Today's Wisdom

Those who do not pass from the experience of the cross to the truth of the resurrection condemn themselves to despair! For we cannot encounter God without first crucifying our narrow notions of a god who reflects only our own understanding of omnipotence and power
Pope Francis

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Jesus' Prayer

We spoke and discussed with all the lecture's attendees about the power of prayer last night. How long to pray, Meditation, When to pray, Different types of prayer, How Jesus himself prayed by himself, How prayer is a dialogue with God, How it is that God himself leads us to pray through his Spirit. But one question, and only one, captured the essense of prayer: How come not all prayers are answered according to our wishes? It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that God does not change his mind when we pray but it is us who get closer to him when we truly pray. One person said, we have to discern God's will for us..."Discern the Spirits" the Holy Bible says. St. Ignatius of Loyola had to develop a set of exercises - His "Spiritual Exercises," which the Jesuits follow to this day, are treasures of how to find God's will in every day of my life. This took me directly to the most important topic about prayer: The prayer of Jesus at the night he was betrayed. Jesus spent a long time in prayer while his disciples were sleeping after their last supper at that scary night. He was afraid. He was alone. It was a dark night and a dark moment in his earthly life. The Son of God was troubled by what awaited him, because he was as human as every other human person. He knew that his life was coming to an end. He knew who was to betray him. And he knew he will die. His supplications to his Father continued until he was sweating blood. How did he pray and struggle in his prayer, this Master of all spiritual masters? At last, he says "Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) And because Jesus aligned his human will with the divine will, he approached his death in total obedience to his beloved father whom he called "Abba" (Daddy). And in his death he carried on his shoulders not only his cross but the crosses and sufferings of the entire world. No, he saved the entire human race from hell in his death. His life begot life and his death begot more life...eternal life for all humanity... His prayer did not finish since he is still praying, as we all know, to bring us close to his father. Allow me to add one little thing since it connects all: What was the source of his prayer and his relationship to his father and for us? St. Augustine teaches us that it was love from eternity. The Father loved and continues to love his begotten Son (the Word) in his unlimited self-emptying self-giving love and the Son receives that self-emptying self-giving love, and the Holy Spirit is that love that binds the Father and the Son. This is the Trinity which is at the core of Christianity. Love is the only way for eternal life. In recent decades, scientific research in quantum physics has been stipulating that not only living people are in relationship, but even inanimate matter at the microcosmic level do communicate with each other. I may be mistaken but I feel that the imprint of our Christian Triune God fills the universe. Yes, prayer is a dialogue with God...Yes, prayer starts with God, not us, and it is the Spirit of God that urges us to cooperate with God's grace...Yes, it takes time to enjoy prayer...Yes, it is in the Eucharist that the Church prays since through it Christ himself is praying in his sacrifice. But the most important element in prayer is love...that is Christ - that is God.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

How to reconcile one's personal values with organizational values and cultural values as well as ethics in a global setting

The above title is the title of a paper I was asked to write in my "managerial communication" course in the Information Systems Master degree at the University of Phoenix. I am publishing it in this blog, while the instructor is still evaluating it. Why? Because I believe that my readers would benefit from my humble attempt at reconciling many moral views that seem to be easily reconciled but in fact they are not in our postmodern age. Read on: Introduction To reconcile one's personal values with organizational values and cultural values as well as ethics in a global setting, I must start by indicating first where one stands in terms of personal ethics. I will first proceed to show how personal values are derived from religious values, and will show how these ethics historically developed in the West (which excludes Oriental cultures). Since the business model, to which the Globe adheres now, has emerged from the Western culture, in the rest of the paper I will use that model in relation to its treatment of ethics. I further assume that the current global information technology is only an extension of this culture. Personal Values My own personal values have been influenced by personal upbringing at home, my formation and interaction at church, as well as school, my relationships with colleagues at the workplace, and not the least the genetic makeup inherited from my parents. But most of all, my knowledge gained through much research, will bear on this paper. Religious Values and Ethics The origin of ethics is tied to the origin of religion, which goes back to prehistoric time. Morality, like religion, has a natural basis. It is the outcome of the use of reason (Catholic Encyclopedia, Religion). Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct is a constituent element of religious life (Britannica, Religion). However, the religious perception in the human thought and psyche is not explainable to-date by pure scientific research (A. Newberg, E. D’Aquili, V. Rause, Why God Won’t Go Away, 1999- See also The Economist, Where angels no longer fear to tread, March 19, 2008 issue). Most personal ethical values in America and Western cultures in general are based on the Ten Commandments (Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, Exodus 20, 2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21). For more modern Biblical scholarship with regard to the development of the Ten Commandments, see The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, published by Prentice-Hall, 1990. Development of Religious and Cultural Values The origin of religion is speculated to be some kind of worship for the “Sky God” in very early primitive cultures. Due to the widely different cultural systems in the world, I will limit myself to the Western hemisphere for the development of ethics. The earliest known ethics code is Hammurabi’s Code, in Mesopotamia (18th century BC). It is thought by a few scholars that the Hebrews may have used some of his codes in their Law from which ethical values are developed. In about 30 AD, Jesus Christ is said to have revolutionized the Hebrew Law (The New Testament). It was Jesus Christ who introduced to the world the idea of God as a loving father. Jewish tradition, according to Biblical scholarship knew of God as father but never called him: Father (Abba which is an Aramaic word for Daddy). When the "Prodigal Son" left his father's home and was in deep trouble, his Daddy, in the Gospel, was still looking for him until one day the son returned home and, at once, his father made a celebration. "For your brother was dead and now he is alive" the father told his older son (Luke 15:11-32). It was Christ who introduced to the world the great words "Love your enemies..." (Matthew 5:44). He was full of love towards very man and woman. He is known to have said this when he was dying on the cross: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34). But the most relevant teaching of Christ to personal ethics is his reversal of the priority of the two commandments. For him, love of neighbour was more important than love of God. Or put in other words, worship of God is to serve Man’s needs because God is in Man. Recall that Man does not mean male but is inclusive of men and women according to the ancient Hebrew language. This is evident in much of Christ’s teaching and parables (Cf. the Parable of the Good Samaritan; Luke 10:29-37). Maurice Zundel, a thinker in the 20th century commented that God knelt in front of Man (in reference to Jesus’ washing of his Apostles feet in the Last Supper.) Today’s insistence on the inviolable value of the human person is rooted in Christ’s teaching. Long before it was adopted by a secular West, this ethical value was rooted in Christianity. The development of moral and ethical values cannot be fully separated from that of culture. When the Christian movement, born in Jewish tradition, was spread to the Roman world beyond Jewish Israel, largely through the preaching of Peter (Cefa ben Jonah) and Paul (of Tarsus), Christianity adopted at least two changes to the Law which made it distinct from Judaism. The first is the abolition of circumcision, and the second is eating of unclean animals (Acts 11). Around the year 67, Nero crucified and burned thousands of Christians (Cf. Tacitus, Annals, 305). Over the next three centuries, his successors followed him in persecuting Christians. Pliny the Younger, an advisor to Emperor Trajan, said Christians “bound themselves by a solemn oath not to deny any wicked deeds, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up”(Cf. Pliny, Letters, 403). Christian commitment led to the conversion of Emperor Constantine upon defeating his rival Maxentius in 312 by the sign of the cross. Let us briefly see the enormous effect of Christian moral values on the development of ethics in the Roman empire and its offspring: 1. As a Christian emperor, Constantine introduced moral reforms in civil law including the outlaw of crucifixion and branding of slaves. 2. Infanticide (the killing of deformed and weak newborn) was widespread in the Greco-Roman culture and even beyond (India, China, Japan, Brazil, Africa). Cicero (106- 43 B.C.) justified it by citing the ancient Twelve Tables of Roman Law, and the philosopher Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) said “We drown children who at birth are weak and abnormal” (De Ira 1.15). Infant girls were especially vulnerable (an inscription at Delphi reveals that only 1% of families raised more than one daughter in the second century). It was Christians who, on the contrary, condemned infanticide as an act of murder (Didache, 110 AD) thus honouring human life as an inalienable gift from God. Once Christianity attained legal status in the 4th century, the Christian emperor Valentinian, influenced by St. Basil, formally outlawed infanticide (374 AD). 3. Abortion practice was practised in virtually all pagan cultures. It was widespread in the Greco-Roman civilization, sometimes due to food shortage, but also due to the deterioration of the value of marriage, and the increase in extra-marital sexual affairs in the late Roman era. Moreover, the desire to remain childless was promoted (Cf. Seneca, De Consolatione ad Marciam 19.2; Horace, Satires 2.5). Christian tradition from the beginning criminalizes abortion as murder (Cf. Didache, in The Apostolic Fathers, 319). As commented by the historian Ferdinand Schenck : “The intrinsic worth of each individual man and woman as a child of God and an mmortal soul was introduced by Christianity.” 4. One of the perverted customs that Christianity overturned was human sacrifices. The Canaanites and virtually all ancient societies knew of this sacrifice to the pagan dieties. Aztec and Maya Indians sacrificed captive warriors in their religious rites. The Romans introduced the gladiatorial games in 264 B.C. as a way of showing the power of Roman Emperor to whom even people can be sacrificed. Gladiators were usually slaves, condemned criminals, or prisoners of war, all of whom were considered dispensable, without dignity. These games were not confined to Rome but were also held in Syria, Greece and Asia Minor. Gladiators were encouraged to slash and slay each other before an entertained crowd with the emperor at the Colosseum in Rome or amphitheaters in other cities. The church condemned sacrifice of human life as part of any rituals. The church also condemned the gladiatorial bloody contests and gambling with human life. In his book de spectaculis, Tertullian (d. 220) devoted an entire chapter to admonishing Christians not to attend gladiatorial games. Christian Emperor Theodosius I (378-395) terminated the games in the East, and his son Honorius ended them in 404 in the West. W.E.H. Lecky stated “There is scarcely any single reform so important in the moral history of mankind as the suppression of the gladiatorial shows, a feat that must be almost exclusively ascribed to the Christian church” 5. The effect of the Roman classical culture came back to haunt the culture of Western Christianity in the 14th century. This is called Renaissance since it inaugurated a rebirth of the classical Roman-Greek values. Humanism insisting on the priority of this life as opposed to the priority of eternal life followed soon. However, great philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas were able to synthesize the Greek philosophy of Aristotle with the Christian faith (Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, 1991, pp. 179-190). Not only did this synthesis tolerate Aristotle’s open inquiry into nature but also promoted inquiry in the natural world since the world came into existence from a loving creator. (Tarnas, p.184). 6. However, with the rise of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, a new current of individualism was born and promoted in North Europe based on free interpretation of the Bible by the individual. Gradually, individualism gave precedence to the individual over society and the state. 7. Finally with the Enlightenment in the 19th century, and moral relativism in the 20th century, ethics lost their absolute value in the public place. We live in a post-modern world where the criteria of judgment on moral values are relative to individuals and their environments. It is evident then that our human rights that we never stop talking about are rooted in Christianity. Personal Religious Ethics and Multicultural Values Multicultural ethics is a broad topic if we are to consider all the cultures of the world. Since the infamous 9/11 attack, the Islamic culture came into much discussion in America and the West. In this paper I will therefore focus on the Islamic culture as opposed to the Christian culture in the West. In Toronto, considered the centre of Canada’s business community, some 50% of its inhabitants are ethnic immigrants. Many immigrants in recent decades have come from Muslim cultures to settle in Canada. They are hard workers but they bring with them their own cultural values. Much of their social values are well integrated into Canadian social values. However, some particularly Islamic traditions are not open to integrate – Consider, for example, the Islamic law (Sharia) of polygamy. This law is foreign to Christian monogamy still prevailing in Western society. If a young Muslim immigrant man marries a young Christian woman, does he have a right to get married to another woman while he is still married to his first wife? Another difficulty stems from the different ways women dress in Islamic countries as opposed to Western countries? Muslim cultural presence in Europe has caused much friction in the past few years particularly in secular France. In the years since the infamous 9/11 attack, some Fundamentalist Muslim organizations have threatened to bomb Western countries. In his “Christianity Face to Face with Islam”, published in the renowned First Things in January 2009 issue, Robert Louis Wilken suggests that Christianity “has a deeper and more coherent relation to its own tradition, including the cultural patrimony of classical antiquity. And it commands the intellectual resources to understand and engage other religious traditions as well as to provide moral inspiration for secular societies.” Followimg Pope Benedict's address at Regensburg in September 2005, some 150 Muslim scholars wrote to him that a dialogue between Christianity and Islam is important. Last year 300 Muslim scholars enlarged their quest for dialogue to many of the Christian churches and they based their argument on "love of God and love of neighbour" the two pillars of Christian morality. This is a good beginning but it remains to be seen how different cultures such as Islamic and Christian ones will inspire each other and interact in a global setting. How to Reconcile Personal Ethics with Multiculturalism All major religious cultures seem to have at least a common denominator in ethics. This includes good behaviour towards the other, or neighbour, as long as there is no violent reaction. This is based on the natural law of justice. Furthermore, we can apply the Golden Rule stated in the negative form in Confucius teaching "never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself" (Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton). From the major religions we find too similar appreciation for inter-human ethics: Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18 Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517 Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5 Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18 "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a. "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6 Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form" "Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259 "No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299 Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien. The above says it all. No culture and no religion, at least at face value, would reject good ethics among people as long as they are well behaving with each other. However, only the Christian culture bases behaviour more emphatically on true love. Issues of Ethics in the Workplace How can we relate ethics to business: In its issue, January 2005, the Economist wrote "The crucial point is that managers of public companies do not own the businesses they run. They are employed by the firms' owners to maximise the long-term value of the owners' assets. Putting those assets to any other use is cheating the owners, and that is unethical. If a manager believes that the business he is working for is causing harm to society at large, the right thing to do is not to work for that business in the first place. Nothing obliges someone who believes that the tobacco industry is evil to work in that industry. But if someone accepts a salary to manage a tobacco business in the interests of its owners, he has an obligation to those owners. To flout that obligation is unethical." Elaine Sternberg, an academic philosopher and business consultant (and a former investment banker), persuasively argues in her book, “Just Business”, that there are two main things: “ordinary decency” and “distributive justice”. These need to be understood in relation to the proper goal of the firm. Without these basic values, business would not be possible. Sterrnberg continues "If owner value, and ownership itself, are to mean anything, there must be respect for property rights. This excludes lying, cheating, stealing, killing, coercion, physical violence and most illegality”; it calls instead for “honesty and fairness”. Taken together, in her formulation, these constraints reflect the demands of “ordinary decency”. "Firms that lie and cheat cannot expect to stay in business very long, even if their actions are allowed by law. Dishonest companies will be unable to borrow, to obtain working capital, or to form stable business relationships with suppliers and customers. Decency in this sense is not just good for business, it is essential. When it comes to maximising long-term owner value, honesty is not just the best policy, it is the only feasible policy." What about the second component of business ethics, distributive justice? In the business context, this simply means aligning benefits within the organisation to the contribution made to achieving the aims of the firm. Pay linked to performance and promotion on merit are instances of distributive justice within the company. Much of what was said about the role of ordinary decency applies here too. Again, these notions of what is fair are widely accepted; on the other hand, they are not, for the most part, required by law; as a practical matter, they are needed if the business is to do as well as it can; and they are also questions of ethics, and hence part of the ethics of business. To promote a friend rather than the best person for the job, or to reward a manager for incompetence or wrongdoing, is a bad way to run a business—and is also unethical." I fully agree with the above statement. Management of business requires a minimum of ethics. It is still falling short of Christian ethics. International Business Values in view of Globalization When it comes to globalization, there are new sets of ethical issues: Denis Collins wrote in the Journal of Business Ethics "Reams of research have been devoted to comparing ethical sensitivities of people from different countries. As most of this work has been North American, it is perhaps not surprising that it concluded that American business people are more 'ethically sensitive' than their counterparts from Greece, Hong Kong, Taiwan, New Zealand, Ukraine and Britain. They were more sensitive than Australians about lavish entertainment and conflicts of interest; than French and Germans over corporate social responsibility; than Chinese in matters of bribery and confidential information; and than Singaporeans on software piracy. Given such moral superiority, it is surprising that American companies seem to turn up in ethical scandals at least as often as those from other rich countries" May be, but when we see what Enron corporate elite did, then we must ask questions about the ethical behavior of Corporate America too! When America went to Iraq in 2003, there were reports that it was not the liberation of Iraqis that motivated the superpower to invade Iraq but the economic benefits that would be reaped by the American oil companies. The Economist in its April 20th 2000 issue questioned "Anti-globalisation protesters see companies as unethical as well as exploitative. Firms demur, of course, but face an awkward question: Does virtue pay?" Continues the Economist, many companies first confronted the moral dilemmas of globalisation when they had to decide whether to meet only local environmental standards, even if these were lower than ones back home. This debate came to public attention with the Bhopal disaster in 1984, when an explosion at a Union Carbide plant in India killed at least 8,000 people. Most large multinationals now have global minimum standards for health, safety and the environment. In the same article, the Economist raises the question of global human rights "Human rights are a newer and trickier problem. Shell has written a primer on the subject, in consultation with Amnesty International. It agonises over such issues as what companies should do if they have a large investment in a country where human rights deteriorate; and whether companies should operate in countries that forbid outsiders to scrutinise their record on human rights" Conflicts between Personal Ethics and Global Business Values We have seen the power of globalization and the issues it raises in following a standard ethics. I believe that much of the issues of globalization are caused by the economic disparity between the North and the South as well as the pressures of free-market policies that the IMF has pursued among the underdeveloped nations to remove subsidies. While China and India are emerging as economic powers, their cultures remain enslaved to old sub-humane traditions such as the caste system in India. The internet and telecommunication technologies have facilitated much collaboration between businesses and people. However, while communication has dramatically improved, the quality of communication has not. On the contrary, today almost all families are working harder to meet an increasing standard of living. When it comes to personal ethics, one asks whether there remains an absolute right and wrong. As Peter Kreeft of Boston College rightly observed, we live in a culture of moral relativism. A Proposed Approach for Global Business Ethics From an ethical view, I think that many steps need to be taken by governments, particularly governments of the West: - Redistribution of wealth among nations - Educating cultures of the Middle East, the Far East and the South about the individual human value/human rights - Helping people that are in need in Africa. Charities are not effective enough. Every human in the Globe needs to have a minimum of nutrition, cloth, shelter, education, and medical care, This will cost but the benefits will help cultures integrate. The Value of The Human Person in a Global Culture The most important achievement that humans in the end can make is to achieve a high level of relationship not only through the new technology but also through respect for everyone, sacrifice for the better of the community and love..true love. This is only possible in universal love that is offered in Christianity. George Farahat February 2, 2009 References Encyclopaedia Britannica, Religion Catholic Encyclopaedia, Religion Schmidt, J., Under The Influence - How Christianity Transformed Civilization, Zondervan, 2001. Tarnas, R, The Passion of the Western Mind, 1991 The Economist, March 19, 2008 http://www.economist.com The Economist, January 20, 2005 http://www.economist.com/ The Economist, May 10, 2007 http://www.economist.com/ The Economist, April 20, 2000 http://www.economist.com/ Newberg, A., D’Aquili, E, Rause, V., Why God Won’t Go Away, 1999 Wilken, R., First Things, January 2009 Kreeft, P., Refutation of Moral Relativism, 1999, Reed Business Information

Friday, January 23, 2009

Love between Man and Woman

Two of my close friends Joseph and Martha are not young. Joseph is 55 and Martha is 40. Joseph is married and Martha is divorced. They have known each other for 3 months. Two weeks ago Martha said to Joseph: ‘You are my best friend’ after he had complimented her for her beauty. You see-we revel in being appreciated and complimented in anything that adds to our own self esteem or that enhances our own perception about the world whether physical or mental. We all need to feel that we are accepted by others, and more deeply "loved" by others. This is why Martha kept telling Joseph in their earlier correspondence that she appreciates his sweet spirit and enjoys their conversations. If what he was telling her did not conform to her views of things, she may find that they are not communicating. If he did not joke with her, she, being a humorous woman may find him unbearable. But this is only part of friendship. Now to the bombshell: One of the main things, I think, that attract men and women is their physical beauty (based probably on their perception with people they saw when they were children.) I think that human males and females really look for some kind of physical beauty in each other. Not only do they look for mental and spiritual communication but also for physical communication. They look for becoming one. The physical union is ultimately expressed in mating. In addition to physical compatibility, each of them must be communicating with the other spiritually and mentally. When this happens, then a man and woman can really make the next step, which is falling in love by attraction. However, the other cannot be treated as an object but as a person equal to me and has dignity as much as I do. Of course, this is not the perfect love at all, but still, from an anthropological view, it is a starting level of love. In the evolution of life, humanity is at the top of species with bigger brain, language, the ability to imitate, learn and adapt, and communicate through language. Over the many thousands of years, cultures were built from tribal societies to kingdoms. They were not only governed by men but women were considered less than human. Women were traded and used for men's interests. They were owned by men. This is why in all ancient cultures including the primitive Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures, women were forbidden to show their hair, or in extreme cases they were not to talk to strangers. It was a patriarchal society. But how far can women (or men) stay physically beautiful? Martha is today 40. In a year, she will turn 41. She is getting older and her physical beauty will slowly become less and less. There is no escape from this reality even if she continues to color her hair. In 10 years, her hair may start falling. I have seen very beautiful women for years and I see the difference now when they are in their fifties. Their eyes and their bodies are not the same. Of course, new technologies are attempting to use cosmetic surgeries to retain the appearance of beauty but it is in vain. Beauty, in my opinion, is more than physical beauty. So when I say "I love you" or "I luv you" (as the new generation uses it), it is important that we realize the fact that love is deeper than mere emotions, deeper than mere appearance and deeper than communication. For the woman, it is accepting the man to take her and fully trusting that he will not "eat" her but will make her one with him (that is, in my opinion, the true metaphysical meaning of the sexual intercourse). For the man, it is giving himself totally and unconditionally for this woman. The result of bonding in intercourse, which is not only physical, is a physical fetus, a person, a baby. This is how God designed love to be completed between man and woman. It is more than physical and it is fruitful in children. The image reflects the Christian God, the Trinity who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one essence. The deepest reality of God (a limitless-love relatedness of persons), is reflected in the image of a man, a woman, and their offspring. When men and women, committed to each other, grow older, not only can they lose being attractive physically to each other, but may also lose their interest in each other. Unless truly committed to each other, some men can start looking elsewhere for a new partner, and women too. In our contemporary society, I know friends who have separated after long marriages. Last week I watched a program on CBC that showed real people who are now trying to divorce in a collaborative way in order to protect their children whom they love. It takes more than emotions and feelings to sustain any relationship between a man and woman. It takes continuous efforts on both sides to stay fresh in their love. It takes the will and commitment that I am for her (or him) alone all my life. This relationship can only be completed in a Catholic marriage: Permanent, monogamous, and fruitful. Otherwise, we are back to the primitive ways of relationships between men and women which involve adultery, promiscuity, masked sexual slavery, and polygamy. We, in fact, have not touched yet on true love as it is meant in Christian love. It was Jesus Christ who introduced to the world the idea of God as a loving father. Jewish tradition, according to Biblical scholarship knew of God as father but never called him: Father (Abba which is an Aramaic word for Daddy). Now, we can pray to our Father -Daddy. When the "Prodigal Son" left his father's home and was in deep trouble, his Daddy, in the Gospel, was still looking for him until one day the son returned home and, at once, his father made a celebration. "For your brother was dead and now he is alive" the father told his older son. It was Jesus Christ who introduced to the world the great words "Love your enemies..." He was full of love towards every man and woman. He is known to have said this when he was dying on the cross: " Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." I just wanted to show how far have we gone away from the ideal of love that Jesus Christ set in teaching and in deed for the human race. Today, self-satisfaction has replaced self-sacrifice that it is the norm for relationships. Today, a man and a woman may feel attraction to each other, that they think they are in love. They may enjoy time together and call it love. They may sexually engage in the act of love and never remember what it was meant for! True love is a much bigger word than "luv"!!!

Monday, January 19, 2009

Jesus Christ The Everlasting Victor

This past Friday we saw with our own eyes the victory of Jesus Christ, yet in another witness. Michel Tawil gave us his story of conversion from Islam to Christianity. His conversion caused him and his family troubles with their own Muslim families, and their neighbours. He lost his inheritance as a Muslim son, and became estranged in his own community. When he attempted to restart his business, it was burned, and he ended up losing all his belongings. Even Israeli authorities refused him and explelled him with his family. He faced death by the Muslim fatwa that a renegade (Mortad) must be expelled from life here on earth and eternal life. But the most horrible statement he received from the Muslim Imam was this:
"You may return and come back as a Muslim. However this will not save you from the fire of hell
after death. The only way to avoid eternal damnation is to commit a suicide-attack to kill Jews."
He was able to escape at last by being accepted as a refugee in Canada going through Columbia.
The lesson is clear. Over almost 2000 years, the Church, the body of Christ, was built by the blood of martyrs as early as the Apostles themselves, and the suffering of many of God's servants, who became saints through much persecution, physical and spiritual. But the one thing that made them members of the Church Victorious, was how much they loved. How much they loved God and loved Man in their life.
Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, is still knocking on the door of our hearts to listen and get him in. When we do that, we will also sing: Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Victor!

Saturday, January 3, 2009

The Palestinian Question: From 1900 BC to 2009 AD

Palestinians must be overwhelmed by the violence they have faced in the past few days. It is true that the recent violence was triggered by Hamas' refusal to stop sending their rockets into Israel. However any reasonable analysis will tell you that Israel's response was excessive! By yesterday's counts Israel had killed 400 Palestinians and injured many more. What is appalling is that 25% of those killed are civilians. Politically, it is a repeat of 2006 with Hezbollah in Lebanon! And it is interpreted as a confrontation between mighty America and fundamentalist Muslims. But who pays the price? Not the fundamentalist leaders nor mighty Israeli government. Only ordinary people like you and me who are caught in the middle whether Palestinians or Israelis. The conflict is not, as some people imagine, a recent one, not even a 60 years old one (if you are thinking of the reincarnation of Israel in 1948). It belongs to human history. So take a deep breath and read: Israel was there, in Palestine, since ca 1900 BC until their scattering around 135 AD. In that long period many wars were fought between them and other ancients until in 70 AD their Temple was destroyed by Titus and their capital, Jerusalem, was finished. Uprising again took place when Bar Kochba, a Zealot, attempted to overthrow the Roman occupation from Judea in 133-135 AD. The Jews were already well established in major cities around the Mediterranean such as Alexandria and Rome. Many of them fled to the "Diaspora." After Constantine's conversion to Christianity in the early 4th century, Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Jews were intermittently persecuted by Christians in the Roman empire, which left them to seek their unity in ghettos. In the long history that followed, many of them rose to become philosophers, traders, and financial advisors, but they did not have their own state which they once claimed to be their own. In the 20th century, three major events took place that directly affected the Jewish people. World War I, World War II, and the establishment of their state in modern Palestine. The United Nations had this to say about the first event: "The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant. All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to 'the rendering of administrative assistance and advice' the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the 'Balfour Declaration' issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence." The second event was, as every one knows, the Holocaust - an attempt of Nazi Germany to eliminate the Jewish people in what was termed 'The Final Solution.' This took place between 1939 and 1945. It seems that since 1945, the West is trying to make up for the historic aggression against the Jews which culminated in World War II. And it is doing that by humiliating Palestinian Arabs. The third event was the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 after much violence and forced expulsion of native Palestinians from their land. I will turn again to the UN website to explain the history of two peoples since then. "After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half of the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being. In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict... Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila... In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (the intifada). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population. A Peace Conference on the Middle East was convened in Madrid on 30 October 1991, with the aim of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement through direct negotiations along 2 tracks: between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians, based on Security Council resolutions ... (the "land for peace" formula). A series of subsequent negotiations culminated in the mutual recognition between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian People, and the signing by the two parties of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government in Washington on 13 September 1993, as well as the subsequent implementation agreements, which led to several other positive developments, such as the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, the elections to the Palestinian Council and the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority, the partial release of prisoners and the establishment of a functioning administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule... In 2000 and 2001, Israelis and Palestinians held talks on a final status agreement, which proved inconclusive...The controversial visit by Ariel Sharon of the Likud to Al-Haram Al-Sharif (Temple Mount) in 2000 was followed by the outbreak of the second intifada. A massive loss of life, the reoccupation of territories under Palestinian self-rule, military incursions, extrajudicial killings of suspected Palestinian militants, suicide attacks, rocket and mortar fire, and the destruction of property characterized the situation on the ground. Israel began the construction of a West Bank separation wall, located within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which was ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004. In 2002, the Security Council adopted resolution 1397 affirming a vision of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. In 2003, the Middle East Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and the UN) released a detailed Road Map to a two-State solution. In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip as part of its “Disengagement Plan,” while retaining effective control over its borders, seashore, and airspace. Following the Palestinian Legislative Council elections of 2006, the Quartet concluded that future assistance to the Palestinian Authority would be reviewed by donors against the new Government’s commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. " Of course, the UN website failed to mention who took charge of Gaza following the above elections. The political and military government to-date is that of Hamas who continues to refuse the recognition of Israel to exist. Their goal is to reestablish an Islamic state in all of Palestine. The other major element, in support of an Islamic state in Palestine, is Hezbollah which gets its financing, rumours have it, from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is all aggression after aggression from both sides. You can probably see now why it has taken so long in wars between peoples of nations. In both Jewish and Islamic traditions, eliminating the enemy by physical force is a viable option. And both of Israel and Hamas, with the support of Hezbollah, are not able to resolve it. It is worth noting that the Catholic Church, which is today the single moral voice in the world, has so far succeeded only in helping refugees from the region, but no real moral influence seems to be capable of resolving the conflict. Is there a solution from a Christian perspective to this highly explosive situation in the Middle East? I think that at a minimum both sides should accept to stop the violent actions against the other and work out a permanent solution based on justice where by the dignity of the human person is preserved. Once this is done, the West may want to provide the necessary economical help to the suffering Palestinians. But the question is much larger than two peoples. It has to do with Original Sin. Our miserable situation - of greed, self-sufficiency, self-eternalization, aggression, and destruction - is rooted in Original Sin. What does Original Sin of our first parents tell us? Take two contemporary thinkers: Joseph Ratzinger thinks that in the face of death there are two ways in which the ancient human civilizations attempted to perpetuate the existence of the self: 1. Self-reproduction through sexual intercourse. This is why infertile men and women were thought to be cursed by God (or the gods). This is also why polygamy was quite widespread in almost all ancient civilizations. 2. Self-eternalization through statues and temples. If I cannot be self-eternalized through my offspring, then I may be self-eternalized through memory of me. This is evident in what governors, kings, and pharoes built throughout all the ages. Actually we still do it today in different ways. We build sky-scrapers, universities and internet blogs even though the stated intentions may be quite different.
What Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, says is about self-preservation. Unfortunately, in a world of greed and sin, this is the first step towards aggression and violence.
René Girard, Stanford professor of civilization, now a member of the Academie francaise, takes an anthropological view. In his view, every act of violence and aggression is nothing but mimetic rivalry. His theory, now advanced by research institutions in psychology, claims that rivalry potentially exists between young children when they look out for the toys of each other. This rivalry grows and intensifies with rivalry between tribes, cultures, and, eventually, nations. Mimetic rivalry is very clear in early civilizations. In the Bible, Girard says, the story of Solomon’s judgment in the third chapter of 1 Kings is a good example. Two prostitutes bring a baby. They are doubles engaging in a rivalry over what is apparently a surviving child. When Solomon offers to split the child, the one woman says “yes,” because she wishes to triumph over her rival. The other woman then says, “No, she may have the child,” because she seeks only its life. On the basis of this love, the king declares that “she is the mother.” Note that it does not matter who is the biological mother. The one who was willing to sacrifice herself for the child’s life is in fact the mother. The first woman is willing to sacrifice a child to the needs of rivalry. Sacrifice is the solution to mimetic rivalry and the foundation of it. The second woman is willing to sacrifice everything she wants for the sake of the child’s life. This is sacrifice in the sense of the gospel. It is in this sense that Christ is a sacrifice since he gave himself “for the life of the world.” Girard's conclusion is that as much as mimetic rivalry is the cause of our misery, true love actualized by Christ's sacrifice is the only remedy. We can touch on his thought in another lecture. What matters here is how close we are today, in our thinking, to our own misery. We seem to have lost our way from a Christian perspective into self-centredness that what matters is only me.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq a few years ago claiming it is going to liberate the people, Fr. Henri Boulad commented that it is not by force that we liberate or change people. How appropriate are his words today! Granted, there must be just laws to govern the relationships between peoples and nations. The old theory of Just War, expounded by St. Augustine, maintains that there are many conditions for justifying launching a war in case of danger. With massive destructive power owned by humanity today, justification of war becomes questionable. Furthermore, the Christian way is not to force a solution, but to work from within the human person. The human person despite the wound of Original Sin is still a good creature that can be educated and rehabilitated. May be that is the long-term solution to the Palestinian Question. May be it is also the solution to fundamentalism anywhere.
Think back of these words and only then you may be able to find the solution to the Palestinian Question. It is in you! George Farahat January 3, 2009 References in this lecture: 1) http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/history.html 2) http://www.jewishhistory.org/

Today's Quote

"Behold I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5)







Websites

See Links to Websites Below