We have just
finished Christmas and with that we settled the question of how many Masses to
attend that would fulfil both the 4th Sunday of Advent and the Christmas duty.
Are we not relieved and grateful that 6th Jan is not a day of obligation, for otherwise
we would have to attend Mass yesterday and today? Canon 1246§1 lists Epiphany
one of 10 holy days of obligation but, thankfully, in a nod to convenience, the
Apostolic See has allowed quite a few to be transferred to a Sunday which is
what we have done—killing two birds with one stone.[1]
Epiphany is a
solemnity of revelation. What we call an epiphany, the Eastern Churches would
term as a theophany. The difference between them is that the Epiphany is
generic as it denotes a revelation from above whereas the Theophany is more
specific as it focuses on the revelation from God. The 6th of January was the
“Christmas” of the early Christians especially of the Church in the East
because the date commemorates for them, the Nativity of the Lord, the Visitation
of the Magi, the Baptism of Christ[2]
and the Wedding at Cana. Only at the Council of Tours did Christmas get
separated from Epiphany and much later, the rest—Baptism and Wedding at Cana
got their own celebrations leaving the 6th of January primarily centred on the
Visitation of the Magi.
The Gentiles
have come searching for the new-born Child. What do they hope to accomplish and
what can we learn from them? One observation is that the Epiphany is not a
celebration of diversity even though the appearance of the multi-hued Magi
seems to suggest that diversity has indeed arrived.
What is it then,
if it is not a “feast of diversity”?
To better
appreciate the Epiphany, it might be profitable to survey the myths surrounding
diversity. In campuses of some “enlightened” societies, political correctness,
gender wars and nihilism have taken roots in the name of diversity. Coupled
with this notion, a trigger word we ought to embrace is tolerance.
In a context of
multi-culturalism and multi-religiosity, is that not an important concept to
embrace? In our country, we definitely know what it means when people are
intolerant. If diversity, which expresses the richness of God’s creation, is a
given, how do we live in harmony? How do we behave in a manner which is human,
in other words, how can we be moral beings?
Firstly, in the
quest for social cohesion, which is a moral endeavour, there is a prevailing
mistaken belief that man is inherently good. And through reason, he can be
persuaded to be good. As such, there is a temptation to banish religions
understood to be the cause of many a strife. The notion of progress appears to
exclude religion in its march and many developed countries have somewhat
banished it, have they not? The result is pretty simple. Religion is, at best
considered as superstition, and at worst believed to be emotional intolerance,
is therefore incapable of leading us to reasoned truth. If religious truth is
banished, because religion is defective, then the rise of relativism and
indifferentism is inevitable as we shall see later.
Secondly, the
idea of “toleration” actually came about through the experiences of the
“confessional” states. England and France are two such examples with England
being Anglican and France being Catholic. As these societies progressed, the
civil authorities began to tolerate the minorities who do not profess the
state’s creed. Taking the confessional states’ experiences, what does tolerate
amount to? It means that we put up with those who do not really conform to what
we accept to be true. Therefore, when we “tolerate”, we are primarily stating
that we hold on to what we accept to be true, but we can also live with those
who are in error. This sense of “tolerance” still bears with it a
recognition that there is objective truth.
However, you can
detect the fledgling bud of indifferentism and relativism once tolerance is no
longer anchored to the truth. If you dwell on this, is that not why diversity
and acceptance can flourish? However, indiscriminate diversity, tolerance and
acceptance do not hold water because somewhere along the way, one has to draw a
line between what conduct is acceptable and what might is considered insanity
or a crime. If we were to hold on to the principle of tolerance and stretch it
to its logical conclusion, parading Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein before
you, would have totally disabuse you of the notion that tolerance is a virtue
we should embrace. Once again, you can already discern the outline of truth
here.
The despotism of
uncritical tolerance means we must give in to the reigning fads. It has been
used as a bullying tool against those who do not subscribe to the majority’s
view. How? Even if you have not watched “The Greatest Showman”, you will
understand what I am trying to say. In the musical based on the life of PT
Barnum, there is a bearded woman and she sings an ode to the current fad: “This
is me”. Into the mix, there is a message which stands against bullying but in
totality, it is a declaration that the world ought to accept her as she is. We
should stand against bullying but again, when this notion of acceptance is pushed
to its logical conclusion, it becomes a problematic. If a man declares himself
a murderer and that is who he thinks he is, should the world not accept him as he
is?
To accept what
is different gives an impression of noble tolerance. And, in this world of
tolerance, dogmatism (which is another word for judgemental people) should be
banished in the name of diversity. However, in the name of diversity, do I have
the right to be bad? You might be thinking, “Of course not. How stupid can you
be”? Yet, do you realise that people cannot smoke where they want to. I do not
smoke and yet I know how smokers feel. And how come I cannot eat sharks’ fin in
the name of tolerance and diversity? In other words, for some people, it is
alright to be different but not for others. Where is the logic there?
Shakespeare’s
Hamlet in his famous soliloquy asked “To be or not to be?” which in the context
of tolerance today is a wrong question. To be tolerant or not is not an issue.
The big fat elephant in the room, and I do not mean Fr Michael, is “What shall
I tolerate?”. And this is no longer a question of morality but rather a
question of might. Who has the stronger power will decide what is to be
accepted in the name of diversity. Our conundrum is that we recognise that
lines need to be drawn, the problem is who should draw them or where should
they be drawn. The way things are, it is those who wield power, and the
prophetic stand is to hold on to the truth and not allowed oneself to be cowed
by the tyranny of “absolute” diversity, tolerance and acceptance.
Coming back to
the mistaken myth that we are inherently good, the desire to be good even
though it is a godly desire, is not good enough. At the heart of understanding
who we are, stands also the question of how we should be and that takes us into
the moral realm. Thus, the Wise Men came searching, not for an object, not even
for a priceless treasure but for Him so their morality, that is, how to be
human, might be given a firm standing. Perhaps we should take a leaf from them.
Diversity,
tolerance or acceptance are never ideals absolute in themselves. Whilst they
may help us in the social project of building peaceful societies, they must be
founded on truths which are eternal. According to Pope Leo LXIII, “The
things of earth cannot be understood or valued aright without taking into
consideration the life to come, the life that will know no death. Exclude the
idea of futurity, and forthwith the very notion of what is good and right would
perish; nay, the whole scheme of the universe would become a dark and
unfathomable mystery”.
We all yearn for
an Elysium—a world without injustice whereby all that is imperfect is wiped
off. Sadly, this longing has been shakily premised on the seducing quicksand of
acceptance, tolerance and diversity as if these “virtues” once embraced will
unfold a world without strife and pain. The reality is unqualified acceptance,
tolerance or diversity leads to the chaos of darkness—a darkness which is
emboldened by both power and money. He who has more of these will speak a
greater “truth”
In conclusion, Epiphany
is not a politically correct celebration of diversity, acceptance and tolerance.
Rather it symbolises an anthropological quest—man’s search for who he is and
who he is supposed to be.[3] It
may have started from where he is but it does not end there. Epiphany
represents Man’s search for the Divine and that this search is not putative but
rather graceful and fruitful. The anthropological quest for God has found an
answer in Jesus Christ. He is the light that shines on us so that we may know
who God is and who we truly are. To be who he really is, man needs more than acceptance,
tolerance and diversity.[4] In
other words, Epiphany represents Man’s perennial hunger for light of truth to
shine upon his path so that he can be what God has created him to be—a creature
graced by truth, beauty and goodness.
[1] If
we state that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of the Christian life,
does it make sense that the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, a holy
day of obligation traditionally celebrated on a Thursday, two months after Holy
Thursday (which is also the Thursday after Trinity Sunday) be transferred to a
Sunday (even though Sunday is also a feast of the Eucharist) except that it too
has suffered the sweeping aside by the tide of convenience!
[2] The
sprinkling of Holy Water earlier in the liturgy, in place of the Penitential
Rite, is perhaps a leftover from this past where the Baptism is lumped in
together with the other theophanies.
[3]Tolerance,
acceptance and diversity may be moral categories but must be informed by a
anthropological vision that is eternal.
[4] If
nobody accepts you, does it mean you are a nobody? In fact, even if nobody
accepts you for what you are, the only Person who accepts you is God for you
have been made in the image and likeness of His Son. However, God’s acceptance
does not mean permissiveness—God’s acceptance is absolute ontologically but not
morally because man is imbued with the freedom to accept or reject Him. For example, a murderer. God accepts him as a
created being (ontologically) with all the defects that come with sin but the
life grace (morally) draws him to a higher plane. As Saint Augustine says, “The
God who created us without our consent cannot save us without our consent”.
That means in the realm of morality, we are free to reject Him. Sadly, our idea
of acceptance is like an “in your face challenge” to the world. This is exactly
what the philosophy of “acceptance, diversity and tolerance” asserts—accept me
for who I am and allow me to be what I want to be. Instead, genuine
anthropology requires not just science but also religious truths to illumine
the path of its self-knowledge. Otherwise, diversity, tolerance and acceptance
will be no more than selective permissiveness.
