Catechesis on Apparitions

What is the Official position of the Catholic Church on apparitions?

The Catholic Church makes a distinction between public and private revelation.  In the case of public revelation, the Church definitely teaches that the entire deposit of faith (all that is necessary for salvation) is to be found in the twin pillars of revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which comes from the same source, the Word of God, Jesus Christ. There can be no further revelation that can add to or alter the above.

Any other ‘revelation’ if determined authentic is to be regarded as private.  According to St Thomas Aquinas, God continues to reveal Himself to individuals "not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3). Private revelation cannot improve upon, correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation. Apparitions are to be regarded under the category of private rather than public revelation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognised by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

How do we determine whether an apparition is authentic?

On February 25, 1978, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued "Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations."

According to the norms, investigation can be done by the following

1.       The diocesan bishop on his own initiative or at the request of the faithful.

2.       The national conference of bishops.

3.       The Apostolic See (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

The process will involve 3 steps

1.       Initially, to judge the facts according to positive (moral certainty, qualities of the subject, conformity with doctrines, healthy devotion) and negative criteria (glaring error as to facts, doctrinal error, pursuit of monetary gain, gravely immoral acts, psychological disorders) .

2.       Then, if this examination appears favourable, to allow certain public demonstrations of devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

3.       Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgment on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

What is the status of the alleged image of the Blessed Virgin Mary which has appeared on a glass panel of the Sime Darby Medical Centre (formerly Subang Jaya Medical Centre)?

The appearance does not have official approval from the local ordinary, the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, or from the Apostolic See.

The Archbishop has instructed that the glass panel be respectfully placed in a place conducive for prayer in the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Klang, pending further investigation to determine its authenticity.

This is not to be interpreted as a tacit approval or recommendation by the church authorities that the image is worthy of private or public veneration.

What is the responsibility of the faithful?

The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course.

The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church (e.g. Lourdes, Fatima). Within a balanced practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel.

Finally, there are many other private revelations that have not received Church approval. The Second Vatican Council urges us to discern the Spirit in the case of such extraordinary graces [Lumen gentium 12], which means being neither gullible or incredulous, but subjecting them to all relevant theological and human tests of credibility. (Adapted from an online article by Colin B. Donovan, STL)

It's the End ... Already but not yet

Thirty Third Ordinary Sunday Year B

I’m not sure if you still remember that disaster movie which hit the screens in 2009, the one simply entitled ‘2012’. The plot of the film, as the title suggests, revolves around one version of a set of beliefs regarding the end of world that was predicted to take place this year, on the 21^st of December. (The clock is ticking!) It is regarded as the end-date of an over 5,000 year-long cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. There is a whole range of interpretations, from a New Age version that speaks of spiritual transformation to eschatological versions predicting the end of the world. According to the movie, the world will be inundated by a massive flood and reshaped by earthquakes that will pull continents asunder and reform new ones. I guess given Malaysia’s size and location, we won’t survive the floods. And if the movie is going to be a guide of any sort, running to the Himalayas would not help. Your best bet would be Africa.

You may be relieved to know that most astronomers and scientists have rejected the above proposals as pseudoscience and in fact present a distraction from more important concerns, such as global warming and loss of biological diversity.  This is not the first (and most likely would not be the last) prediction of how and when the world will meet its end. Theories on when and how the world might end have surfaced for centuries. Consider these, in 960 Bernard of Thuringia, calculated 992 as the most likely year for the world’s end. As the time approached, panic was widespread. The German astrologer Johann Stoffler predicted a catastrophic flood on February 20, 1524. Believers started constructing arks and a man was accidentally trampled to death. That year passed without any unusual rainfall. And who can forget the 16^th century seer Nostradamus. The Frenchman favoured 1999 as the year of a Martian invasion. At the close of the second and the beginning of the third millennium, we saw a spiked increase in the number of apocalyptic cults who range from Jehovah witnesses to UFO cults proposing different dates and scenarios for the end. Some Catholics have also jumped on the bandwagon. We’ve had unauthenticated messages allegedly from our Blessed Mother, including the most recent one related the of the appearance of her image on a local hospital’s window pane.

Given the great confusion among many people with regards to the end times and Jesus’ Second Coming, compounded by both Evangelical Protestant theories, pseudo-science doomsday prophecies and alleged Marian related messages, a clarification is necessary to understand the Catholic position in this matter. Firstly, the belief in the Last Things, in Jesus’ Second Coming is a core and essential tenet of our Catholic Faith. It is not something we should dismiss as a myth. Every time we profess the creed, we affirm this truth in two distinct articles. In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which we recite every Sunday, we hear and recite the following statement of faith, “He (Jesus) will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.” At the very end of the Creed, we affirm, “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” The Apostles Creed uses different words but adduces to the same events and truths. The Last things are thus spelt out – Jesus will come again, there will be judgment, resurrection of the body and then the final conclusion: for some it is heaven, and perhaps for others it is hell.

In today’s gospel, our attention would certainly be taken up by the cataclysmic signs mentioned, namely that “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” With so much happening on a cosmic scale, one can certainly miss the point. The parable using metaphors taken from nature is the clue. “When you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the gates.” It’s just like the fireworks that go off at the inauguration ceremony of a president. People are often distracted by the pyrotechnic display in the sky, failing to see or forgetting for a moment, that this isn’t the focus of the celebrations, just the trappings. Without wanting to generalise, I believe that the general attitude among millennialist Evangelical Protestants is one of preoccupation with the signs of the end times and how to interpret them. Part of the misunderstanding comes from an insistence on precision that arises from an overly literal interpretation of scriptural texts. The Catholic approach, on the other hand, has always been Christo-centric. In other words, the focus is Christ, the Coming of the Son of Man in glory and victory, the one who is “near” and in fact “at the gates.”

We should also not be preoccupied with predicting the date of Christ’s Second Coming. “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”(Acts 1:7) To understand the Catholic position calls for understanding the Greek word ‘parousia’ (lit. ‘a being near’), used to describe the Second Coming of Christ. The word has several meanings, including coming, arrival or personal presence. First, the term was used in ancient times to describe the impending visit of the King to the city. But it also referred to his presence at the gates of the city. Thirdly, it could also mean the presence of the king in the midst of its inhabitants. The three meanings were not mutually exclusive. To an English speaker, it is indeed befuddling that such a term could include all three senses – past, present and future. Thus, the choice of the word in Greek is most illuminating to help us understand the Coming of Christ can speak of the reality of Christ having arrived (his first coming among men), his presence in our midst as well as his coming again in glory in the future to judge the living and the dead. Time and space collapses with this critical intervention of God in human history. We are living in the end times. But  ‘already and not yet’ - that is the end is already here, but it has yet to be consummated.

The cataclysmic signs that accompany the end should never be a reason for fear but always one of hope. The signs indicate an undoing of creation in anticipation of a re-creation. What these forces destroy is not goodness or life, but rather the power of evil and sin which has soiled the harmony of creation. Destruction comes before perfection. But a greater problem that can be perceived today is not the fact that many Catholics are stricken and crippled by fear of the end times and the signs that accompany it. On the contrary, many Catholics have grown dull and immune to this event. Today, Catholics experience a different kind of cataclysmic upheaval – where our secure world seems to be put to the test on a daily basis. Perhaps, every experience of rejection, or suffering, death or loss, deprivation and emptiness is perceived as a catastrophe. Our concerns over money, success at work or in school, health, release from addiction, political situation of the country, job security, status and recognition, crisis in family or relationships are taken to be personal signs of the end of the world.  We are so blinded by our fear of these signs, that we sometimes fail to see the urgency of conversion and that “the coming of the Son of Man…with great power and glory” is upon us.

The Catholic approach to the end times (aka Eschatology) is perhaps less thrilling and provocative. It does not sensationalise the event, neither does it try to demythologise the message of the Bible and trivialise its significance. It does not generate panic or cause people to sell their houses and gather on hillsides waiting for the announced end. It seeks to balance a lot of notions that often hold certain truths in tension. What it does is to strengthen faith, unveil hope and challenge every person to a deeper conversion as they face the setbacks, losses and tragedies of daily life. Death, suffering and destruction are not the end, Christ is!

At the end of the day, we will never be certain when the world will really come to end. We won’t even be sure that the signs are really signs of the end times and not just natural cataclysmic events arising from shifting continental plates and changing weather conditions. We can't seem to make sense of the proliferation of alleged apparitions. We can’t even say for certain at this point whether the image that has appeared on the glass panel is our Lady herself heralding the end times. All these may seem pressing but Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that both the search for the Truth and its final outcome should never distract us from three certainties which should always remain our foci.

The first certainty is that Jesus is Risen and is with the Father and thus is with us forever. And no one is stronger than Christ. We are consequently safe, free of fear.

Secondly, we are certain that Christ is with me. My faith in him gives me the hope that the future is not darkness in which no one can find his way. Christ's light is stronger and therefore we live with a hope that is not vague, with a hope that gives us certainty and courage to face the future.

Lastly, we are convinced that Christ will return as Judge and Saviour. Therefore, we must be accountable to him for our every action and decision.

Last thing about the Last Things, the return of Christ will be the fulfillment of his promise that the world will reach perfection, not through the actions and plans of men, but through the transforming power of God’s love. The world will transcend it’s very self through Christ. History moves toward a steady goal. It is moving to a climax when “time shall be no more.” History has a reason and that reason is Jesus Christ. Christ is the central figure of all history. He is the Lord of History, the past, the present and the future. And so we as Christians should not cower in fear but joyfully welcome the day when Christ returns – it is “already (here) but not yet”. Jesus Christ has come to inaugurate the final Hour of man’s history. He will return in triumph to fulfill God’s eternal purpose with all of creation. And that will be a marvel to behold!

Total Loving, Total Giving

Thirty Second Ordinary Sunday Year B

Every preacher has his favourite text. Today’s gospel story may be a personal favourite for some especially when they wish to whip up the congregation for a better collection. You may be interested to note that most Catholic priests are often embarrassed to talk about money matters or make pitches to solicit funds. In this sense, all of us, both preacher and congregation share something in common. Money is the last thing preachers want to preach about, and the last thing parishioners want to hear about. The easiest way for a priest to lose his popularity is when he’s constantly on his parishioners’ backs for what’s buried deep down in their wallets. So, when an opportunity like this to preach about generous giving arises, one which comes only once in every three years, make the best of it! And nothing works better than a guilt trip using a poor old lady who’s lost her husband as the exemplar par excellence of generosity. My personal experience is that the guilt lasts only one Sunday.

The problem with such irresponsible use of Bible verses to justify one’s agenda is that people often catch on to the strategy after several attempts. The parishioners sitting in the pews, who have grown tired with this over-used tactic, may often develop their own penchant for choosing another text from the same gospel as a counter-attack. At the beginning of the gospel, Jesus warns the people: “Beware of scribes, who like to walk around in long robes”, be greeted with honour in public, have the best places reserved at dinners and who are notorious for swallowing up the possessions of poor widows. Here are respected religious leaders by day but unapologetic thieves at night. Sounds painfully familiar … Sigh. I can see parishioners gleefully looking at me as I reluctantly read those lines. Ouch! Touché!

Before we deal with the story, let’s just take a little detour to unravel the terminology used. Just in case you may be wondering why her contribution was described as a ‘mite’, most commonly understood as a microscopic parasitic pest that is usually invisible to the eye; the word is actually derived from the old English word for small copper coins. It’s found in the King James English Version of the Bible. But perhaps, this misunderstanding may also be insightful. When the volunteers who are responsible for counting the Church collection sieve through the money that’s thrown into the collection bag every Sunday, attention naturally veers toward the larger currencies rather than the common one ringgit notes. Coins often receive little attention or earn the greatest disdain – like mites they are ignored at best, and despised at worst. But Jesus does notice the widow’s gift and in fact makes her an example for the others. 

Most of us, most of the time, hear the widow’s mite story and think it means something like this: "See, it’s not how much you give that matters, it’s the spirit with which you give it that counts. Quality is much better than quantity." This justifies being cheap. But most of us miss an important point here; Jesus did not say that the widow gave all she could afford; Jesus said she gave all she had. “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” It is much easier to give out of our abundance without seriously affecting our standard of living. What Jesus points to in the widow is another thing entirely; her total commitment of everything she has, all her resources, “all she had to live on,” to the Kingdom of God.

So how should we understand Jesus’ point? The hermeneutic key to understanding today’s passage is found in last week’s passage where we heard Jesus pronounced the two-fold mandate on love, love of God and love of neighbour, as the greatest in scriptures’ sizable arsenal. The widow is cited as an exemplary model of discipleship precisely because she realises that same commandment through the giving of the two coins. There is no coincidence in the number here – two coins to match the two-fold commandment. According to traditional Catholic interpretation by the Fathers of the Church, the two coins represent the two great loves. There is no limit in the widow’s love, neither is there a limit in her giving. Total loving means total giving. Our giving, therefore, becomes irrefutable evidence of the extent of our love. Sweet words promising love are empty unless accompanied by the act of giving.

The same theme of discipleship which demands a totality rather than a partiality of commitment to the way of Christ is found throughout the gospel. We see it in the call of the first disciples who left everything to follow him. It is found in the challenge presented to the rich young man and the disciples to deny one’s self, sell every possession and to take up one’s cross to follow Christ. We see it in Christ’s elucidation of the Great Commandment to love God and neighbour. And finally, we see it in this example of the poor widow and her two ‘mites.’ But finally, all these examples of total giving or radical loving points to the primordial archetype – Christ’s self-giving on the cross for the salvation of many. 

Christ came into this world to free us from the bondage of sin, and make us capable once again of love. Love requires freedom, as a sine qua non condition. Without freedom, there is no love. And that is why someone who lives a life of sin cannot truly love. He is selfish and overly protective of his own wealth but indifferent to the needs of others. And so the challenge for total self-giving is the challenge to embrace conversion and penance, to free ourselves of the fetters of sin. Christ challenges souls to give up what is self-centred and self-oriented, and to lose oneself by giving oneself freely and without reserve to God and to others — even to the very point of death itself. This radical call to self-giving sacrifice is exactly the antitype of what the modern world cherishes. Modern man loves comfort and pleasure. He loves always having his own way- to do what he wants, how he wants, when we wants it. He treasures the visible things of the world above the treasures of heaven, which he cannot see.

Finally, at root, this story is not so much about giving and generosity as it is about trust in God. The total giving of the widow’s mite was an act of faith, faith in God to supply her needs. She trusted in God to take care of her, even if she put in everything she had, all she had to live on. For God had promised to do just that, and God is faithful to his promises. The stories about the widows in both readings and their generosity are not so much about finances as they are about the relationship of trust we are called upon to have with God.  Trusting Him with everything, our welfare, our future, and even our lives.

Today God calls us to quit hedging our bets, to stop holding back.  He calls us toward making a complete and total commitment of ourselves to Christ and the Kingdom of God. In fact, it may now appear that giving more at a Sunday collection may be easier by comparison. The Gospel for us today is that we can make that leap, that commitment, with full confidence in God’s promise to provide our every need, now and forever more. So give, not because you feel the sting of shame and guilt. When the sting subsides, the giving stops too. Give not because you wish to make an investment that promises returns. Yes, there will be returns, but not the kind that you imagine. We invest ultimately for heaven and not for the temporary pleasures and riches of this earth. But give, because you wish to go beyond a mere profession of love. Love is realised in action and especially in the act of total self-giving. The cheap have only feeble love or none at all to show. Give because you trust in God. Because you believe that in giving your all, you will receive so much more. In fact, you will receive the greatest treasures of all, eternal life and the joys of heaven!

Love - and do what you will

Thirty First Ordinary Sunday Year B

In the 4th century, St. Augustine offered advice that looks like something one would find in Playboy or Cosmopolitan: "Love – and do what you will." Sounds like a rallying cry for mayhem and debauchery. To be fair, it sounds more refine in the original Latin, “Dilige et quod vis fac”. (Ok, I may be wrong) Our initial reaction may be one of shock because the quote does seem to be more at home with the libertine period now popularly known as the hippie era, where you would find many advocates of the sexual revolution chanting the slogan associated with the anti-Vietnam war sentiments of the 60s and 70s, “Make Love! Not War!” It was the age of ‘free love’. Anarchy and love do seem to hit it off right from the start.

The ‘Free Love’ movement’s initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. The movement saw marriage as a form of social bondage. According to this concept, all free unions of adults are legitimate and no one has the right to interfere or impose any moral restraint on matters of the heart, even if it involved promiscuous lifestyles, swapping partners, same-sex relationships, etc. It claimed that such issues were the concern of the parties involved, and no one else.  In other words, morality is a private matter. The movement sought freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships. Love and the law were seen as irreconcilable opposite ends of the spectrum and one should never try to make them unwilling bed partners. It is interesting to note that the arguments used by the ‘Free Love’ movement have not become passé with the demise of the hippie era. Today, the same arguments in favour of or against have been resurrected in the run-up to the present presidential elections in the U.S.A.

Did St Augustine, one the greatest doctors of the Church, actually give his stamp of approval to free love? To argue that he did would be really stretching it, given the fact that Augustine had personally turned his back on such a free lifestyle which he had prior to his conversion to Christianity. He lived with a woman in concubinage for many years and even had a child out of wedlock. In his early years, he followed his father to frequent brothels. He finally saw the error of his ways when he came to discover the true love of his life, the Beauty ever ancient, Christ Himself. Here is a more extended quote from the great homily on the First Letter of St John: “The deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity… Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; … let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.” (Homily VII, paragraph 8) The context clarifies the meaning of the quote: love should never be an excuse to justify any action, all and sundry, or a license to live immorally. On the contrary, St Augustine was insisting that love must be the foundation of every action and decision. If love was truly the basis of our actions, then we would not risk sinning.  

St Augustine uses a metaphor derived from family life to further elucidate his point. He observes that if a person had to choose between being chastised and being treated affectionately, everyone would pick the latter. Nevertheless, suppose the punishment comes from a boy’s father and the caress comes from a kidnapper. “In that case,” he says, “it is Love which disciplines and iniquity which caresses.” Love does not necessarily mean that you make the other person feel good. First and foremost, it requires that your actions flow from a right relationship with that person and with God. If that is the case, says Augustine, “Love and do what you will.”

One of the most challenging expressions of love today is to correct someone else who has done wrong. No one enjoys being corrected – and few people enjoy correcting others. It requires tact, patience, prayer, courage, humility and perseverance. But St Augustine reminds us that the most important ingredient is love. Political correctness, however, has distorted our understanding of love. Our truncated notion of love is confined to kindly feelings and being nice. If I am ‘nice’ or benevolent toward others, it was interpreted as fulfilling the command of love. Don’t get me wrong. Kindly feelings are important and we should do everything we can to cultivate them. You can and you should develop affection for others, even those who seem unlovable. Nevertheless, as Augustine’s example illustrates, much more than benevolence is required. Love is not just about being nice and courteous. A kidnapper may feel kindly towards his victim, but no one can claim that he truly loves the child.

A distorted notion of love got us – and a lot of others – into trouble. We think that love demands us to withhold the truth. We think that being loving means learning how to tip toe around difficult issues and avoid contentious ones, like sin, salvation, and repentance. We started making a list of words to throw out of our vocabulary – first there was ‘hell’, then there was ‘sin’ and before you know it God got thrown out too! But real love involves a daily examination of conscience; not just warm mushy feelings, but the avoidance of sin and cultivation of positive habits. Ultimately, real love must be founded on Truth and in service of Truth. Love is never about selling a lie just to ensure that feelings are not hurt and relationships are not spoiled. Truth should never be sacrificed at the altar of good relations.

The problem with our modern times is that we have come to understand law and love as antithetical. Many believe that to follow the law is to be under a burden, to be compelled, to be constrained. To love, on the other hand, is to embrace the capacity to choose, to be creative, to be liberated. Moral and religious norms are seen as archaic and even anti-love. Many in our Church seems to have been affected by this same malaise in the last fifty years. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI made this observation in an interview with the Papal biographer, Peter Seewald when asked to comment on the lack of action taken against clergy sexual offenders in the past: “the prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people.” The Pope then proposed: “Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate.”

It is only when love is founded in the truth can love finally reveal its most profound meaning. Love is the other name we give to God, as St John so firmly affirmed in his first letter, “God is Love”. God is Truth and God is Love. In God, we see the harmony of his law and his love. God’s law is an expression of his love. That is why Jesus frames his greatest teaching in the form of a legal injunction – Love is a Commandment. Love is the Law and the law is love. There is no contradiction. The Law is a guide that helps man on the path of life to salvation, it is the means by which man is released from the slavery of selfishness and sin and introduced to true freedom and life. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI made this profound point during an Angelus catechesis. “For this reason, in the Bible, the Law is not seen as a burden, an overwhelming limitation, but as the Lord’s most precious gift, the testimony of his fatherly love, of his desire to be close to his people, to be their ally and write with his people a love story.” Love, and do what you will … because when love is true, there you will find God’s will, not just a feeble version of our own design, a sorry excuse for immorality.