Passed

Junrey S. Pagal 1st year Theo

Date: June 28, 2007 (Thursday) Fr. Daniel Franklin Pilario, CM

Theological Research Method-I (Thursday 2:00-5:00 pm) This critique paper is suggesting on reinforcement for conversation of theological methods that is grounded by our value of culture. This is an attempt to edify the view of “cultural communication, as suggested by the writer- Fr. Daniel Franklin Pilario, CM, on THE CRAFT OF CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY. My main contention here in this matter points on the establishing theological community which actively articulated in dialogue with culture. I would therefore profoundly explore the idea of the writer in this context through his proposition and assertion: “Yet in my view, conversation and dialogue, even if concrete practical demands them difficult, are necessary for the sake of theology itself and for the sake of the people whose faith theology is supposed to articulate”. (P.37 of the Article) The contention of the said assertion is clearly a prelude of the dire need for dialogue- in the theology of faith and culture itself. However, it still remains an abstract idea in so far as the “Thou” does not disclose himself to conversation. My position therefore here is to underscore the processes on which cultural communication in theology can be made possible in the midst of diverse objections. This can be drawn up by understanding in a deeper sense the spirit of dialogical culture- where interaction and communication are practiced. Off course, we have not to forget that this is simply a means of realizing a contextual-cultural theology especially among the grassroots level. This has to be brought to its completion, i.e. situated on our values and culture.

1

Self-Commitment in Dialogue: A core for Authentic Theologizing It is quite true that cultural communication entails objections and hardly realizable. (p3839 of the article) However, it does not mean that such an attempt can remain utopian vision. In our culture of dialogue, we can draw up a variety of interpretations which can be useful for our theologizing in quest of Truth. Variety of ideas is the expression of our richness and abundance of concepts which are not negative in itself.1 It is true therefore that Unity in Diversity. But this has to be carefully deal with. The natural tendency occurs when the dialogue becomes a monologue. For this, dialogue requires indispensable processes such as: internal and external dialogue.2 The said process is in great help in enhancing our communicable culture, i.e. beyond the values and norms of self-isolation. Christians need to dialogue with their own culture in order to discover the seeds of the divine message and in this discovery; they bear fruit in their culture.3 It is in this process that culture and theological methods may be reinforced. This can be impossible stand point in so far as culture view as an abstract reality. (page 38 of the article). It is but necessary to note that dialogue as an articulation is meant not a matter of talking, but of listening.4 Listening therefore is understood as reciprocal activity. It is in listening that our dialogue enriched and nourished. Precautions are given in such a way that conversation among diverse culture in methods of theology ma be arisen. One of the pitfalls and dangers in dialogue may be resulted to arrogance, naiveté and false irenicism.5 However, the possible distortion of dialogue can be avoided if one has sincerity and commitment in conversing.6

2

CONCLUSION The call for “culture of dialogue” is not of new proposition- in the realm of doing theology. Committing to the promotion of dialogue is one of the hallmarks of the late pope John Paul II. The Vatican II indeed is mandating every local church to have a dialogue especially in the matter and context of diverse culture.7 The Federation of Asian Bishops Conference (FABC) is likewise recommending the need to evolve into integral process of genuine dialogue.8 In addition, the belief of the philosopher- Gabriel Marcel’s intersubjectivity assumes our sense of connectedness and collectiveness. This has also been profoundly asserted on Emmanuel Levinas’ responsibility from-to- the other. In such a way, our theological crafting based on our culture is indeed required an indispensable relationship and participation of persons as Karol Wojtyla viewed. As a result, its angles and dimensions of connectedness are anchored upon the authentic dialogue from within. The dynamic nature of our sense of connectedness depends upon on our personal response. This would attest on our authentic participation in the process of the exchange of gifts and blessings we received from God. What counts most therefore is on how Christian authenticity actively involve in the process- in living our sense of identity. To live is to evangelize.9 Self-commitment in dialogue is truly a core for authentic

theologizing.

3

1

Walter Kasper. Theology and Church. Claretian Publication: (Quezon City)., p. 44

2

Andrew Reception. East Asian Pastoral Review: Vol. 42, 2005, p. 79.

3

Ibid., p.80

4

Ibid.

5

Ibid., 82

6

Ibid.

7

James H. Kroeger. Becoming Local Church. Claretian Publication: Quezon City. 2003. p. 101

8

Ibid., 92

9

Ibid., 81