Spirituality

Featured

SEARCHING FOR MEANING AND HAPPINESS: 2. WHO ARE YOU FOR ME

SEARCHING FOR MEANING AND HAPPINESS:

2. WHO ARE YOU FOR ME

AFTER answering our first question, Who Am I, we try to answer the second: Who Are You for Me.

As a human person, I am an individual and a social being, a member of a family, a citizen of a nation and of the world. The other can be for me an “it,” a “nobody,” a “he/she,” or a “thou” – a “you! If I consider the other as an “it,” or an object, then I depersonalize, disrespect him/her: I consider him or her a “means”. “Do not consider the other person as a means but always as an end” (Kant).

If I consider the other as a “nobody,” then I am indifferent to him/her, and this is inhuman. If I take him/her as he/she, then I respect them in justice as equal, but I do not love them. If the other becomes a “thou”, then I understand him/her as an equal and as a member of the human family. And I love them.

In religious perspective, particularly in Christian perspective, the other is not just an equal but a brother or a sister in Christ. As a person, as a social being, the purpose of my life is to live with others in justice and love: to live with and for others. Only true justice, and compassionate and forgiving love lead to integral peace.

As a Christian, I am not alone. As the first Christians said, “Solus Christianus, nullus Christianus”- a solitary Christian is not a Christian. The Christian is a member of the Church, that is, of the community of faith, hope and love. The Church is the People of God composed of the Pope, bishops, priests, religious women and men and lay faithful. All the members are equal in dignity, for there is one Lord, one Spirit, one baptism for all.

I live with others, but what for? What is my responsibility facing the life of others? My fundamental responsibility is to respect and defend the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception to natural death. Therefore, and based on my humanity, I defend human life against procured abortion, direct euthanasia, direct homicide and the death penalty.

My responsibility for the other’s life is to defend it and promote it: not only his/her physical life but also a dignified life in the world. I have to be just and promote justice, to be in solidarity with all, particularly the needy and weak. With others, I am obliged to work for the freedom of all and for peace in the world. I have to work for the truth in love. I am not free to lie because authentic freedom is grounded on truth: it is freedom in the truth not freedom from the truth (St. John Paul II). The God of Jesus Christ is, our Go is Truth and Love.

The responsibility for my life and the life of others is based on human dignity, which is expressed in human rights. Human dignity is equal in all human beings. Likewise human rights, the rights that belong to every human person by the fact that he or she belongs to the human species. These rights include the right to education, to basic health, to freedom, including freedom of conscience and religious freedom -and conscientious objection.

As a human being I am asked by our humanity to promote the human dignity and the rights of all, in particular of those who live – or merely survive – as if they had no rights!

What is the meaning of my life with others? What makes us truly happy? It makes us happy, it gives meaning to our life this: to become more what we are, that is, to become flourishing human beings living with others and for others. To be and become more what we are may be considered the two poles of human existence. Life is trying constantly – and often failing – to become what we are as human beings and as Christians, and this entails being moral and ethical in our personal and social life. I am totally convinced in my mind and in my heart that only doing goo -loving always- gives us some happiness and leads us to more happiness. On the contrary, doing evil -hatred, pride, envy - makes us unhappy and disposes us to more unhappiness.

In October 2011, Steve Jobs, Apple creator, passed away. Jay Elliot, ex-vice president of Apple said: “Steve was the most ethical and moral person I have known. This added to his passion for his projects was a combination that I had never seen before (…) He never did anything which was not proper to the most noble among human beings” (From ABC Newspaper, October. 9, 2011).

Also in October 2011, the Forbes Magazine published the results of a survey conducted by the University of Chicago. The main question the researchers asked was: “Who is the happiest person?” The most common answers were: The happiest is the priest or pastor. Second, the fire-fighter; third, the physiotherapist, and thereafter: the professor of special education, the teacher, artist (sculptor and painters), psychologist, etc. The conclusion stating that priests are the happiest among other calls and professions confirms the results of many other researches on the same problem. Priests and pastors are the happiest, above all, by reason of their relationship with God and others, and their usual inner peace. (See Stephen J. Rossetti, “A Happy Priest and the New Evangelization,” The Priest, Vol. 68, No. 3, March 2012, pp. 19, 21, 22, 51) For me, the saints or the poor in spirit are - after Jesus- the happiest human beings. As someone says, the greatest of their gifts is their smile!

What is then the purpose, the meaning of life? It is love: loving others gives meaning to our life and increases our happiness. Indeed, as the great R. Tagore writes, “life is given to us, and we deserve it by giving it back” – to others, most of all, to our family and friends, and the needy.

Who are you for me? I am a human person who cannot live a fulfilling human life without you, who are my equals in dignity and rights, my brothers/sisters on the journey of life. I am called by God through Christ to be united to him and to live a life of universal love. Yes, “to be a human being is to be a fellow human being.”

THE GREATEST value of human life is love. This is why many Christians and other human beings give their life, out of love, for others. What really count in my life should not be: “I” but “You,” and “You,” and “You.” It is not the “I” what is truly important but the “We” formed by you and me. - and all We are members of a family, a community, a nation, the world. As Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, OP says well, the true community “helps each one of us to say “I” because I have learned to say “We”, and the other way around.” Indeed, “I am because we are.” # (FGB)

SEARCHING FOR MEANING AND HAPPINESS:

2. WHO ARE YOU FOR ME

AFTER answering our first question, Who Am I, we try to answer the second: Who Are You for Me.

As a human being I am asked by our humanity to promote the human dignity and the rights of all, in particular of those who live – or merely survive – as if they had no rights!

Holy Rosary Province Spirituality 12 June 2026

Featured

SEARCHING FOR MEANING AND HAPPINESS

SEARCHING FOR MEANING AND HAPPINESS:

1. WHO AM I

I wish to reflect with you on my identity as a creature, a human being, a Christian and God’s dopted son. I shall narrow down my inquiry to four fundamental and simple questions: Who am I? Who are you for me? Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? We start our reflection by facing the first question: Who am I?

I am a creature in the universe. I am an ecological being, part of the universe. God is my Creator and therefore I ought to be a responsible creature that respects and cares for God’s marvellous creation, our common home, an awesome imprint of God. As God's image the human being has relative dominion over nature. This dominion to be true must be a caring and grateful dominion, a humble and penitent dominion: "And man, but a speck of your creation, wants to praise you" (St. Augustine).

I may be partly guilty of the deterioration of the environment, a consequence perhaps of my interior deterioration: "The devastation of the natural environment inexorably manifests the devastation of the interior world of contemporary man" (A. Auer). I do not forget the words of theologian L. Boff: “The most threatened species of the world are the poor.”

I am a human being. I am different from the other living beings and the irrational animals. I belong to the human species. I am an individual, body-soul, different from other individuals. I am a person, that is, a rational being: with body to feel, intelligence to understand, and will to freely want and to love. As a person, I am open to other human persons, and to creation. I am a religious being closely related to God as my Supreme Being, my Creator and my Father through his Son Jesus in the Spirit.

As a human being, I have a personal conscience that tells me that my happiness is found radically in goodness and that my basic responsibility is to form well and obey my conscience that tells me what to do, that is to do good, and what not to do, that is to avoid and fight evil.

I am a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of Mary, God/Man, my life and my everything. He keeps telling me: "I am the way and the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6). To be a Christian means to be in Christ, that is, to be a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). Jesus Christ came into the world so that we all may have life and have it to the full (Jn 10:10), who keeps giving us life through the Spirit (Jn 3:5). The life that Christ brought and keeps bringing to me - to us - is the life of grace, which is a limited but real participation in Gd’s very nature, and initiates eternal life on earth: Jesus came down so that everyone "may have eternal life" (Jn 3: 16; 1 Jn 5:11-12). My life is rooted in grace, practiced in virtues and witnessed in love: love of God, love of myself, love of all neighbours, and love of God’s creation.

What is the purpose of my life? The purpose is to search for happiness, to be happy, which is the way to give glory to God. What makes my life meaningful? I need money: it is useful, but happiness is somewhere else. I may like power, but usually power corrupts unless it is used virtuously to serve others. I may love pleasure, but if pleasure is harmful to me or to others it cannot be the source of my happiness. I search for knowledge and realize the help of science and technology, but these may be well and badly used: only if ethically used they may help us be and improve our happiness. In classical philosophy and theology, only true wisdom, virtues, above all love, can make us relatively but truly happy in this life.

What is happiness really? Happiness is another name for love. In our imperfect world, happiness is hope: hope that tomorrow will be better. It will be, if I journey today – and every day - by the path of truth, freedom, justice and love. In this life, genuine love gives meaning to my life, in particular the love of Jesus in my soul.

I am asked by my humanity and my faith to care for life in the universe, for my own life. As a human being I have a right to life and the responsibility to care for it. I am, therefore, against suicide. I am a human person, a human being with great dignity. I am also a wounded human being - and a sinner. After all, what do I have that I have not received (cf. 1 Cor 4:7) – from God, from family and friends? Realizing my constant need of God and of others makes me – should make me - humble!

A final question: Who is the human person for Jesus Christ? For Jesus Christ, “man is a being whose greatness consists in his openness and offering to God and brethren, and whose destruction stems from self-enclosure in his own selfishness. For Him, to be a human being is to love” (J. L. Martin Descalzo). In every human person, I see a son or a daughter of Him who wants to be called “Our Father” (cf. CCC 2212). All human beings, therefore, are my sisters and brothers.

And to conclude! Who am I? I am a human being with a great dignity, but I am also a wounded human being who needs others to live a flourishing life in communion, who needs God and his Son, our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Certainly, “to be is to love.” # (FGB)

Holy Rosary Province Spirituality 07 June 2026

Featured

ONCE MORE: NO TO WAR

When one speaks of war in ethical and Christian perspective, he or she will most probably think of “the Just War Theory”.

In the past, and up to the twentieth century, wars seemed to be inevitable and the application of the Just War Theory, an ethical demand – or excuse – to go to war and to defend wars. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., the Just War Theory was “resurrected” again. President George W. Bush and other world leaders used the Just War Theory to justify the war - and not only against terrorism.

The Just Theory war came up again repeatedly to justify some wars (2022-2026). May we speak today of a just war?

WARS AND THE “JUST WAR”

War is understood as an armed conflict between armies of enemy States. In the current context, war is also understood as an armed conflict between a State – or many States – and organized social groups or organizations similar to States, for instance terrorist groups.

There are different kinds of war. For our purpose, we point out mainly two. We speak of offensive war (unprovoked war against another State), and defensive war (war against an unjust aggressor). Furthermore, we may speak of preventive war (going to war to prevent the threat of war from another State). Besides, and considering the weapons of destruction used, we talk of nuclear, bacteriological or chemical wars.

The expression “just war” was coined by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The Just War Theory was proposed and defended by the two great theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The classical explanation is St. Thomas’, found in question 40 of his Summa Theologiae II-II.

The Angelic Doctor ask ed himself: Is it always a sin to wage war? (Hence, he is against all wars, in general). Generally, it is immoral and unchristian to wage war: it is a vice against charity, which is peaceful. How about in some exceptional cases? Exceptionally, war can be licit – ethical and justifiable - if it fulfills three rigorous conditions, namely, it is called by public authority, there is a just cause, and the intention is right, that is, for the sake of justice and peace.

The most difficult condition to carry out is the second: going to war for a just cause. A just cause requires the fulfillment of four strict rules: (1) The presence of grave injustice obstinately pursued; (2) The need to make recourse to war to obtain justice; (3) Proportion between the gravity of the injustice and the calamities to ensue from the war (the principle of “double effect” and “the lesser evil”); (4) A realistic probability of victory.

Obviously, St. Thomas’ doctrine of the just war, within the treatise of charity not only justice, is ordered to avoid wars. Why? Because it is almost impossible to fulfill all the conditions ad bellum and in bello (to go to war and during the war). St Augustine says that “it is a higher glory to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war.” (cf. Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti, FT, footnote 242).

MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

Regarding the teaching of the Church on the just war, there is a harmonious development of doctrine. Vatican II (1962-1965) closes the door a little more to the possibility of a just war in the context of nuclear weapons and the arms race. Vatican II states: “War today must be evaluated with an entirely new attitude.” “It is our clear duty to strain every muscle as we work for the time when all wars can be completely outlawed by international consent.” Vatican II continues to speak of the right – and duty – of legitimate defensive war as a last resort (cf. Gaudium et Spes, nn. 79, 80 and 82).

In his encyclical Pacem in Terris (no. 55), Pope John XXIII is strongly against war in the new context of nuclear weapons: “In this age which boasts of an atomic power, it no longer makes sense to maintain that war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of justice.” From the podium of the United Nations in New York, Pope Paul VI cried out (October 4, 1965): “No more war! War never again! Peace, it is peace which must guide the destinies of peoples and all mankind.” In his Message for the 1982 World Day of Peace, Pope John Paul II spoke of war in general and of defensive war in particular. The Polish Pope said that Christians strive “to resist and prevent every form of warfare,” for war is “the most barbarous and least effective way of resolving conflicts.” Nevertheless, facing grave injustice, Christians favor the collective defense of society in the name of justice: “In the name of an elementary requirement of justice, people have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.” This traditional teaching, however, is harder to apply – if at all possible - in the context of the new deadly weapons.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) speaks of war within the fifth commandment: Thou shall not kill. It presents with brevity and clarity the teaching of the Church, particularly the conditions for a just war - after Vatican II (CCC, n. 2309; cf. Ibid. nn. 2307-2317).

Pope Francis spoke frequently against war and wars. The Argentine Pope speaks of the negative effects of wars on the environment and on the poor. War and the death penalty, he tells us, are “false answers” that do not resolve the problems they are meant to solve,” but “introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society” (FT, 255); cf. Ibid. n. 255-270). War is not “a ghost from the past but a constant threat” (FT, 256). War implies “the negation of all rights .and a dramatic assault on the environment.” Indeed, “Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil” He underlines “the injustice of collateral damage” (FT, 261). Indeed, in the context of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous growing possibility of new technologies,” there is the grave danger of not using them wisely. Hence, “we can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits.”

In this new context, “it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war’. Never again war!” Pope Francis maintains that the concept of “just war,” no longer be upheld today (FT, 258). The Pope frowns, too, on “the possibility of legitimate defense by means of military force,” and thinks, moreover, that “preventive attacks or acts of war entail “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated” (FT, 258).

Pope Leo XIV speaks often against war and for peace and reconciliation, and in favor of dialogue among nations and their respective governments. Th North American Pope repeat similar words in every country he visits: “I am here to proclaim peace” (Cameroon, April 14, 2026).

There is furthermore, from Vatican II up to Pope Leo XIV, a firm condemnation of the arms race as a mens of deterrence. Vatican II considers the arms race “an utterly treacherous trap for humanity” that harms the poor immensely (Gaudium et Spes, no. 81). Pope John XXIII rejected deterrence and proposed a progressive disarmament. Pope Paul VI deplored deterrence for it does not remove but aggravates the risks of war, and also because it leaves the poor poorer: every exhausting armament’s race is an intolerable scandal (opulorum Progressio, no. 53). Pope Francis speaks of “the inadequacy of nuclear deterrence as an effective response” to the challenges posed. “International peace and stability cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power.” He advocates for the establishment of “a global fund” fed by the money to be spent on weapons and other military expenses (cf. FT, 262).

It used to be said: Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace prepare for war). Today we say: Si vis pacem, para pacem (If you want peace, prepare for peace). As Gandhi repeated, “There is no way to peace, peace is the way”. For Jesus Christ, we walk to peace by the path of justice and love. The Psalmist proclaims: Justice and peace kiss each other” - on the bridge of love. (Love or charity necessarily requires justice and goes higher: it makes every other not just an equal but a brother or sister). With many others, Christians are asked by their humanity and faith to be artisans of peace in a world at war. Those of us who are for peace and are against wars try seriously to live just, compassionate, peaceful lives and, united, proclaim peace as the only way to peace.

One may not speak ethically against war (aren’t we all against wars?) if there is no coherence among basic ethical principles. Being against war and for dictatorships of the right or the left becomes not credible. Fundamental human rights must be respected and defended by all.

The fifth commandment continues voicing out: “Thou shall not kill”. It is interesting to note that the first Christians should neither be soldiers nor judges: the soldiers may kill, and the judges may send “criminals” to death row for punishment with the death penalty.

Once more, as a human being and as a Christian, as a brother in our common humanity, let me cry out:

NO MORE WAR. WAR, NEVER AGAIN. (FGB)

Holy Rosary Province Spirituality 23 April 2026

Page 1 of 14