The Urstoff

What makes later generation of thinkers in the ancient Greeks, after Homer and Hesiod, philosophers? These men revolutionize the conventional mentality of the culture at that time, establishing solid arguments from their rational reflections of the world in broadest term. And the quest for answers to the question of urstoff has taken its toll.

The question about urstoff starts from man’s day-to-day observation of reality. The basic form of this is the fact of change, from existence to decay, young to old, life and death. If reality happens that way, there must be a point of origin of all things as they speculate. And this point of origin is somehow permanent, where the emanation of all things coming forth.

The point of origin is at the same time the point of unity. This is the idea of One and the Many made popular by Norris Clarke as the title of his existential metaphysics book. The philosophical questions that led to the discovery of urstoff is this: What is the basic stuff of everything? Does it imply the materiality of all things?

To question about the essence of the urstoff is not the preoccupation of the early thinkers. There was no dichotomy yet in their mind between what is of spirit and of matter. And when Thales answers that it is water,  Anaximenes air, and Heraclitus fire as the ultimate element, they posited a material unity.

Their basic stuffs are very elementary, but it has to be thought of as extraordinary, at least during their times, when their civilization was characterized as living under the domination of the divine, where the answers to all human queries were coming from the supernatural beings – of gods and goddesses. It is extraordinary because they provide human answers as a product of their sense of awe and wonder.

Source: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome

On Arête and Hubris

The Greeks in the ancient period have many characteristics, and one of them is their “Will to Power.” This will to power once interpreted as ‘might is right theory’ that results to domination over the weak, and their subjection to the powerful. Later, Friedrich Nietzche adopted the ‘will to power’ idea in his understanding of man, as a means or capacity to withstand amidst the reality of ugliness and sufferings of life.

The concept of the ‘will to power’ is not free of criticisms from the philosophers at that time. Plato, for instance, speaks against it when people think about domination that leads to destruction. This may be taken from the vantage view of politics. But what about putting the concept in psychological viewpoint? In their culture and character, it shows the two sides of the ‘will to power.’

The first is the exercise of moderation, and it is sometimes called arête, which means the ability to achieve success. The second is the side of excess. It is sometimes called hubris, which means that one is possessed the unbridled lust for self-assertion.

What is laudable between the two for some of the Greeks is the arête, because there is the exercise of temperance and self-discipline as human virtues. It appears in many of the ancient art works the picture of Apollo symbolizing arête, as opposed to Dionysius the Elder and the Younger, the symbols of hubris, with their limitless and lust for self-assertion. They were both tyrants of Syracuse of Italy around 4^th to 3^rd century BC.

The Greeks later created the Olympian dream-world as police, watching over the people to observe arête than hubris. This means that when one is being caught of transgressing his limit or going beyond moderation, the gods would get wrath over him.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

On Homer and Hesiod

Little is known by many about the two great writers in ancient Greece, namely, Homer and Hesiod. Except one is majoring in Literature or English under the Liberal Arts course, and one has the opportunity to read the importance of their writings that shaped western civilization.

Historians and scholars assigned their existence around 8^th century BC. Speaking of ancient Greece, it is divided according to their political and historical periods, and these two Greek writers fall into different place.

Homer was believed to belong to the Ionian period of old civilization, long before the Aechean aristocracy took its reign. Homer was known for his great epic Iliad, which tells about the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people living the city of Troy, and Odyssey, which tells about the return of Odysseus from the Trojan War.

Hesiod, on the other hand, was the epic writer of the mainland Greece. Hesiod was known for his poem Theogony, which speaks about the genealogy of the gods and the creation of the world.

The contributions of Homer and Hesiod to the ancient Greece help others understand on harmonious living with other men and women in the society, on the origin of the world, and on laws governing the universe. Furthermore, their conception of ideas serves as the springboard of rational reflection by men who wonders things around them. It is the beginning of endless philosophical journey.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

The Sign of the Cross (Part 2)

The Sign of the Cross is made thus: First choose your style:

·         Option A. With your right hand, touch the thumb and ring finger together, and hold your index finger and middle finger together to signify the two natures of Christ. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.

 

·         Option B. Hold your thumb and index finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ

·         Option C. Hold your thumb, index finger, middle finger of your right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and pinky finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward your palm. This is the typically Eastern Catholic practice.

 

·         Option D: Hold your right hand open with all 5 fingers -- representing the 5 Wounds of Christ -- together and very slightly curved, and thumb slightly tucked into palm

Then:

·         touch the forehead as you say (or pray mentally) "In nomine Patris" ("In the name of the Father")

·         touch the breastbone or top of the belly as you say "et Filii" ("and of the Son")

·         touch the left shoulder, then right shoulder, as you say "et Spiritus Sancti" ("and of the Holy Ghost"). Note that some people end the Sign by crossing the thumb over the index finger to make a cross, and then kissing the thumb as a way of "kissing the Cross."

Conclusion

This sacred sign being practiced by Catholics is no mere empty sign as thought by many who did not understand it. The forehead is the locus where each individual recognized as the entry point and storage of knowledge. By this holy gesture, it helps us remember that God is the only Supreme Being whom we render our worship, reminds us of our identity as followers of the cross where we attain salvation, shows our dependence to Him and our nothingness, and makes Jesus as the center of our being and living in the truth of the Trinity – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Sign of the Cross (Part 1)

Among the Christian groups, only members of the Roman Catholic Church are doing the sign of the cross. Yet many of these members do not know the meaning and reason why they are doing it and how to do it properly. This simple note can help us understand the topic in four points. 1. The foreheads in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers. 2. Why do we make the sign of the cross? 3. When do we make the sign? 4. How do we make the sign of the cross?

1. The forehead in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers are of utmost importance. The Church Fathers inherits its significance from the Old Testament that became the tradition of the whole Catholic Church where the sign of the cross should begin with. There are two OT writings that tell about the foreheads – Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel – and two writings from the Church Fathers – St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 315 – 386.

a. In Deuteronomy 6: 4-8, the first part of the passage contains the Shema that informs every Jew about their religious duty of love God alone. Every Israelite should place the shema inside the small box and place them in their foreheads as a sign of being a faithful follower of Yahweh. They call it phylacteries. In Ezekiel 9:4, Yahweh tells prophet Ezekiel about the destruction to come in Jerusalem because of the abomination people were doing, and do the mark on the foreheads of men who were righteous.

b. St Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the forehead from which the sign of the cross be made by our fingers. For him every Christian should reveal the sign of the cross proudly. One should not be ashamed of it nor hid it from the public. For the great price won by Christ is no other but through the cross.

2. The words of St. Cyril have become the basis and standard for the Catholic Church in doing the sign of the cross, beginning with their forehead. The church has also adopted new meanings to it. First, instead of placing the words of the scripture in the foreheads like the Jews themselves were doing, the act of signing one’ self with the cross has been made as the procedure of expressing one’s faith and love for Jesus. Secondly, the cross itself has become the new seal of being Christians, because through the cross Christ has won the victory over sin for us – eternal life. Thirdly, whenever we do the sign of the cross, we profess that our God is indeed three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And lastly, St. Cyril says that by doing the sign of the cross, we are shield from Satan and his temptation because they are afraid of Him, and for St. Ephrem, it is a protecting wall round all your conduct.

3. St. Ephrem of Syria (died A.D. 373), along with St. Cyril of Jerusalem, has taught the Christians in their own respective communities when they would do the sign of the cross. Let me quote their exact words.

St. Ephrem said: “…over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are in the way and when we are still.”

St. Cyril said: “Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it.”

The Importance of Baptism

The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, sends his message for Lent 2011 to the Christendom last 04 November 2010. There are three parts in his message, to wit: the importance of the sacrament of baptism, the Word of God, and the traditional acts of fasting, almsgiving and prayer. The flow of his message describes the journey of every Christian, from being born again with water and spirit, nourished with the scripture, and the praxis of the gift of faith.

To my judgment, the focus on baptism is something of valuable importance to expound the topic in order to avoid misconceptions believes by many of our brethren Christians (not Catholics). It is because baptism is considered as the gateway to other sacraments. It means that one cannot proceed and receive other sacraments without being baptized. And the first part of the message for lent by His Holiness can help us enlighten the matter.

The sacrament of baptism indeed gives each recipient new life. By this life, our state from living a natural life is now elevated to the next level. And that is to supernatural life where we become somebody, as special than the rest of natural lives on earth like animals and plants and nonliving things. And why do we receive it after few days or weeks or month right after our birth?

First, baptism shows us that this new life is a gift from God. It is only God that can give us this supernatural and elevated life. Second, in baptism, the recipient becomes sharer in the death and resurrection of Jesus. When we receive it, we let go of our state of sinfulness by dying and by rising to a new state of life with Him. Third, in baptism we meet the Lord. It is a personal and a holy encounter with Him. What a privilege! And lastly, baptism imparts divine life. In sharing our own life with God through sanctifying grace and genuine prayer, we do not journey on earth on our own. We are not alone in struggling our own sinfulness and limitation. He will help us bear our problems and struggles.

Becoming part of the Lord’s community by being baptized is a great act of love on our part to God. The community is the venue where we develop our identity as Christians and where we receive Jesus concretely in the breaking of the bread. Our parents’ choice of having us baptized is the best choice they have made for our salvation. So, why we deprive of ourselves of this gift of baptism until when we get adult?

Confucius on Education

When one speaks of civilization of China, the name Confucius is one of the most outstanding figures in their national history. His influence is wide disseminated in the minds of every Chinese people. The utmost significance to him before one engaging in those related discipline is learning or education. What makes education important as a requisite towards becoming a better person in the society?

Psychological Dimension of Education

Education, for Confucius, is vital in the development of the human person. Why did he say that? It is because human nature itself is neutral. What does it mean by ‘neutral?’ It is neutral in the sense that human nature from its birth is harmonious. Confucius says that men, by nature, are close to one another, and that only when men are engaging in practice, they drift far apart. The harmony of men is destroyed when one engages in the activity of the world. And since practice separate them from each other, only the help of environment and of education can straighten up their human development.

Instructional contents of Education

The instructional content of education for Confucius is liberal art. There is an instance when a certain fellow approaches Master Confucius asking for a sort of demonstration on planting vegetables, and the latter has made his reply the he is not good in that matter. Education for intellectual purpose is an indication that the learner has a higher aspiration in life. And he urges students to learn instead rituals, poetry and music. His education is neither for practical nor for scientific purposes. (The last part of his article has little comment on this: China would not be a developed country when they stick to Confucius’ aim of education solely for intellectual purpose.)

Education for Moral Development

For Confucius, education is not only the development of one’s self alone. The goal of education is not for self-aggrandizement. A person by his nature in its birth is neutral – in harmony with other persons. This is the theory on why he put up a private school for every one – elite or commoner. In order to achieve this, education is also for one’s moral growth. He instructs the importance of moral conduct, wholehearted sincerity, and truthfulness. This means that the education espoused by Confucius has two directions – not only for individual development but also for relational development too. The learner has to equip himself with moral values in order to establish the primal origin of human nature - close relationship with one another.

Goal

We learn simple thoughts from Confucius that education is very important for human beings living in the society. Indeed the society is bombarded with different ideas that may hamper closeness among us. But having acquired and chose the right idea by going to school does not mean that each learner has already achieved what is natural, and eventually closeness may just happen. Aptitude does not guarantee this. The role of moral values is the final topping of intellectual education to make the society a better place to live – free from isolationism and individualism.

Remarks on the Natal Day of Mary

This is my closing remarks last 08 of September, on the occasion of the birthday of Mary, our Spiritual Mother.

"Do what he tells you." These are the words of the mother of our Lord to the wedding attendants at Cana. The consequence of their action was the first miracle done by Jesus - turning the ordinary water into the best wine.

The point of this closing remarks is not on the miracle per se, nor on the consequence of obeying our Lord that yields endless miracles. The real point here is discipleship of every followers of Christ.

The reason why we believe in her is because of two things: our belief that Mary is the most powerful advocate or intercessor in heaven, and secondly is our belief that when we pray to her, she will not abandon us but she will help us to accomplish our mission in fulfilling her son's commands for us.

Mary, intercede for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Theology for Personal Purposes

If in studying philosophy one cannot make money out of it, it is not in the case of theology. Many religious leaders in the Christian world have become rich because of theology.

Theology is the study about God, coupled with the divine revelation. It is an in-depth inquiry and research on the nature of God and His will for mankind. This discipline is very rich on how God has reached us out first in order to establish relationship with us – his universal salvific will. Since God is the Supreme Being, He knows all human queries. And that is the reason we ascribe to Him with the adjective word ‘omniscient.’

Objectively speaking, the discipline of theology is full of divine truth. It is not mixed with human understanding called syncretism, for God’s thoughts are beyond human understanding, according to one of the wisdom books of the Old Testament. But what makes the claim that ‘one can make money out of theology’ is of human doings.

The topic on tithing is out of the question here, for all members of any religious institutions are obliged to give one-tenth of his earnings for the support of all the expenses and the missionary activities of the Church, and of thanksgiving to God for the blessing we receive every day. But some religious leaders, who are knowledgeable in theologizing, manipulate and use it other than what is essential for religious purposes.

What is this all about? Theology should be in the service of the God and of the Church. But what we see from our religious leaders? They are using theology in the service of their personal gains by accumulating wealth. I remember the words of the executive director of one of the religious institutions in the city that ‘they are making the Church as milking cow!’ He himself, as a Jesuit priest, testifies to this common observation.

I think this is one of the reasons why people nowadays, who are immersed in the very secular world, do not take into hearts the preaching of their pastors. And if they do not give their listening ears to them, it is because they do not see the truth of theology. It just that people want to hear the real theology that brings salvation and not theology that fishes out money from their pocket.

Theology and the Limitless Queries of Human Reason

I met my former classmate a month ago. We had a short and update about personal life. And I was glad to know that he had just finished recently his doctorate in theology. He went to share about the struggles and hardships in doing the defence on his dissertation. But what stocked to my mind after our chat was when he made mentioned this thought ‘I wonder why I studied theology?’

I, too, asked the same question to my own self why I studied and obtained my masters in theology and in philosophy. In short, what are these degrees had to do with my life? My professor in college commented that studying philosophy would not make you financially rich. It is the truth that one cannot make money out of philosophy. (But I do not believe in the case of theology.)

My personal answer to the question in studying philosophy was I love wisdom. I love reading the thoughts of other philosophers. And in the process of understanding their writings, I would be able to reply to my own personal queries about life and the world where I live. But I always put in mind the limitation of human answers to all human queries. And here the role of theology comes in.

I do believe that theology would show me the way to the ultimate answer to our limitless questions. This can only happen when one would not deny the existence of God and his revelation. To the question on why I studied and obtained master in theology, my answer is very simple. Theology is not to put a stop to all limitless queries of human reason, but theology would lead us to limitless answers to human hunger for truth.

The Simple Notes

This article will show a short explanation on the raison de etre of the blog, its content and methodology.

The intention of the blog is for purely personal consumption. All the articles posted here are products of the author’s personal readings in philosophy and theology. They are his SIMPLE NOTES. The author is not an expert but rather licensed to teach on these two fields. He finished his undergraduate and master in philosophy, and another master in theology.

The author wishes not to waste his time and energy in doing his personal readings on those fields. Since this site is free, he preserves his understanding by keeping all readings in one single file, instead of keeping them in his personal computer. Wherever the author goes, he may have access over them anytime and post other new articles too.

How do these published articles appear? They are written in condensed form, and structured how the author understood the flow of their ideas either in inductive or deductive way. The author himself is not an expert on those disciplines. Instead the author is trying his best to summarize the thoughts of the philosophers and theologians in fragments. It is not scholarly done but the essential thoughts are there.

At the end of each article is the acknowledgement of the source where it is taken, to give justice to the original writers of those topics. No footnotes and bibliography are used, because they are too short. A maximum of one page – letter-standard size – is the size of the content. To reiterate, this blog is for the consumption of the author when he needs them in the future. But the author is willing to share it to any reader who happens to surf this site if he finds them helpful.

What’s on your mind?

The title above is taken from FACEBOOK, a common social networking site today. It has been loved and patronage by many people around the globe. That title is displayed on the homepage of site where one has all the chances to shout at the top of their lungs what they want to say to the world. It is a new phenomenon.

Some may say, and I am not exempted from being one, people who are fond of writing on the space of What’s on your mind are being unnoticed (ta pidi attencion). But that is not all the case. In reading Emmanuel Levinas’ ethics, the face of others tells something about our human existence. Two things I would like to point here. First, a person is a reflection of our own self. He may have come from a distinct family upbringing but how we understand him is not far from what we are. Second, the person whom we have spent a lot of time, though it is not limited to friendship and lovers, is calling the significant other of being heard. This reminds us of our duty in Kantian sense to fulfill for the sake of the good and well-being of the significant other – our ones a fellow member of the community – in this case, the Pastor Bonus Seminary.

In line of this thought, this site will serve as freedom wall where each one can express one’s opinions, ideas and perspectives in life, for we are all graduates of philosophy, which is the unending search of meanings in life. Each contribution will manifest what’s in our mind, and it will be treated with utmost respect, understanding, and most of all, acceptance where each one is remembered in history as brothers. From this I do believe unsolicited but authentic assistance and wisdom will pour down the way.

The One-Sided Speaker

In the previous article that I have written, the whole point of it is to shed light on the role of lay-teachers in the life and mission of the Church. This will bring us to consciousness of many religious people who are being one-sided. An instance of this is the way the speaker neglects the fundamental importance of why these lay-teachers applied in their educational institution during the seminar on the WBLS and RCC.


If I am correct, the speaker began the talk with an introduction on two premises. First is that every Catholic school is founded on the mission of Christ – the reason of its being. And secondly, teachers applied in their institutions because of the need for money. But what happened eventually is that the flow of the exposition is now focused on the mission and not money. The speaker has intentionally separated mission from money.

Of course many are indignant in what they were listening. We could not believe that what the speaker was trying to say, and to support the claim, writings from the documents also been cited. But from the very beginning, the audiences were already following to where the flow of the talk would lead to. And many were expecting that there will be fusion between the two premises. But the speaker has gone beyond the boarder that if the lay-teacher still living with the idea of expecting more and living on compensation, that teacher, according to the narrow-minded speaker, has not imbibed the true intention of the Church – mission.

The speaker has missed two importance matters. To enumerate again, those two things are: the lay-teachers are not compensated through the generosity of the Church’s leaders, and the lay-teachers are front liners and great benefactors of the Church. It is not the other way around because they are not self-reliant. They have not read in one of the encyclical letters that salvation is not only an aspect of spirituality but on the totality of the person (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis). Thus these lay-teachers are not to be fed with purely spiritual matters. Even the speaker herself has already forgotten the second premise that they hire these people because they need money for survival. I just hope that every religious speaker should always bear in mind that no mission has ever survived without the involvement of money, lest there would be no tuition fees to be collected from the students and no payment for the reception of the sacraments in the parish.

Lay-Teachers: Partners in Church’s mission

This article will focus on the lay-teachers who are working in the Catholic educational institutions. This thought has been circulating in my mind after attending various seminars given to the teachers. We, the delegates of representing schools, cannot help but express to our dismay that most of the speakers, usually appointed religious people, are one-sided. The content of their talk is substantial for our professional growth, but somehow detrimental both to the lay people in general, and to the Church, whom we dearly loved most, in particular. What I want to explain here are of two things: the lifestyle of the lay people is different from the religious men and women, and the crucial role of the lay in the mission of the Church. Hopefully, in the end, this will help us enlighten that lay people and religious are unique partners in being the hands of Jesus in spreading the Gospel values.

Objectively speaking, the lifestyles of the lay people and the religious are different. What makes the two peoples different is not their status of life like being single or married. It is because some lay people are also internally professed celibate for Christ like the religious. However, lay people have so many responsibilities than the religious. Lay people, either single or married, have to support their family members and loved ones. Of course the religious people are not exempted from this duty. But the lay people have to divide their meagre salary for his self, and for others. Who is this ‘his self?’ A teacher whose work is far from his hometown, has to divide the monthly salary for the boarding house, for food, and other basic needs like cellular phone load, cosmetics, etc. If the teacher is married, his self is his own partner in life, his children, housing loan, and other basic necessities. On the other hand, the religious people, although they do not receive single peso as his salary, he is provided with everything, from shelter, food, clothing, and other basic necessities too. And somehow they are free from manual work, because they have hired people to do those things. Thus we cannot, and will not ever be, put these two peoples on the same footing.

The role of the lay-teachers in the Church is so crucial for two things. First is that lay-teachers are part of the definition of the word ‘laity’ as members of the Church whose mission is to sanctify all temporal realities. This people are indeed part of the world, immersed in the world, struggling in the world, and spreading the Word of God in their respective places and real-life situation. An example of the crucial role of the lay-teachers, and the lay in general, in the Philippine setting is during the conduct of local and national elections of choosing leaders-to-be of our country. The religious people, who are part of the Church hierarchy, are in neutral status or non-partisan. As part of the mission of the Church, these religious people are giving political education to the lay, because change in the society can be done with them as front liners of the Church. And secondly, the Catholic Church needs the help of the lay people particularly their financial assistance to support her projects and activities. The Church, objectively speaking, cannot survive solely on spiritual assistance alone. An example to this is the dissemination of Mission Sunday envelopes, because financial assistance could not be provided by the Church’s hierarchy alone. Thus there is the existence of benefactors and generous donors.

The invited speakers, who belong to any religious groups, have to understand better their vocation within the Church and the position of the lay-teachers in their educational institutions. Being one-sided is tantamount to say as being insensitive to the realities of life. Religious people have to care more these lay-teachers who are front liners and supporters of the Church, lest they become too narrow-minded, selfish and day-dreamers of the impossibilities.

‘Reason ought to be slave of the Passion’ – David Hume

The month of February is known to many as the month of the hearts. During these times, people who are full of love and who are loveless are meditating on how they are going to celebrate love. Love, as we know it, is not only intended between two lovers. Love is for everyone, between family members, classmates and schoolmates, girl or boy, rich or poor, elder and younger people. The effect of love is to spread and to share it to all. As they say, love comes from the heart. But love is now being manipulated by reasons. It is not that bad at all so long as it does not go against the nature of love.

As expected by many, the fruit of love is good. This good comes from favourable actions done by anyone to anybody. And since everyone is good, this goodness would naturally come out from everyone. When the result is bad, then, that is not the manifestation of love, but rather a manifestation that reason or the manipulator is using love for other purposes, and their intention is artificial – flowing unnaturally. And they would remark proudly that ‘we are doing it in the name of love.’ But the right thing to say is ‘we are doing it with the use of love.’

David Hume, a British empiricist, asserts that reason ought to be slave of the passion. Here one may think of him that he is the promoter of pleasure. The connotation of the term passion is related to it. But following his thought in one of his writings Enquiry on Human Understanding, he has that good intention of saying it. And what is it? He says that No amount of reasoning can persuade evil people (those with evil desires) to any course of action except that which already attracts them. Two points can we get out if this statement. First is that many people are manipulating the objective meaning of love and their true calling to love others. These people have evil desires, for the result of their action is not good. And the second point is that, being intelligent and possessing intelligence is not a guarantee that he is formed to be loving person.

The resolution to this scene is right for Hume. A person with evil intention could not produce good results. It is because that person thwarts the real nature of love. It is only when that person, having the right intention of loving, could produce hundreds of positive relationships. A piece of advice to intelligent people is: follow your passion to love, and not waste your intelligence on your unreasonable reasons of being unloving.

Being broken...

Broken family may be defined when a parent left his partner and children and cling to another partner. This may be easily said that the person has left one’s family and built another family. It happens because of various and unavoidable reasons and we cannot confine only to a particular reason. It is a reality that cannot be denied that it breaks the family as an institution – the societal unit and cell of the community. Thus when one belongs to this institution, one cannot help but he or she is also broken in one’s personality.

Effects of being broken

Let us focus on the person who is part of the broken family. That person is in one way or another is broken. There is a leak or crack in one’s personality, an imbalance self. It affects too one’s perspective and principles too. The worst is that it affects in dealing with another person the way we deal that hurts others as well. Here the hurt dominates, and so it blinds him from not hurting others. Unless one is ready to face and figure out the source of this hurt, one cannot move on in his life but continually hurting innocent and wonderful people especially when the subject of conversation is about family.

Remedy

Only in being conscious of one’s brokenness can help remedy the situation, and then healing begins to take place. But being conscious is not enough. One needs to exert extraordinary effort in getting healed by accepting the reality. It will be of help when one develops a positive attitude and value towards human relationship especially family relationship. The consequence is this that wounded person becomes defender and protector of family.

Is it possible?

Yes, it is possible, even the wounded or broken person did not experience having a complete family; so long our willingness to live in the realm of possibility is present. Our brokenness must not hinder us from taking good care of others, lest we scar others with our own wounds. Just live life with acceptance, and by treating each other as brothers and sisters, and the older ones as if he or she is one’s mother and father. If one strives and believes in making this messy world like heaven (like St. Therese did), why can’t the broken?