The value of the
Cross
By
Fr.
ROY CIMAGALA, roycimagala@gmail.com
September 11, 2012
One of the greatest
disasters of our times is that many people, a great majority of them,
have nothing but disgust and even hatred for the distinctive value of
suffering. For them, suffering is an intrinsic evil, and therefore
should be avoided at all costs.
The cross, the icon of
suffering, should be nothing other than an ornament at best. It should
not hold any other purpose or meaning.
This is the sad thing about
our current world culture. It directly contradicts what Christ said:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me.” (Mt 16,24)
The cross, in whatever form
it comes, is actually the key that opens the spiritual and
supernatural world meant for us. It widens our perspectives, and leads
us to transcend the limits of our human nature. It enables us to enter
into the dynamics of a love that is not only material but also
spiritual, not only natural but also supernatural.
It represents the extreme
and ultimate way of loving, as it invites us to go beyond the confines
of our wounded human nature in order to soar to the divine love from
where we come and to where we are supposed to go.
With the cross, we would
know how to pay for the offenses and sins we have committed. It is the
fair deal we are offered in exchange of the tremendous benefit it also
gives us – nothing less than the possibility to love all the way to
God.
God, and not just the sky,
is the limit of our loving. That’s why Christ gave us the new
commandment that summarizes all the other previous commandments given
to us – that we love one another as he, Christ, loved us. Christ is
the standard of our love, and not just any human and natural value.
That’s why saints and holy
men and women, following the example of Christ, have always seen the
cross as something most welcome in their lives, because Christ’s love
for us goes all the way to the cross. Pope Benedict says, “There is no
love without suffering.”
Opus Dei founder, St.
Josemaria Escriva, echoing the sentiments of all the saints, laments
that “the cross is still a symbol of death, instead of being a sign of
life. People still flee from the cross as though it were a scaffold,
when it is a throne of glory. Christians still reject the cross and
identify it with sorrow, instead of identifying it with love.”
Without the cross, we debase
our love and restrict it to the purely sensual, worldly and temporal
level. Without it, the wings of our love are cut as it functions only
on the basis of practicality, convenience, popularity and other
earthly values, motives and advantages.
This is what we see in all
these rationalizations behind the move to pass the RH Bill, for
example. Those for it, as well as all those who are for abortion,
euthanasia and similar things, are espousing a kind of love that sees
no value in the cross.
It’s ok to contracept, it’s
ok to abort, it’s ok to euthanize, because to a particular person,
that may be the right thing to do. No one should dare to correct him,
unless some immediate physical harm takes place.
They are developing a kind
of morality that is not based on God who is love, bur rather on their
own idea of what is good and evil. They make themselves their own God.
Since it’s a morality that
denies God, it cannot help but fall to the belief that there can be no
absolute truths and no universal moral law. The corollary is that
everything is relative to the acting person, to the situation, to the
consequences, and to other circumstances and elements, etc.
Of course, it is ironic that
what is relative and individualistic is now made the absolute and
universal moral law. Everything is reduced to the thinking that what
may be good to me may not be good to you, and vice-versa. There’s no
such thing as an intrinsically good act which should be fostered at
all times, nor an intrinsically bad act that should be avoided at all
times.
This thinking is contained
in such ethical systems as relativism, situation ethics,
consequentialism, proportionalism, and some peculiar variations of the
so-called fundamental option and liberation theology.
Only considering the
circumstances and ignoring the nature of the act itself and the
agent’s intentions, they detach themselves from God who loves us
through the Cross.