Our Future Your Mistake

‘Our Future Your Mistake’ by CherryVega

Your Mistake Our Past

31 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: Try to love everyone, even if they do not do everything right. If you forgive them, God will forgive you. Cherry has a note on the image in which she asks, ‘When mistakes can’t be undone, who will pick up the pieces?’ Good question. The usual response is: ‘You break it, you buy it.’ You break the cup, you pick up the pieces. Not me! I have nothing to do with it.

What the pastoral message is trying to convey is: If a mistake is made, and it’s on you, you pick up the pieces immediately. You don’t wait for the apology or the payback; you don’t discuss it to shame the other person.

Now, this is difficult to swallow, a difficult act to follow. This is ‘If someone strikes you on the left cheek, turn the right cheek also.’ It’s plain and simple Christianity. ‘Love your enemies.’ A paradox. Impossible to do! You must be crazy to do that. You give me 15 minutes of shame? I give you 15 minutes of shame, or even more! Revenge is easier and sweeter; you can feel the satisfaction. Ha!

If you don’t believe in God, if you believe more on your enlightened reason than anything else, let me remind you of Newton’s 3^rd Law of Motion. Formally stated, it is this: Forces always occur in pairs. If object A exerts a force F on object B, then object B exerts an equal and opposite force –F on object A (David P Stern, 2004, phy6.org/). You exert a +F, it comes back –F. I prefer another way of saying it: To every action there exists an equal and opposite reaction. Or, Every action brings a reaction. If that is true in the physical universe, why not in the psychical universe? That’s why you can be either reactive (simply waiting for the action) or pro-active (initiating the action yourself). It’s your choice. Another way of stating that is: If you apply Newton’s 3^rd Law of Physics to life, then you can expect 100% to be rewarded if what you do is rewarding.

Not convinced? Here’s another truism that everyone knows: What goes round comes around. Yoyo. Carousel. Earth. Quite simply, what you do comes back to you! If you don’t love, it’s bad karma: Why expect love to come back to you when you pass on hate, or indifference? How can you receive love if you don’t know how to give love? It is indeed true: It is more blessed to give than to receive because, then, in giving love, you have already received that gift.

All Alone To Be Judged

‘What Is The Mind But A Window?’ by MontanaRaven

What Was All Mine To Give

30 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: Some day you will stand all alone before God to be judged. He will say to you: ‘So long as you have done it to the least of these, my little ones, you have done it to Me! A paradox. A window to a mind.

Isn’t the mind a window? asks MontanaRaven. Now then, use it and look out, or look into, or look up. You will reward yourself if you examine the paradox and believe.

I ask: Why would anyone use as yardstick the least of those, not the most of those, not the arithmetic mean of those? I have always thought that the average is not a realistic measure of a population, that there is no such thing as an average person, place, or thing. But certainly, there is a person with the most and there is a person with the least and there are the in-betweens.

It is the ones with the least that are the dregs of society, the ones society ignore, the ones most of us don’t mind at all. So, there must be a God because there is someone who cares enough to ask for the good of all those little ones, the ones we are ashamed to be associated with, if not horrified.

Why would you associate yourself with the lowly? You wouldn’t; you would associate yourself with the upper crust, or at least the upper middle class. The dregs of society are foul-smelling, dirty of body as well as of mouth, uncouth, ill-mannered. Unschooled. They are sinners, aren’t they? They are lazy too, ignoramuses. They do not belong in society. Who can love them?

That is precisely the point – someone must love them! So, it’s time to look into the window of your soul and see if you can love the unlovable. I know you can, but will you?

 

The Flower Of Compassion

‘Compassion’ by OzBandit

The Heart Of All Compassion

29 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: Christ Our Lord was all heart, all love, all mercy, all forgiveness, all compassion. He came to show us how to live. Try to be like Him. Why did OzBandit caption it ‘Compassion’ when there’s nothing compassionate about it? Precisely! I selected the image of the yellow flower because, at first, I couldn’t relate it to compassion. Then it dawned on me that it is a perfect picture, if ever there was one, because compassion is not that easy on the part of the giver to give, and on the part of the receiver to recognize, to realize, to appreciate. Note that yellow denotes both beauty and cowardice. If compassion were easy to understand, it would be easy to give.

In other words, what OzBandit shows us is the flower of compassion, if I may call it that, with this caveat: Compassion is not the flower, which is just a symbol; it is not what you see but the act itself, the act of being compassionate, which you may not see. Compassion, says my favorite dictionary American Heritage, is a deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. It is synonymous with pity, commiseration, sympathy, condolence, empathy. But I would revise the latter part of the definition to read: coupled with an act designed to help relieve it. The sentiment without the act is plain romanticism. And you can only help to relieve the pain; it remains for the sufferer to do it himself.

The flower of compassion: The yellow reflects the sun itself. If you try to do something, anything, to make a needy neighbor see the sun even when it’s not visible, then you are doing it out of compassion; you have compassion. And what would that need be? If you have compassion, you will certainly find out. If you have to ask, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ then you don’t have compassion. If you’re yellow, if you’re a coward, then you can’t appreciate the flower of compassion that OzBandit has so beautifully portrayed.

Forgive Me? I Forgive You

‘Forgive Me’ by ToeKnee F

The Two Sides Of Forgiving

28 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: It takes two to make a fight, or a love affair. Try not to have any enemies. If someone hurts you, forgive! – Benedict XVI. It’s difficult and it hurts to forgive, but it’s the only sensible thing to do. If you do not forgive, who will? Don’t ask the doctors, but forgiving is bad for your health. Of course. It makes you feel bad all the time. So, to forgive is not only a moral virtue; it is also a material virtue.

Still: To forgive is only one side of forgiving. That is only the side of the offended. What about the other side, the side of the offender?

I like the image above because it tells 2 stories, not just 1. One is the one unseen, that of the innocent, the victim, who has been offended. Two is the one seen, that of the guilty, who must seek forgiveness in the name of love, and so in the name of peace. ‘Anger makes you smaller,’ says Cherie Carter-Scott, ‘while forgiveness forces you to grow beyond what you were.’ You grow up. You grow wiser. ‘Forgiveness is almost a selfish act because of its immense benefits to the one who forgives’ – Lawana Blackwell. That presumes that you are sincere in your heart and soul when you say ‘I forgive you.’ Otherwise, these are the emptiest three little words in all the world. Forgiveness is a sure sign of strength of will, or character, or faith, Mahatma Gandhi tells us: ‘The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.’ If you cannot fully forgive, you cannot fully love.

Person Of The Year

‘Person Of The Year’ by Tomster

Person Of The Peace

27 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: The human person is the heart of peace! – Benedict XVI. Time came up early this year with its Person Of The Year: You. I searched at Flickr for “person” (excluding the double quotes) and found several interesting ones. The one I liked best (and made one of my favorites) is that by Tomster, where he shoots himself in Time’s cover mirror – through a glass, darkly – and reveals much of himself, including the clutter on his desk. You don’t really see him, but you know this is a person, the person, the subject of Pope Benedict’s edict. The human person – not simply the faceless, statistical ‘individual’ – is both the measure and the matter and the manner of peace.

I mean to say, you must do good to every man, woman and child. If you do it unto the least of men, women or children, you do it unto all of them. If you deny one, you have denied all, including yourself. John Donne says:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.

Now then, how you define peace as well as how you achieve it matters. If you exclude one human person, whatever it is you fight for, it is not peace.

An Inconvenient Good

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Madhu

An Inconvenient Peace

26 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: Tirelessly implore from God the fundamental good of peace, which is of such primary importance in the life of each person. – Benedict XVI. Note that the Pope says, ‘the fundamental good of peace.’ Peace is basic; in fact it is so basic that if you want peace, you must build on peace and not something else.

Madhu says he shot this picture of a globe being transported by a truck right next to his home. He describes in the image what I think is an inconvenienced world seeking an inconvenient peace. From where we stand in the world, upside down or right side up, isn’t working for peace always inconvenient? Inconvenient – not suited to one’s comfort, purpose, or needs (American Heritage Dictionary). That’s why we want the quickest way to peace: war.

That depends on how you define peace. Peace after war is the absence of war, absence of the opposition to the rule of violence. If you have to make war to make peace, I don’t agree with your definition of peace. You don’t understand peace. Peace is an inconvenient good, that’s why you must be inconvenienced to seek it. But never through war.

And no, you cannot just pray for peace. You have to act on that prayer too. Know that God doesn’t work for the lazy or those who dislike to be inconvenienced. In that sense, we are talking of An Inconvenient God – yes, if not that, then God is merely a Genie who grants your requests for gifts huge and fabulous instantly.

Give Peace A Chance

‘Give peace a chance’ by Matthew C Kessler

Give Yourself A Chance

25 January – This is the pastoral text of Fr Reuter: I make this urgent appeal to the People of God: Be committed to tireless peace-making and strenuous defense of the human person and his inalienable rights. – Benedict XVI. Why do you think I chose Matt’s photo? You’ve seen that finger sign before, haven’t you? If you are my age, that would have been circa the Vietnam War, if you care to remember. It was a dangerous sign to make at that time, because you were branded a Communist if you did that. At least, you merited surveillance by secret agents whom you knew were around and not-so-secret. Perhaps that was part of the psy war they know and the activists don’t. That’s what you get for fighting for peace. You get ostracized. It’s not an easy life.

But to return to my own question: I chose Matt’s photo because it’s an extraordinary photograph, and I’m not speaking of density or resolution or pixel. Behind him (Matt, I presume) is a waterfall, and that thing divides the mountain into two, mirroring the hand sign. Looking at the image now, I notice that the hand sign is actually that of a split; it is more a sign of victory over someone or something, at the very least a break with that someone or something. It’s not Matt’s fault; he means well, and I thank him. If you look at a Catholic priest during mass, his two fingers are pressed together for the sign of peace – no break, no division. Peace be with you!

The Age Of Uncertainty

‘uncertainty …’ by Kasmil

The Age Of Information

23 January – The pastoral text of Fr Reuter is this: Nuclear weapons have heightened the widespread climate of uncertainty and fear. – Benedict XVI. We are in the Age of Information and yet we are also in the Age of Uncertainty. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those stories of atomic bombing happened more than 60 years ago, 6 and 9 August 1945. If you doubt that there is Hell, ask those who survived the bombing.

Nuclear weapons or not, it’s all a question of war, of belligerence, of solving problems by violence, of reacting with violence to an act of violence. And dreams of empire – The Philippines was attacked at the time when we were not (we have never been) belligerent toward any country. We have since grown older but about peace and war, we have not grown any wiser.

In Flickr, I saw two images both titled ‘Uncertainty’ – the other one was that of a monkey. I was thinking we are all monkey-brained thinking of war. That’s the adult way of looking at it. If you are reading this, you must be an adult; we adults have lost our innocence, and that explains why the image I have chosen is that of a child whose innocence is plain and simple. Unless you bring innocence to the question of war, you’ll never understand it, and you’ll never get away from its power to suck you either as the belligerent or the beleaguered. To me, there is no uncertainty in that.

Confusing The Enemy

‘Confusing The Enemy’ by Spidrwegian

Principles Of Humanity

22 January – The pastoral text of Fr Reuter is this: When war breaks out, the essential principles of humanity must be safeguarded. – Benedict XVI. What I can say about that is that, first of all, war shouldn’t break out at all. No wars! No wars of any kind. If you go to war, don’t expect humane treatment. War is insanity. Why go mad? War is hell. Why go to hell? I am not against the war in Iraq; I am not against the war in Lebanon, in Afghanistan; I am not against the war against terrorism. I am against all kinds of wars.

The image I have chosen for this entry is ‘the art of war’ by Alan Stuart. It is a funny way of saying something that isn’t funny. War isn’t funny. And there are two ways to look at it – in fact, you are confusing yourself if you get into war of any kind.

Imagine if you can an image of a child in Lebanon. She sits on the curb of a street, alone, looking at you and yet not looking at you. Her soul is in her eyes. You take a photograph of her and her image is burned in your mind forever. Not far away her village has been blitzed to forever; what remains of it are only the memories. Is she clinging to those memories? She must. Hers is a pose of despair; hers is also a pose of hope. Will the head win and lose all hope? Will we all despair and lose hope? In a war, we may. So why should we submit ourselves to war, even a war not of our own making? There is only inhumanity in a war.

Give peace a chance, not war. I don’t subscribe even to the war on poverty. In war, you are fighting against, not for. You are not fighting against poverty; not against apathy, indifference, or Christian faith in non-material things (Catholic), or ignorance. You are fighting against bad teaching, bad models of education, bad media. The teachers (all kinds of media) have yet to learn that the students (all kinds of people) have not learned. That is what I believe.

Swords Into Plowshares

‘Guns Into … Art?’ by PyuPyuGold

Guns Into Opportunities

21 January – The pastoral text of Fr Reuter is this: War is always a failure for the international community and a grave loss for humanity. – Benedict XVI. When I read ‘war’ and ‘international community,’ I immediately thought of the United Nations, and how it has failed to prevent war. I also thought how nations can have vested interests, like some nuclear countries selling the technology to some other countries and defending the offer and the acceptance one way or another. They are not only playing with words – worse, they are playing with fire and, worst, they are playing with hellfire. But in fact, we don’t need hellfire to consume us all in one hellbreath. Those little wars we wage against each other in Africa, Asia, America, Europe and elsewhere – they are fires that consume everyone, including those who wage wars, those who wager on wars. We are not United Nations. The statement I seem to remember as the slogan of the United Nations is this: ‘Let us beat swords into plowshares.’ It turns out that this is the title of the sculpture by Evgeniy Vuchetich, a Russian, the art piece being the Soviet Union’s gift to the UN on 4 December 1959. ‘The bronze statue represents the figure of a man holding a hammer in one hand, in the other, a sword which he is making into a plowshare, symbolizing man’s desire to put an end to war and convert the means of destruction into creative tools for the benefit of all mankind.’ (un.org). I appreciate the gift but I don’t think beating a sword into a plowshare is creative enough – there are many other things one can turn a sword into: decorative art such as that of PyuPyuGold, practical arts such as different-sized knives for the kitchen etc. In any case, if the United Nations was organized to prevent war, it has failed miserably. That is because man has failed miserably to curb his appetite for more: more power, more prestige, more privileges. PPG’s art simply reminds me that what we don’t have – true peace – is not simply a failure of the United Nations; it is A FAILURE OF US ALL, a failure of each one of us in the art of living. The combined image of many guns (I counted 32) also describes a wheel, suggesting to me the wheel of life with its myriad of possibilities – all we need to do is grasp a handle. Every little or big war in the world today is a failure of the United Nations to beat swords into plowshares, a failure to grasp handles of opportunities to work more for the common good. If you’re looking for political will, don’t look at the United Nations!