Prof. Randy David has written recently (Inquirer Opinion, 1/9/13) on the Black Nazarene devotion and the contradictions it reveals regarding the role of faith in Philippine society. As always, his is an insightful and incisive analysis. He pulls no punches in taking the Catholic Church to task for failing to make a more substantial impact on public life.
I would like to suggest, however, that David’s piece represents the beginning, rather than the end, of the conversation. Here I speak not only as a sociologist and admirer of David—the acknowledged dean of Philippine sociologists—but also as a priest seeking to understand the Church better through the optic of the social sciences.
At the heart of David’s argument is his characterization of Philippine Catholicism as “infantile.” He states that having been initially imposed as a tool for colonial domination, the emphasis of the faith has been on the exigencies of tradition and obligation. Filipino Catholics, for instance, can be very conscientious about the dictates of liturgy and popular religiosity, and yet ignore the wider responsibilities needed to create a “decent society.”
This may seem like harsh indictment, but David’s challenge for the Church to attend to basic concerns such as catechism are (or should be) well taken by all who hope to make religion relevant in the 21st century. His argument, however, begets an important question. If Filipino Catholicism is indeed infantile, what then is a “mature” Catholicism? This question has to be reflected on carefully, lest we mistakenly believe that catechism can be the panacea for the nation.
The sociologist of religion, Mark Chaves, provides some useful conceptual tools. In assessing the role of religion in society, he proposes that we use the construct of “religious authority” in its internal and external sense. When internal religious authority holds sway, one allows the tenets of religion to be the guiding force in one’s life. When external religious authority is dominant, religion has a substantial say in matters of societal import.
These simple categories allow us to understand how religion persists, or wanes, in different settings. In countries, for instance, where recognition of both internal and external religious authority is low, Chaves posits that religion becomes a mere cultural resource. Christmas is celebrated, but only as a civic and commercial observance. Churches are maintained, but only as museums or historical landmarks. There may even be outright hostility for religion and all things religious.
On the other hand, in countries where there is high acceptance of both internal and external religious authority, religion becomes an influential agent for change. The most obvious contemporary example of this is the Islamic state. In modern countries, however, characterized by what David refers to as “functionally differentiated spheres,” religious institutions and the civic-minded faithful can hold governments accountable for their actions on a moral plane, respecting the separation of church and state.
Where does Philippine Catholicism lie in this continuum? In the Philippines, respect for internal religious authority is obviously high, and is seen as a social desirable. And once in a while, there are exemplary religious individuals who make an impact on society by dint of their personal virtue (think Cory Aquino). So yes, as David points out, part of the solution may lie in catechism, especially in religious instruction that emphasizes not just the personal but also the social aspects of the faith.
But it is not enough. One basic dilemma we face is that individual virtue is often not enough to reform institutions. External religious authority may be high in our country for certain pivotal events and issues, but it seems ineffective in the permanent transformation of social structures, most notably in economics and politics.
Here we might take the cue from the Black Nazarene itself. Is there some symbol, narrative, or commemoration that can galvanize all that is good and virtuous in the Filipino, spurring lasting social change? It need not be an overtly religious event. Another sociologist, Robert Bellah, has described the possibility of a “civil religion” which spurs fervor of an almost religious nature, consistent with both faith and patriotism. Bellah cites the American examples of Independence Day and Thanksgiving in the United States. The first Edsa revolution could have been one such focal point for us in the Philippines, but the commemoration has since been co-opted politically, and now seems a source of disillusionment rather than inspiration.
Our faith then, as with our nation, is an unfinished task. Nevertheless, perhaps it is not too naive to hope that someday our nation will be borne aloft, Nazareno-like, on the shoulders of a faithful people, steady and stable against the surging, madding crowd, filling the hearts of all with genuine love for God and country.
First published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer
http://opinion.inquirer.net/69667/our-faith-is-an-unfinished-task#ixzz3EW4rcUVL
Our faith is an unfinished task
Prof. Randy David has written recently (Inquirer Opinion, 1/9/13) on the Black Nazarene devotion and the contradictions it reveals regarding the role of faith in Philippine society. As always, his is an insightful and incisive analysis. He pulls no punches in taking the Catholic Church to task for failing to make a more substantial impact on public life.
I would like to suggest, however, that David’s piece represents the beginning, rather than the end, of the conversation. Here I speak not only as a sociologist and admirer of David—the acknowledged dean of Philippine sociologists—but also as a priest seeking to understand the Church better through the optic of the social sciences.
At the heart of David’s argument is his characterization of Philippine Catholicism as “infantile.” He states that having been initially imposed as a tool for colonial domination, the emphasis of the faith has been on the exigencies of tradition and obligation. Filipino Catholics, for instance, can be very conscientious about the dictates of liturgy and popular religiosity, and yet ignore the wider responsibilities needed to create a “decent society.”
This may seem like harsh indictment, but David’s challenge for the Church to attend to basic concerns such as catechism are (or should be) well taken by all who hope to make religion relevant in the 21st century. His argument, however, begets an important question. If Filipino Catholicism is indeed infantile, what then is a “mature” Catholicism? This question has to be reflected on carefully, lest we mistakenly believe that catechism can be the panacea for the nation.
The sociologist of religion, Mark Chaves, provides some useful conceptual tools. In assessing the role of religion in society, he proposes that we use the construct of “religious authority” in its internal and external sense. When internal religious authority holds sway, one allows the tenets of religion to be the guiding force in one’s life. When external religious authority is dominant, religion has a substantial say in matters of societal import.
These simple categories allow us to understand how religion persists, or wanes, in different settings. In countries, for instance, where recognition of both internal and external religious authority is low, Chaves posits that religion becomes a mere cultural resource. Christmas is celebrated, but only as a civic and commercial observance. Churches are maintained, but only as museums or historical landmarks. There may even be outright hostility for religion and all things religious.
On the other hand, in countries where there is high acceptance of both internal and external religious authority, religion becomes an influential agent for change. The most obvious contemporary example of this is the Islamic state. In modern countries, however, characterized by what David refers to as “functionally differentiated spheres,” religious institutions and the civic-minded faithful can hold governments accountable for their actions on a moral plane, respecting the separation of church and state.
Where does Philippine Catholicism lie in this continuum? In the Philippines, respect for internal religious authority is obviously high, and is seen as a social desirable. And once in a while, there are exemplary religious individuals who make an impact on society by dint of their personal virtue (think Cory Aquino). So yes, as David points out, part of the solution may lie in catechism, especially in religious instruction that emphasizes not just the personal but also the social aspects of the faith.
But it is not enough. One basic dilemma we face is that individual virtue is often not enough to reform institutions. External religious authority may be high in our country for certain pivotal events and issues, but it seems ineffective in the permanent transformation of social structures, most notably in economics and politics.
Here we might take the cue from the Black Nazarene itself. Is there some symbol, narrative, or commemoration that can galvanize all that is good and virtuous in the Filipino, spurring lasting social change? It need not be an overtly religious event. Another sociologist, Robert Bellah, has described the possibility of a “civil religion” which spurs fervor of an almost religious nature, consistent with both faith and patriotism. Bellah cites the American examples of Independence Day and Thanksgiving in the United States. The first Edsa revolution could have been one such focal point for us in the Philippines, but the commemoration has since been co-opted politically, and now seems a source of disillusionment rather than inspiration.
Our faith then, as with our nation, is an unfinished task. Nevertheless, perhaps it is not too naive to hope that someday our nation will be borne aloft, Nazareno-like, on the shoulders of a faithful people, steady and stable against the surging, madding crowd, filling the hearts of all with genuine love for God and country.
First published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer
http://opinion.inquirer.net/69667/our-faith-is-an-unfinished-task#ixzz3EW4rcUVL
Published in Commentary