Peace through Non-Violence

As one Church we must show the way of justice and love, in solidarity with all but particularly the poor and the weak, in the building of peace. The Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is not a Kingdom to be imposed by the force of arms. It is a Kingdom to be built by love, the love of the suffering servant. Love bears peace by way of peace. Peace cannot be equated with the absence of war nor with a certain balance of power. It is a harmony in the human heart and in the social order brought about justice, requiring respect for human dignity and human rights, the promotion of the common good by one and all, and the constant practice of solidarity. Peace is likewise "the fruit of love which goes beyond what justice can provide." In the final analysis, the real peace we must seek is the Lord's  because He himself is our peace.

The context of our socio-economic and political situation today is partly one of violence and counter-violence, institutionalized or otherwise. In such a context it is easy to succumb to the temptation to use conflict as the means to liberation. But history teaches that "there are sources of progress other than conflict namely LOVE and RIGHT. This priority of love in history draws Christian to prefer the way of non-violent  action... Non-violence is a quality of love of Jesus Christ. So radically new was his love that he obliged his followers: "Love your Enemies."

Peaceful but persuasive rallies, assemblies, marches, demonstrations, strikes and acts of "passive resistance" to unjust laws can be very effective even if non-violent. A strategy of non-violence requires solidarity of spirit as well as of action. "The road to total liberation is not the way of love, class struggle or hate; it is the way of love, brotherhood and peaceful solidarity."

To remove social ills, active non-violence is our moral countersign to the ideologies of today that espouse armed violence to change status quo. It is likewise our moral countersign to the ideologies that institutionalize violence in order to preserve the status quo. We consider the peaceful alternative as a mandate of evangelical discipleship.

Sources: Acts and Decrees, 2nd Plenary Council of the Philippines( 1991)

LOVE AND INSANITY DO THEY DIFFER?

What is Insanity?

I took the effort of trying to find a dictionary inside my drawer. Unfortunately, there was none. I couldn't define insanity for you then. Oh no, I can't, but I can set an example. I know that there is no dictionary inside my drawer but still I expected to find one. That's an example of insanity in its simplest form.

Love and Insanity

Within the few months of my being hooked-up with Tristan, one of the many things that I have learned is the parallelism of Love and Insanity. I came to realize that these two words are somewhat synonymous. This is manifested by the countless stories of experiences documented by different individuals here in Tristan. Love life with a plot a la telenovela, with a complete casting from supporting actors to the usual protagonists, peers, parents or classmates to name a few. What do I see? I see insanity in a broad daylight. Love life recycled from one generation to the next. Insanity inherited by yet another group of people in the same environment at a different time. I find it insane considering that our way of life has indeed made a giant leap into what we call the future and yet the same old pains, troubles or problems haunt people's love life.

Define Love. Love is this. Love is that. Love is here. Love is there. There isn't a consistent definition for love. Worst is, one definition conflicts with the other. No, conflict is an understatement, contradict would have been better. In binary, a "1" is never a "0" and vice versa. Treating one as the other is insanity. Love bringing either happiness or sorrow, or sometimes both, is insanity. Does insanity define love? Or, is insanity love, in a negative form?

Let us get back to my previous example. That is an analogy illustrating insanity. Now, let's take love. We know that our love will get to nowhere but we take the risk of gambling with love. The result is we get hurt. And that is insanity. Foreseeing darkness ahead but still taking the courage to step into the dark. The result is disaster. In real life, it's like you know he's married but what the hell. And that is love. You can feel she cares for somebody but still you convince yourself that she loves you, because you love her. And again, that is love. And what about this latest crap? When you love someone you gave that someone the opportunity to hurt you. Isn't that insanity to the max or just plain masochism?

Do I speak justly then when I say that those who love are insane? Would you still love?

I assume that answers to both questions are unanimously "yes". And again, that clearly manifests insanity.

We are used to saying the phase "falling in love" to mean "being in love"? Isn't it "to fall" connotes a negative meaning? Isn't it insanity then that we allow ourselves to "fall" in love? But wait, others say "high with love" to mean addicted with love. Just the same, and addiction is even worse. To let our selves get "high" with love is again an act of insanity. To fall is to go down contradicting the word high. With these two contradicting results associated with love, setting love in front of a well-polished mirror, love vividly reflects insanity.

But despite this shocking analogy, I would still say, "If to love is to be insane, please, take all my sanity away". It is with pride that I'll shout to the world, "Call me insane because I am in love!"

from: BABES