Useful or Just a Waste Opportunity

Many people aspire for change. But to execute change is not that simple. Everybody knows that change results to something that is novelty. This novelty is either in itself serves for the betterment or for the worst. And since the world seems so cruel, disordered, unpleasant, dreaming of making the scenario exactly the opposite is not far-fetched. Change is an ideal prize that each one wants. There are two types of change, among the many types, I would like to highlight here. The simple kind of change is the change of one’s self. And this change is considered elementary – it brings change only in a narrowed and limited sense. The other type of change is complex by nature – a change that is broad and boundless. And everybody benefits from it. It results to make other people better, and so with the environment.

This type of change is intertwined with power. This power is not rested on the lowest part of the social strata, but on the highest plain. One has to climb up the ladder in order to reach the top. And once you are on the top, change that you are aspiring for is now in your hands. What does it mean? Change is realistic when one has the means – power. Its implication is power means positions. And this position is pragmatically the best venue to bring about novelty. A position is not all is there the case. It is also tangled with another means in order for the occupant to enjoy the luxury of executing change. And this is money. Money is the means for transacting change with other means of change. Thus power is accompanied with money in the execution of necessary change in one’s place.

The locus of change could be in any of the existing institutions today. Institutions exist to serve the needs of the people, like the government and the church for instance. These two institutions are known to be in the Philippines as the savior of the masses. Any institutions are being administered by authorities. These authorities are being elected by their subjects who are being seen as qualified to be in the position. And those positions are being assisted with power as executor’s power, sustained with money as machinery. It is an illusion when authorities occupy those noble positions without power and money. And that is why, many are tempted by these means, in spite of one’s noble and ideal intention of ‘to serve’ or be ‘of service.’ Service has become the password and the bridge to have power and money.

But being in authority is a rare opportunity and privilege. It is rare because not everyone can climb the ladder to that position. It is also a privilege for those who are chosen to be there. Election is not only the sole privilege. Selection is also a privilege because only few people are involved in that process. In the religious world, to be in the position is also a privilege coming from above. Armed with power and money, the mission entrusted by their Master is now within its reach. That mission is the heart of evangelization – for the BUILDING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD here on earth. The sign of failure in not realizing that mission is because the hearts and minds in authority are worldly. It simply means that their focus is now on the means at the expense on ends. To be in authority in fulfilling that mission is a very rare golden opportunity. But to be in authority for power and money is just a WASTE OPPORTUNITY.

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.