during the Mass to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, on July 9, 2008, at the Manila Cathedral.)
The 40th anniversary of the Encyclical Letter on the Regulation of Birth, “Humanae Vitae” by Pope Paul VI, is an opportune time for us to recall the salient doctrine of this authoritative and controversial but prophetic encyclical.
At its publication, on July 25, 1968, this letter of Paul VI ahs caused much discussion and aroused much opposition, which the Pope foresaw (HV 18). Against the prevailing expectation of liberalization in the sixties and seventies, that the Catholic Church would change her traditional teaching on conjugal morality and allow all forms of birth control. Pope Paul VI in Humane Vitae instead re-affirmed the Church’s traditional teaching, regarding birth control and responsible parenthood.
Enunciation of Conjugal Morality
What does Humanae Vitae tell us? Does it prohibit “family planning?” It does not prohibit family planning. But family planning should be done in a right way and not in a sinful way. Briefly stated, Humanae Vitae condemns direct and deliberate prevention of conception. And so, direct abortion must be rejected as a means of regulating birth or even therapeutic means. Likewise direct sterilization of male (vasectomy) and of female (ligation) must be rejected as well as all acts that attempt to impede to impede procreation—i.e. such acts before, during and after the couple’s sexual union: this includes the taking of contraceptive bills, I.U.Ds and condoms. It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come out of it (c.f. HV 11). It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of normal sexual relations could justify a contraceptive act of sexual union.
The Church, however, allows the use of medical treatment of the therapeutic means for curing of cancerous uterus, the preservation of life is what directly intended (Principle of Double Effect).
Natural family planning methods are morally allowed when they take advantage of the natural cycle of the reproductive system of the wife such as the use of the Basal Body Temperature, the Billings Ovulation Method, Sympro-Thermal Method and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method. Lately, some moral theologians and Episcopal Conferences have started to consider the merits and efficacy of Standard Days Method as a natural family planning method provided it is not combined with contraceptives and it is not seen as part of the government’s total family program for population control.
A Controversial Encyclical
Mainly because of Humanae Vitae’s prohibition of all forms of artificial contraception, the encyclical has been controversial. The Encyclical’s teachings encountered open dissent voiced widely and publicly by several bishops, cardinals and theologians. The Encyclical was criticized by development organizations who claim that it limits the methods available to fight world-wide population growth and struggle against AIDS. Some American, Canadian, Dutch and German bishops instead claimed and stressed that Catholics’ individual consciences should prevail in such a personal and private issue as family planning.
Pope Paul VI has however explicitly bypassed the recommendations of the Commission established by Pope John XXIII (cf. HV 5 and 6), because its 72 members had not been unanimous. He said “therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue or the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions” (HV 6).
A Prophetic Encyclical
Controversial as it was, Humanae Vitae is today regarded as prophetic. Its predictions (cf. HV 17) about the effects of contraception on society are seen today as accurate. First, according to Pope Paul VI, artificial methods of birth control opens the way of lowering of moral standards for the young as well as leads to marital infidelity. Second, the use of contraception will lead to the lowering of respect for women; husbands will regard their wives as mere instruments to serve their own desires. Thirdly, the use of artificial methods of contraception, Pope Paul VI warned, will be a dangerous tool in the hands of government or public authorities who care little about the moral law, and who may force the use of contraceptives on everyone.
Is this not our observation today? Many of the proposed bills in our Philippine Congress have been identified by our Episcopal Commission on Family and Life as D.E.A.T.H. Bills because they ultimately lead to the promotion of Divorce, Euthanasia, Abortion, Total Reproductive Health, Homosexuality (same sex marriage). On closer scrutiny of the proposed bills they are anti-life, violative of the dignity and sanctity of human life and anti-family; they disunite rather than untie couples, and destroy the family consecrated by God as the sanctuary of human life. Unfortunately and sadly, some of these bills which encounter opposition in Congress, from pro-life and pro-family Representatives, are enacted by some local government units inspite of moral objection of the church. Patriarch Athenagoras I stating his full agreement with Pope Paul VI said: “He could not have spoken in any other way.”
The controversy produced by Humane Vitae is an expression of the inherent tension between the paternalistic/legalistic emphasis on moral law and the personalistic emphasis on freedom of conscience. And yet, neither can be sacrificed for the sake of the other. No less than Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed much of Humanae Vitae in his Encyclical Veritatis Splendor and his Theology of the Body clarifying at the same time the use of individual conscience in arriving at moral decisions on responsible parenthood.
Our Response to the Encyclical
Although Humanae Vitae is not an infallible pronouncement, what Pope Paul VI as Universal Shepherd and Teacher said is true and what he laid down is right. Therefore what response do we give to it? Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes) has told us “Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching of the Pope, even when he is not speaking infallibly; judgments made by him must be sincerely adhered to according to his manifest mind and will.”
When we observe today how marriage how marriage and human sexuality are de-valued and treated lightly and with disrespect, how population growth and responsible parenthood are linked with the regulation of birth and how we should promote natural family planning against artificial birth control, it is time again to consider the moral legacy of the servant of God, Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. The Church has not ceased to proclaim with humble firmness the moral law of which she is faithful depositary and authentic interpreter (HV 18).
While we consider population growth as a valid concern, which should be addressed more directly with socio-economic methods, all men of goodwill are tasked to promote completely and clearly the teaching of the church concerning the sanctity of marriage and the regulation of birth.
“Attacks on large families stem from a lack of faith and the product of a social atmosphere incapable of understanding generosity, trying to conceal selfishness and unmentionable practices under apparently altruistic motives” (St. Josemaria Balaguer). Countries which impose birth control on the other countries, like the
“Our present-day world will not be saved by those who aim to drug the spiritual life and reduce everything to a question of economics or material well-being,” (St. Josemaria Balaguer).
May our recollection of and reflection on Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae lead our couples and Christian communities to be pro-family and pro-life, and of course and above all pro-God.
Posted in Archdiocese of JARO, CBCP Stuff, Homilies/Speeches | No Comments »
I. Introduction:
The principle of double effect is the most complex and the most debated matter this time by theologians and other experts on this field; with its principles and implications – in relation to the issues and crises the humanity is facing. The principle of double effect is brought into play whenever we are considering the performance of an action seen to have two simultaneous effects or result; one is perceives as good and is the one we sincerely desire and intend, and the other is bad or evil is not the object of our illustration but is merely to be tolerated or permitted. The bad or evil effect is such that, if their will be other choice, would rather not occur. Being a social, medical, legal and moral issue, the principle of the double effect is an emotional one. The Christian concept and outlook, traditionally, recognizes the relative value of human life by allowing the possible moral permissibility of this principle (acts). However, in the attempt to clarify what is at stake, in discussing the implications of the said principle, reason must be permitted rather than emotion to reign. In order not to create confusion, since the principle of the double effect is an act which its end is good or evil, or both, the killing of one and the preservation of the other – the definition is already morally charged statement. However, we will not focus on the act in particular, automatically equated with the immoral act of “killing” or unjust killing since this simply suggests the end of discussion. It is better to start the discussion not in conclusion but to explore and expose premises. The principle of the double effect indeed entail killing, nevertheless, this must be determined: (1) whether the action involves the killing of human person, and (2) whether the act is justified or unjust.
Bioethics is a recently coined word; from “bio” which means life and from “ethics” which means morality. It is a branch of Ethics which deals directly with the problem of life and dying, of health and of healing. (It focuses attention to the need for a healthier world in accordance with the dictates of reason.) According to Bernard Haring, “Our main concern and perspectives – will be the promotion of healthy relationship and co-responsibility in creative liberty and fidelity”. (Bioethics, Free and Faithful in Christ, Vol. 3, p3.) Principle of Double Effects – a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad – and the other good.
We have some familiar terms in relation to the principle of double effect. These are some of the common issues and situations wherein the principle of double effect is applied or found. With the definition provided, the principle of double effect comes into picture in every case which matters the vitality of the human life…and of the moralities of every Human action.
Definition of terms:
a. Abortion – Abortion is the intentional expulsion of a fetus which cannot survive by itself outside of the womb of the mother. It is also an attempt to rationalize application and use of the many advances in medical technology. It is a task to underscore the need for inter-disciplinary thinking:
Since Bioethics examines the ethical dimension of problems at the cutting edge of technology, medicine, and biology in their application to life, the area covered is necessarily broad. This is what makes bioethics complex but also an exciting disciplinary. It means that a revolution in thinking is called for; because no one field can claim the territory of life, many specialties and disciplines are needed (An Introduction to Bioethics, p2.)
b. Euthanasia – “mercy killing”- is an act of inducing death painlessly in order to abort the suffering of one afflicted with an incurable or unbearable sickness. In some sense, euthanasia is regarded as murder or homicide. Indeed if directed- the act in itself becomes immoral.
c. Mutilation – is the cutting off of limb or removal of an organ integral to the human body.
Human life is endowed with such great value that we are ordered not to kill, and we are released from this imperative only in exceptional instance. It is the existence of the exceptional instance that must be proven, not basic inviolability of human life from attack! The principle of the double effect, poses a dilemma since the concern is centered on the vitality and inviolability of human life. However, principles presented, as conditions/parameters to be considered to take upon, if we bump into such dilemma on the issue of the principle of the double effect, its applications, in relation to the vitality of human life. Although the topic poses a wide scope of discussion, that I believe will not be contained all together in this paper, yet, I would just like to center on the principles and conditions of the Principle of Double Effect, per se. The premise of this principle can be found in Thomas Aquinas’ discussion of self defense (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 7), but the four conditions of the principle were formulated by Jean Pierre Gury in the mid-nineteenth century.
II. The “Principle of the Double effect” and its Conditions:
1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
With regards to the principle presented above, there is a classic example which I can illustrate; a pregnant woman with the cancerous uterus. If the matter is ignored, both the mother and the child inside the womb will die. If the uterus is removed, the fetus will definitely die, however, the life of the mother will be preserved. The removal of the uterus will be allowed to remove because:
1. Removing of the uterus is a morally indifferent action.
2. Preserving the life of the mother in not produced by means of death of the child, but by removing the defective uterus.
3. The direct intention is to save and preserve the life of the mother.
4. The proportionate reason is that the life of the mother is at stake.
III. Moral Stands:
We enter in the realm of a “moral” action; (1) where the action is qualified by intention and circumstances. Experts called this qualified action as “premoral” action; which means (inevitable to human conditions). (2) Although we cannot simple do evil to achieve good, or that a good end doesn’t justify the evil means. Thus the action must be evaluated in the light of intention and circumstance – we can, and inevitably do, commit some premoral evil to achieve good. On the other hand, (3) However, in dealing with this issue, requires that the agent may not morally seek evil, moral or premoral, as an end. The only difficulty here is that with determining the intention of whether this has moral relevance. Thus, in this understanding, it is perceived that the action is now defining the intention, rather that the intention is defining the moral meaning and quality of an action. (4) On the conditions mentioned, the fourth is called now as the “principle of proportionalism” or proportionate reason. This illustrates the balancing of the premoral evils and goods. From this perspective, we could not just simply judge the act-in-itself (means) apart from its relation to the intention (end) in the general/total configuration of the circumstances. Thus, the key here in understanding the morality of an action, then, is the presence or absence of the proportionate reason. Proportionate reason is what distinguishes a premoral or ontic evil from moral evil and a morally right from a morally wrong action.
As the principle and its conditions where presented, I would dwell still in the Natural Law, which the major proponent and promoter is the Catholic Church – that upholds the moral system. The Natural Law binds all men in truth. Vatican II, in its Gaudium et spes, speaks of this law written I the heart: “In the depths of the conscience, man detects the law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love God and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has his heart s law written by God: To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judge”.
With the present mindset of the people today, with the advancement of science, it must be re-emphasize the vitality of human life as gift from God; That there is a need in our society to restore the sense of God. When the sense of God is lost there is also the tendency to lose the sense of man’s dignity and life. The result is practical materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism…hedonism (EV 21-22).
IV. Conclusion:
As a society, we can take no pride on the fact of what is happening on our world today. With the advancement of technology…when everything comes so fast and reduced to mere utility or materiality, even the dignity and vitality of human life is treated with nothing but an object. It seems that this mode f “killing” comes so natural and pleasurable today. One can simple rage war and kill thousands…or millions… a mother can simply destroy the fetus inside the womb for the feeling of unwanted circumstance…when one can simply kill and eliminate life with lethal injections – for the claim to end the suffering of an old or ill person…or to erase the person in the history of society due to his crimes committed. Indeed the Evangelium Vitae is right in saying that men no eventually lost the sense of God. And with that…the respect to life dies with. What world we are with now that evil dwells more in the hearts of man rather than of what is good. We have lost our sense and identity as man – as stressed by Gaudium et spes, out identity which comes from the One who created us after his own image and likeness.
As a matter of life and death, abortion, euthanasia…etc which threatens the dignity and value of human life deserves a discussion that is carried on within the context of our deepest and riches Christian sensibilities.
There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the life of Christ: suffering and even death can be accepted out of love; good can result from the voluntary surrender of power and the use of authority in the service of others. There is no reason, then, for us Christians to be confined to the view that suffering is absurd, an evil to be avoided and resisted no matter what price. It is in this perspective that suffering can be redemptive and can serve life…that some may find the strength to face the pain, anxiety and fear that so often come with an unintended or unwanted pregnancy or illnesses. Thus, let us once again regain our identity as man…created with dignity…made in the image and likeness of
References:
Vincent J. Genovesi. “In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality.” Abortion 338; Principle of Double Effect p. 363; Copy right 2003 by arrangement with the order of St. Benedict, Inc., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321.
Richard M. Gula. “Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality.” The Morality of Human Action p. 265, 1989 Paulist Press, 997 Macarthur Boulivard,
Ramon B. Agagpay. “Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students and Educators.” 1991 National Book Store, Inc., Capitol Publishing House, Inc., 3 13 Team Pacific Bldg., Jose C. Cruz cor. F. Legaspi
Austin Flannery, O.P. “
THOMAS AQUINAS, ST 2a2ae, 64.7. Salamanca Collegium Fratrum Discalceatorum . . ., Cursus theologicus . . ., v.7 (
F. J. CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology (2d ed.
www.jaroveritas.wordpress.com. “Celebration of Family Life; Homily of Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo on the 40th anniversary of the Encyclical Letter of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 2008.
www.newcatholicencyclopedia4.com. 1993-2000, By; Fr. David C. Trosch
MANILA, September 19, 2008— A coal-power plant in an area earmarked for eco-tourism is yet to get-off the ground but already it is stoking up anger among several groups.
The most vocal opponents to the approved 164-megawatt coal plant at the heart of Iloilo City are groups of environmentalists and influential leaders of the Catholic Church.
They fear the plant will do more harm than good for them and the environment stretching from inside a 4-hectare property of the Panay Power Corp. in Barangay Ingore in Lapaz District to other nearby towns.
The plant would be completed in 2010.
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo admitted fear among them that the power plant owned by the PPC and a Metrobank subsidiary, Global Business Power Corp. will soon operate in the area.
“It’s really saddening because people here (in Iloilo) are really against it,” he said.
Lagdameo, also the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said they want power but a “clean power.”
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has recently granted an environment certificate of compliance to the proposed project.
The Jaro archdiocese has yet to see any detailed ECC for the project but is embarking on a public campaign to make local people aware of the dangers of coal fuel toxins.
Lagdameo said it’s hardly complicated for them to understand why the government is pushing such project that has long been proven to be environmentally risky.
He said it is also contrary to a government campaign for renewable energy.
“There is no such thing as clean coal fired power plant especially here (in our country) where the process of giving approval (by the authorities) is often questionable,” the archbishop said.
The international environmental group Greenpeace also lashed at the DENR for approving the project.
In a statement, Greenpeace Southeast Asian campaign manager Beau Baconguis said that in granting permit, DENR secretary Lito Atienza “has revealed his monumental hypocrisy, pretending to talk about climate change” while approving coal plant projects.
“By approving the ECC of the Iloilo City coal plant project, Secretary Atienza has shown his true colors—it’s as black and dirty as the coal plants he promotes,” he said. (Roy Lagarde)
The
I. General Outlook:
The Seminary is known to be the seedbed of vocation, wherein the seed is being nurtured and cared. However, in my own reflection, the place is far more a formation house…it is “a Holy ground” (Exodus 3, 4-5), a ground where transformation happens. God invites/calls the individual to take off his sandals and come close to him. The act of taking of the sandals presents the invitation of the formation to unload the unnecessary baggage, to center one’s attention to the process and demands of seminary formation. Here in this place, the stories begin and end in some point…a journey, which many would claim a blessed opportunity. Again, I consider the seminary as [“a holy ground”, is the place where transformation of oneself begins], from which, the different phases and faces of formation allows the formandi to encounter Christ along the process of the journey.
A. Realities:
Specifically, St. Joseph Regional Seminary is a place where the future priests of the region under different Arch/dioceses are formed. Contrivance with the program patterned on the Up-dated Program for Priestly Formation (UPPPF) and Postores dabo vobis as its references, this project and expects from the individual to become “an integrated person, a contemplative pastor, apostolic proclaimer, and to be Christ centered”. Hence, the seminary is equipped with appropriate tools in the different aspects of the formation program; designated qualified Priests to oversee and to make this mission vision of formation to move toward its complete realization.
Basically, the seminary is composed of formators headed by the Rector, Priest formators, Personnel and Seminarians under different Arch/dioceses from Romblon, Kalibo, Jaro, Palawan, Antique and
B. Structure/ Facilities (buildings and environment):
1. Others would tell that seminarians of St. Joseph Regional seminary are unlucky compared to others in different seminaries. Although that this statement is true, in a sense, however, I beg to disagree. Although that the facilities and formation programs are not the same as other seminaries have, but this, I believe is the uniqueness and the identity of St. Joseph Regional Seminary. In my own reflection, this is not a form of deprivation or being unlucky, but this teaches the seminarians to become sensitive to the given realities. Although the seminary have not much sophisticated facilities, but produces quality priests with pastoral zeal, which embodies the being “Alter Christus”.
2. Moreover, in my reflection, the seminary exemplifies the characteristic of
C. Formation Program:
1. Formation Program is the compass of the community in formation. This helps the individual to live his life in accordance to the demands of formation, to grow and to become matures, holistic person in the end. Formation program must be owned by the individual for them to become effective along the process of the journey.
2. The formation program gives many windows to the individual to maximize all of his potentials, to grow internally – with the community. This, I consider as a stream where transformation and growth transpires. In this case, the formation programs of the seminary allow the individual to see and understand his “being Human”, and at the same time, view things in the perspective of God. Thus this requires each one to have that leap of faith, a very vital element in the process of formation, thus, requires every one of active participation and total owning of it. I mentioned this facts and outlook of mine in relation to the seminary formation, since I, too, has been a witness of these. Since, I am just in the primary stage of Theology formation, faith and trust to the formation program is a must. It is “believing” that formation program as a “compass”, will provide something good in the future. Hence, everything begins in small things, in simple things that the individual can encounter along the process of formation. Formation program defines and gives meaning on these bits of ordinary experiences, which would help the individual to grow along the process, in every chapter of seminary life. Thus, Formation Program plays a vital role in formation.
D. Formators:
1. The Formators are the ones’ delegated by the task of overseeing the process of priestly formation, in every aspect in as much as the realization of the formation program is concerned. Specifically, they are priest/s called and delegated by the Archbishop with his council to look after and administer the process of formation, and guide seminarians to attain and fully actualize ones’ self, to attain growth in every aspect of seminary formation. They help form and prepare the formandi to become equipped so as to become effective pastors of the church, the people of God.
2. From this responsibility attached as ordered by the bishop, each unique characteristics and principles, although varies, yet molded into one, which adds-on to the flavor to the process of the seminary formation. Seminarians themselves find inspiration and motivation to the life and “witnessing” of the formators, which in the process help the seminarians to grow mature. In this, in my personal opinion, that every formandi must realize, that the “voice of the formators is the voice of God”, in which, the formators projects the ideals and virtues necessary to live a life as a priest of God, and as servants for his vineyard. Thus, priest-formators played the vital role, in collaboration to the council of elders to make the formation as effective as possible. In the end, seminary formation is a collaboration of efforts of the members of the community in realization of the objectives of the seminary formation.
E. Personnel:
1. The personnel are the ones’ who are assisting the seminarians in the daily life in the seminary. They are partners in the tasks and responsibilities of maintaining the cleanliness and order of the seminary. Basically, the personnel belong to the community, as part and with the community. They also play important role, such as, preparing the food and the place of the seminarians, doing marketing and looking after for the cleanliness of the places in the seminary.
2. They must not be alienated in all community activities, for they too are part of it. For instance, seminary personnel also belong to the different FC’s of the community. Thus, this simply signifies that they are in/with the community.
3. The seminarians also look after the spiritual aspect of the personnel by providing and initiating their gathering, in prayer and bible sharing every Tuesday after dinner. These shows a simple and a unique way of tending the needs of the personnel as they, too, look after for the welfare of the community in general. In over a month of stay here, one observable characteristic of the personnel is that, they are welcoming and accommodating. They would ask seminarians if from diocese he belongs, tell stories of the past seminarians who already graduated. Indeed, communication and mutual understanding makes the relationship of seminarians and personnel to be smooth and authentic. Although, paradoxically, they at times a bit aloft and uneasy to approach new seminarians, yet, the interest and eagerness to know and to be known float naturally, simply signifies that willingness to build relationship with one another. Hence, because of these, community life becomes a joyous and a wonderful experience to everyone.
F. Seminarians:
We are the ones’ undergoing the formation. We are the ones who seek the essence and the meaning of our vocation through the formation program given by the seminary. Thus, we call ourselves “people in the journey”, and thus, a community. We are the community of seminarians who eat together, play, pray study and do pastoral works together. As individual called to be one in this place, trust is a vital foundation of relationship, per se.
1. It is in this, I believe, that trust must be established in every community life. Trust has been the basic foundation of the relationship here in the regional seminary. This experience was validated when the second year initiated us the freshmen. It is trust that first that has been established.
2. We the seminarians – a community, with personal orientations, values and principles in life, called to be together in this “holy ground”, a place of formation, could not avoid encountering complexities and differences, however, the call here is to embody the fraternal correction and co-formatorship.. Since, we trust every one; hence, responsible freedom is exercised. At times, reminder and fraternal correction is required if the individual who overlooked his responsibilities as a member of the community. It is in this concept that the co-formatorship is being practiced by the individual. Thus the bearer of this and must be the witnesses, are the ones’ in the higher years – to inspire the freshmen and anyone concerned to live with this values.
This I believe is the one unique characteristic of being in St. Joseph Regional Seminary. If I am to interpret this, this is perhaps the outcome of the reality in the seminary; of being intimate, at home to the place and to every member of the community. Since, we in the community, small in number, can in a way, reach out not only to our co-dioceses seminarians, or to the class alone, but with each and every one of us in the community. In my interpretation, Formative community stands on the principle of breaking these walls of regionalism as we call and individualism - but to be really a community with one common identity – seminarians of St. Joseph Regional Seminary.
G. The Seminary ambiance:
1. The ambiance of the seminary is perfect in relation to the realities of the seminary conditions. It is in this, why I have also mentioned that the seminary is a holy ground. There is the presence of solitude and peace, which (for me) the spirit can move smoothly. Perhaps, I could not explain further in detail regarding the ambiance, since it leaves me nothing to say. Perhaps, the place and its ambiance overwhelms me that no exact words I can say of the place.
2. It is nothing but a home for me…which made me so comfortable of the simplicity and elegance of the place. I could say that, the place is a factor for me to connect with the Divine Master, which in a way help me in my disposition and in my searching of meanings and essence in life. There are places here that helped me to meditate and to commune with the Divine. Take for example the trees, the beautiful sound of birds chirping, the crickets like witling at the end of the day. The place suggests silence. Thus, it is indeed a place I called home.
II. Insights and Realizations:
God knows best where a flower can blossom the most. Honestly, this is not my priority seminary. During my Philosophy days, I would usually discuss with my individual colloquium director of my preferred seminary, which I think that suet my personality. However, I was denied for three times. After years of regency, I came back to this place without really understanding the wisdom of my superior. Nevertheless, since I subject my self to my superior, “it is not my will be done, but His”. Later, I realized that God will deny my wants because He knows a better place for me to grow. It is in this that I have realized that God has his humor, which made me laugh at some point. Since I have made a commitment to God, that I’ll have him as the captain of my life, hence, I am bound to follow and become obedient unto his will.
The seminary, St. Joseph Regional Seminary was indeed a best place where God wanted me to mature, to grow in wisdom and in faith. In here I have found the bits of answers to the many questions that I have before. Now everything comes into my senses…slowly I am trying to see things not just on my physical or literal point of perspective, but trying to view things in the light of faith and in God’s perspective. God reveals himself to me in every aspect of my ordinary experiences here in my journey in the seminary. Thus, I have to believe, to have faith in my formators, my classmates, my brothers in the community, and to have faith in God; “like child who never fear nor doubt to the people around him.
III. General Feelings:
The song “Love is the answer” and “home” by Chris Daughtry reminds me of the feeling of coming and being at home. I am happy of what and where I am right now. Everything has come into my senses. I slowly begin to understand and see things in a wider perspective. Hence, I have to embrace this reality that I have right now; that I am here…thus I must remain faithful to the demands of seminary formation, to my fellow brothers in the community…to the experiences and situations that would make me grow…as my God remained faithful to me all these years. At this time, I could say, “wala nagn hahanapin pang iba”. Henceforth, I submit my self to God in my response to my formation, to own this formation and to be open and receptive to what ever or wherever the formation would bring me.
-Rhiyn-
