By Fr. Roy Cimagala

THE quick answer is the Holy Spirit. It is God, of course, who is the source and end of everything.

But insofar as orthodoxy is a humanly mediated affair, it is the official teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium, who has been entrusted the power to define, proclaim and defend the truths of our faith by Christ himself, who said to Peter, the first recipient: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18,18)

These are words that have to be taken by faith, otherwise there is no way we can make sense of them, given the limitations of Peter and the men who succeed him to whom these words can be addressed through the ages.

No matter how brilliant these men are, they just cannot be correct all the time. It is rather this divine guarantee that should make us feel assured of the orthodoxy of the doctrine of our faith as defined by the Magisterium, the Church’s official teaching office.

This point has to be kept in mind as we go through this messy and complicated issue of the Amazonian Synod that has lately stirred ecclesiastical circles intensely. In it, Pope Francis is launching a very bold move to question some current ways of understanding what orthodoxy is.

For one, orthodoxy does not mean maintaining the status quo. There certainly are things that need to change given the changes of circumstances. These are things that can and should change.

Of course, to identify which things as currently understood and held can change may not be easy to do. And that is why the Pope is asking that those in the Synod, which is a collegial way of figuring out what the Holy Spirit is telling the Church today, to speak in “parrhesia,” that is to say, to speak candidly.

That, of course, does not mean that what one says in parrhesia is correct. But everyone should feel free to speak what is in his mind and heart openly. In that way, things are put into the open and can be sorted out, in a manner of speaking, in a collegial way, which is the best way to discern what the Holy Spirit is telling us.

Of course, the collegial way means the Pope always with all those who comprise the college. It is the Pope, being the successor of Peter, who has the authority to bind and to loose that was first given to Peter.

There are many issues to be taken up in this Amazonian Synod, and one of them is the possibility of ordaining married men to the priesthood to fill the dire need for priests in that region of the world. This brings to the fore the question of whether there can be exception to the priestly celibacy rule.

Obviously, such exception can be done. It already has been done to some married Anglican pastors who converted to Catholicism. Of course, these exceptions are given with clear conditions.

As to the question that giving these exceptions would usually lead to abuses, that is another matter that has to be resolved accordingly. But we have to realistic. We have been abusing God’s laws all the time, since Adam and Eve. We just cannot negate giving exceptions to some rule due to the possible abuses. We are not in a perfect world.

The priestly celibacy rule is a disciplinary and not a dogmatic thing. And as such, some exceptions can be made. It is different when we talk about ordination of women which is already a dogmatic doctrine. No exception can be made here.

In any event, as the Pope has begged, we just have to pray a lot so that this Synod would truly reflect what the Holy Spirit is telling us regarding the Church in the Amazon today.

***

Forceful yet gentle. In our discussions and exchanges, especially when we have to sort out differences and settle conflicts, it always pays to be gentle in our ways even as we like to be forceful in advancing our views. Good manners always pays.

It should never be set aside even if the other parties do not practice it. That would be their problem, not ours. No matter how right one thinks he is in his views or how wrong the others are in theirs, we has no reason to bully others to submit to our opinions, nor to resort to ironies, sarcasm, personal attacks, character assassinations, bitter zeal, etc.

Gentleness does not take away the forcefulness of our arguments. It, in fact, would make our views clearer and more attractive. It would foster a sober, deeper and more meaningful dialogue.

Gentleness is not the contrast of forcefulness. Both can get together quite well. With gentleness, the pursuit for the truth, for what is fair and just, would be greatly facilitated. And unity and charity would be maintained even if the differences remain. Friendship and good relations are not destroyed. Bluntly said, gentleness is always the winner’s quality, not the loser’s.

Gentleness enables us to listen more and better, to be more keenly discerning of the subtle nuances of the discussion, and thus to react properly. It facilitates a better understanding of the issues at hand and of the persons involved.

It helps us to keep a more global picture and perspective of things such that we would be restrained to give merely impulsive, short-sighted responses. Yes, it effectively checks on our tendency to fall into Pavlovian reactions, especially when we feel provoked and threatened.

It lends itself to better thinking and judgments, as well as to better tact, prudence and discretion. Rash judgments and a loose grasp of the issues would be avoided. With it, the tongue, emotions and passions are better controlled and supervised. It makes the discussions, no matter how conflictive, amenable, and not immediately brought to a dead-end, which is what usually happens when the exchanges get too hot for comfort.

Besides, Christ highlighted this quality of gentleness when he made it one of the beatitudes by saying that “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Mt 5,5) It’s an intriguing assertion, given the usual bias we have about meekness. But Christ is very clear about what meekness can bring about. With it we shall inherit the earth!

We should have no doubt about the effectiveness and the many advantages we can get from being gentle and meek in our discussions and exchanges. Yes, we may have to bear certain inconveniences that gentleness and meekness can occasion in the short run, but to be sure, in the long run, it assures us of victory.

We really need to learn and develop this virtue. And the given the temper of the times when we are pressured always to be assertive and dominating if we want to get ahead, we really would need some stronger motive and significant effort to learn to be gentle and meek.

We can always start by making an effort to think first before we speak, or to keep the tone of our voice or of our writing warm and friendly always, to develop a good sense of timing as to when to speak and when to keep quiet at least for a while, etc.

We need to develop the allied virtues of patience and temperance, simplicity and humility. We have to instill in ourselves that attitude spelled out one time by St. Paul when he said: “Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves.” (Phil 2,3)

In other words, we have to aim at serving the common good always, not just our own interest. We always need to consider the interest of the others.

E-mail: roycimagala@gmail.com