Inculturation: Central Role of the Church

The question of inculturation has received much attention in the Catholic Church in recent years and until today, to the extent that it has even been given special consideration by some of the Popes, especially the late Pope John Paul II. Giving so much importance, “Pope John Paul II considers the question of inculturation for the mission of the Church at the present time, that in 1982 he established at the Vatican a Pontifical Council for Culture.”[1] As the Roman Catholic Church became visible with the presence and representation of so many different cultures and tradition, Vatican II explores the implications of its documents for mission and inculturation. “The council itself was an exercise in inculturation as the Church tried to open its windows to the modern world, with its joys and sorrows, hopes and anxieties. Many of the official documents of the council should be studied with respect to their implications for inculturation.”[2]

To understand better, let us define “inculturation” first. “Inculturation is the incarnation of Christian life and of the Christian message in a particular cultural context, in such a way that this experience not only finds expression through elements proper to the culture in question, but becomes a principle that animates, directs and unifies the culture, transforming and remaking it so as to bring about a ‘new creation’.”[3] This definition is ultimately based upon to the incarnation of Christ that is “The word became flesh and dwelt among us.”[4] Furthermore, “genuine inculturation should be based upon the mystery of the incarnation, seen not only as a mystery and as an event in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; but as a process to be carried on history till the end of time. Thus our understanding of the mystery of the incarnation should serve as the solid foundation for understanding inculturation.”[5] In this manner, “the notion of inculturation underlines the central role of the local Church and community in the mission of the Church in the modern world.”[6]

As an essential way in proclaiming the Gospel, inculturative process undertake many challenges particularly to the evangelizers. These challenges would take into consideration that “Inculturation, which you rightly promote, will truly be a reflection of the incarnation of the world, when a culture, transformed and regenerated by the gospel, brings forth from its own living tradition original expressions of Christian life, celebration, and thought.”[7] As a general rule, “we are asserting that inculturation should occur naturally and spontaneously, wherever the gospel is lived and shared. It should not be something added on, something optional, something for the classroom or laboratory, but rather the ever-present attitude in all Christian life and mission. In the final analysis, therefore, inculturation refers to the correct way of living and sharing one’s Christian faith in a particular context or culture.”[8] According to Archbishop D. S. Lourdusamy, every aspect of the life and activity of the Church should be inculturated or indigenous - indigenous life style, indigenous arts, liturgy, and spirituality, indigenous forms of religious life, indigenous organizations and institutions.

Bearing these greatest demands in the process of inculturation, there comes several problems in promoting it. “The principles of Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World clearly presented the emergence of the problems in inculturation – when Christians (or Catholics) seek to bring the Faith to people of a culture other than their own, they face the problem of determining how the Faith is to express itself in this different way of life.”[9] To cater these problems, some scholars presented ways to make inculturation process effective. Let us recognize this thought, “every culture has its three levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs, and values, underlying assumptions. On one hand, artifacts would include visible organizational structures and processes. On the other hand, espoused beliefs and values include strategies, goals, philosophies, and espoused justification. Lastly, underlying assumptions comprise unconscious and taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, feelings and everything which is considered to be the ultimate source of values and actions. In this regard, one must get at the deeper levels of a culture to assess the functionality of the assumptions made at that level and to deal with the anxiety that is unleashed when those levels are challenge.”[10]  This means that one must study the culture in group prior to access inculturation.

The definitions and ideas given above are intended to throw some light of understanding in the development of inculturative process up to this time.

---

[1] McGarry, Inculturation: Its Meaning and Urgency, (1986:7)

[2] Lucien Richard, Vatican II: The Unfinished Agenda, (New York: Paulist, 1987)

[3] Pedro Arrupe, Letter to the Whole Society on Inculturation: In Studies in the International Apostolate of Jesuits, 7 (June 1978): 9.

[4] John 1:14

[5] Okure (1990:57)

[6] Peter Schineller, S.J., A handbook on Inculturation, (Paulist Press New York, Mahwah, 1990)

[7] Pope John Paul II, The African Bishops’ Challenge,no.6

[8] Aloysius Pieris, In Mission in Dialogue, ed. Mary Motte and Joseph R. Lang (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1982)

[9] Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J. One Church Many Cultures: The Challenge of Diversity, (Sheed and Ward, 1987)

[10] Edgar H. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership, p. 27

Pope Francis Audience with Autistic Children

Pope Francis tenderly embraced children with autism spectrum disorders, some of whom avoided meeting his gaze, during an audience aimed at offering solidarity to people living with the condition.

The pope urged governments and institutions to respond to the needs of people with autism to help break "the isolation and, in many cases also the stigma" associated with the disorders, which are characterized by varying levels of social impairment and communication difficulties. (AP)

HUMAN FREEDOM: RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMITMENT

One idea can be understood in many ways. In understanding it using different context or framework might results to various meaning or definition. For instance, the idea of freedom, we have different understanding on it depending on our personality and in the influence of the society where we are formed. For Jean – Paul Sartre, the famous existentialist philosopher, man is freedom itself. His famous dictum, “Existence precedes essence,” represents that man, as an actor rather than spectator, must responsible for himself. Thus, for Sartre, man is totally free and we should use our freedom responsibly in making who we are. For Karl Rhaner, a famous theologian, freedom is not an infinite choice but definitive commitment. In other words, freedom is to do what is ought to be done. We do something good because we are committed to the commandments of God.

The first understanding of freedom entails responsibility and the other one necessitates commitment. These two indications help me to understand that the correct use of freedom is not a mere choice of what I want to do. In simple sense, freedom entails choice – the capacity of a person to have options in life. For example, freedom of animals is limited to his movements. A dog cannot fly nor a fish walk. The same with the freedom of man, it also entails in his condition. A new-born child cannot walk because he is situated under such condition of being incapable of walking yet. Freedom in the narrower sense involves our sense of openness, sense of responsibility, our consciousness of choosing, and the reality of reward and punishment. These four indications will help us to use our freedom well.

The first indication, sense of openness, is taken from the reality that there is no constant thing in this world except change. Every minute brings possibility. Moreover, we face that possibility that anything can happen. There is a possibility that our life can change in time. This is the reason that seminarians must practice a sense of openness to their co-seminarians, formators, and to the formation. We cannot think of a stagnant life-situation nor an immobile feeling. We cannot make our lives always happy to the extent that we do not need spiritual directions, guidance, and processing. But we are always confronted with various situations whether can encourage or discourage us.

The second indication is the sense of responsibility. For the Existentialist, we are responsible for our actions and for ourselves. This implies that we are also free because we are responsible for our own self and action. If we decide to embrace the vocation of priesthood, then take responsibility of it. If we want to be holy, then take the responsibility to pray and be compassionate.

Thirdly, our consciousness of choosing would matter. It denotes our immediate experience of making decisions and choices to be or not to be. We can choose what we want to do. In the seminary formation, we can choose whether we attend mass, study, pray, etc. or not. But in choosing, we cannot set aside our sense of guilt particularly when we choose to separate ourselves in the realm of what is good and right. Whenever we feel guilt, we are imprisoned of it, in this sense it is tantamount to say that we already lost our freedom. Additionally, our choices determine our way of life – this is called option. Furthermore, options are the product of our decisions. And if we stand in our decisions, then preferential option comes after. It is that when we decide to serve the poor and walk our decisions makes our preferential option to the least, the lost, and the last in our society. If we decide to study well and we did it, then it is our preferential option. To make this possible, their must be a purification of our thoughts so that we could have a good decision in life.

Lastly, we are influence by the reality of reward and punishment. In human social existence, we praise good people and we condemned those who are bad. Rewards and punishment entails that we are free to choose or to determine our own life to what we want because there is an indication of rewards and punishment. With this reality, man is free; to save life to attain reward or to kill life to be condemned.

As a conclusion, freedom is always there and it’s up to us on how we use it. If we want to be successful in life, we must use our freedom responsibly. The right use of freedom can never be separated from responsibility and commitment. Just like in our seminary formation, the priest-formators will no longer always look our actions because we have the responsibility in nurturing our vocations. We already know the punishment or the consequences if we disregard our responsibilities. Our responsibilities would be taking easier if we have commitment. Thus, to be responsible in our freedom necessitates commitment.