A step after Talcot Parsons

(Stefan Popski)

I would follow the tradition _ saying that philosophical questions require new and hopefully inspiring expression, but not a final decision _ in so far the philosophy is not a doctrine and it will never be, rather then an engagement which should be keep alive.
The formula of AGIL _ elaborated by Talcot Parsons _ in many ways could serve as a point of departure of a highly sophisticated research in contemporary social theory. Quite briefly it is so because of the possibility implied in this scheme to treat the problems of social life in entirely formal way.
Putting aside the disputes provoked by this formula, as well as it's extension given by the followers of the American sociologist in different branches of social theory, the scheme of AGIL could be regarded from the point of view of what it means to make a step after Talcot Parsons.
A step after Parson could be made either in anthropology _ taken as a rational discipline paying attention to the form of understanding based on arguments adhominem, but also it could be something even more general _ step in the field of philosophy.
Trying to make such a step I will interpretate Parson's theory from the point of view of the abstract procedures implied in the elaboration of the formula of AGIL. Quite briefly the guiding question could be put in this way: could this formula be regarded as a map of the social field _ as it claims? Perhaps it is the most important aspect in the Parson's theory _ it could be taken as an ideal for a coherent theoretical picture of the society, which as any map reflects the ideal of Reason for a something whole and complete.
It is obvious that the advantages of Parson's scheme are placed in its brief and concise character. It is simple and disciplined approach, based on fundamentals of logic _ or to be more precise on the contemporary understanding of the function and nature of proposition.
Before any further elaboration of the theme few words should be said about what is proposition, how it functions and why it is so significant: the proposition is a principle of projection of any given entity in the field of rational form.
The very engagement of establishing of a map _ it is a task in too many activities of mind and more precisely it is the way to project something _ whatever it is _ on the level of the rational form. If we regard a civilisation as a continuous process _ the emergency of the new forms of cultural life corresponds to the consolidation of one or another formal maps, which incorporate a the idea that some things could take place and some other things should be excluded as incomprehensible. What is possible could be a simple fact and in this case it will be instructive to pay attention of the formulas of science, which give us an understanding of a fact _ namely a fact _ it is something, which in no ways presupposes any activity from the side of human beings.
The importance of map _ follows from the ability of Reason to delineate an abstract field where the values of true and false have their own relevance. So we could say _ that all maps _ as far as they implied some rational basis could serve as a space or as a condition, making possible the procedure of demonstration. The logical values of true and false could serve as a shield against the monstrous complexity of the world around us.
In this way _ I will refer to something which could be understood as the most general feature of civilisation: what we call a civilisation _ it is something based on a requirement for demonstration. The requirement of demonstration refers to the relevance of the logical values of true or false as fundamental basis for whatever, which could be placed in the frames of rational form. The table of proposition could serve as such frame and the important point is that it gives a coherent space for the act of demonstration and because of this it can serve as criterion for belonging to civilisation.
In a quite similar way Parson's theory of social action and phenomena could be estimated in the horizon of the question _ is it possible to place any given entity on the map of AGIL? The map of AGIL serves as a scheme of a field in which what is given takes a character of a social Phenomenon.
To be conscious of a limitation is a principle of civilisation. A civilised field is delineated by terms. Quite similarly to the way in which the true or false are regarded as terms of civilisation from the point of view of logic _ as far as they form a square table _ we could estimate the formula of AGIL as a delineation of the field in which what is social could take place.
A step after Talcot Parsons means diving an interpretation of the terms of AGIL as constituents of the social field. It is rather extended interpretation _ in so far it refers not just to an action, but to any phenomenon, which has a social character.
I will interpretate the scheme of Parson, trying to give an answer to the question _ how it reflects basic requirement of the civilisation _ namely the requirement for a coherent space for a demonstration. The different constituents of this formula should be estimated from the point of view of their a priori validity.
Let's start with the first one _ Adaptation (A). In the constitution of the social field there should be a process of adaptation or fitting to the environment for whatever to become a social phenomenon. The point is that in the social field there is not such a thing as a rough material and it makes the difference between a social and natural phenomena. The same idea could be expressed in different words: a phenomenon can be regarded as having a social character because of an activity of putting some material into a some kind of form.
What could be demonstrated by adaptation? Adaptation _ it is a term that advocates the accordance of whatever placed in the social field to aesthetically understood golden rule. It means that a l l social phenomena are unified by a common logic and penetrated by a common principle.
Justifying the claims of Adaptation (A) for a validity, covering the whole area of the social field it should be said that it refers to a procedure of quasi _ generalisation. It means that everything in the social field has a social nature. It is a tautology _ to speak about adaptation and the acquired social nature of any given thing.
If we go further trying to estimate the significance of G (goal) as a term of the map of the social field _ once again we should proceed giving an interpretation t from the point of view of the ability to put boundaries, which is understood as a constituent of Reason. In the enormous complexity of the world around us the very possibility to trace a path or to regard something as an object means to put some limits or borders. Such a possibility is due to our capacity to put goals for ourselves. For us as human beings _ to understand something as a meaningful means to understand it from the point of view of its significance as a goal. It is entirely formal procedure with a priori validity.
Every single line on the map of the social space could be delineated just having in mind some goal _ in such a way we are able to follow a direction. But could the lines in the social space be deduced in a straightforward way? It should be put in different words _ are the lines of the social space visible as traces of someone's a priori activity of putting a goal for her/himself?
Perhaps once again we should refer to A (Adaptation). It is a requirement for a comprehension of whatever as a trace of someone's activity to catch it as something visible and real. An adaptation in so far it is not an procedure inabstracto requires a reference to some particular environment, serving as a limited horizon in which a meaningful action directed to an achievement of a goal could take place. Such a delineation is named by Talcot Parson as Latency (L). By L _ we could explain the fact that all the lines of the map of the social space form curves or isographs _ given the necessity for a transformation of purposes and goals, taking into account the restrictions of the environment. A meaningful social action is an action given the lack of unlimited resources. From the point of view of metaphysics L as a constituent of the map of the social field reflects the understanding that the world created by nothing is an idea entirely incomprehensible for a human mind. The lines in the social field form curves in so far _ it is an criterion to check whether in the course of a given action we are going too far or we still keep the things in a manageable scope. Having in mind G _ our ability to put for ourselves goals without paying any attention to any possible success _ which is so because of the character of morality _ we need an additional criterion to keep in mind to be able to arrange our endeavours in an agreeable way, which affords something to be achieved. This criterion has been referred as a Latency _ which means an ability to take in mind the resources, available for the achievement of some goal.
In the present context a question is arise _ could we regard the traces in the social space as if they follow form a ability of single agent to put goals for her/himself? Even if it is possible from the point of view of metaphysics of morality _ in the world of phenomena the traces in the social field should be regarded as a exemplification of a activity, taking place in a perspective, which could be named, following Kant, sensuscommunis.
The lines in the social space are delineated by a common action _ which requires a kind of agreement between people involved. This requirement places our efforts on the level of a common action which procedure is conceptualised by Talcot Parsons as an Integration (I). The importance of integration is due on the necessity to transform the questions of validity into questions of behaviour. Despite of the differences in cultural background shared by the agents of the social action, we are able to co-ordinate our activity, because of the purely formal perspective given by the ability to transform some values and opinions into a horizon on which we could orientate our actions as responsible social agents, acting together.
A meaningful social action is based on a mobilization of resources to achieve some goal, but it implies a form of communication, which purpose is reaching an agreement in which the process of integration has a vivid sense.
In the present context we face once again a dichotomy between the normative structures and limiting conditions. In this case the limiting horizon is put by the differences in cultural background. From quite general point of view the diversity in the background causes a problem, which could be or couldn't be overcome, but in all the cases it should be regarded from the perspective of a constitution, which makes possible the integration into groups of agents of social action.
Briefly _ trying to estimate the advantages of the theory of Talcot Parson it could be understood as an attempt to elaborate a comprehensive conceptual strategy, dealing with the problems of the social field in a formal way. The methodological aspect rendered by this theory should be summed in the elaboration of a map of the social field, theoretically constituted by dichotomies, following from the necessity to distinguish the normative structures from the limiting substratum.

Motivation - Action - Knowledge (Making it happen)

You must MAKe it happen, only you and no one else. In order to MAKe it happen, we will need to break it down into three parts: Motivation, Action and Knowledge. Some people understand that the number one key to achieving their success is action. Is action the first step or is it knowledge or perhaps even motivation? Action is well known as a number one key to success and it would seem rightly so. If you don't take any action, you're not going to get any results no matter how much motivation and knowledge you have. This is true, but it does not mean that action comes first; actually, motivation comes first. Motivation however is not the number one key to all success. Motivation is the number one constant to all success.

If you have a car and you get in it to drive, putting your foot on the gas pedal is action. Knowing how to drive the car is knowledge. Butwhat's going to happen if you have no fuel in your tank, no
motivation? You're going to end up pushing your car down the freeway of life. Why? Because you lack motivation. Everything starts with motivation; your car, your life, your action and your goals. You will not get up in the morning to exercise without first having the motivation to do so. So the first thing we want to do is be able to get motivated.

Motivation
Have you ever experienced days when you slowly wake up in the morning, slump out of bed and you're just not ready to go? Where's the clock? "Smack" you strike the snooze button for another 5 minutes of sleep. Then there are days when you wake up with lots of energy ready to take off. This flip of the coin is the result of motivation. Are we excited about getting started on something this morning or not? Motivation is obviously very important since it is the basis for all your decisions. If we want to take action, we need to know where our motivation comes from and how to maintain it.

How can you stabilize motivation? When you are born, you don't get a workbook for the brain and a 1-800 number for achieving success. In addition, the important aspects of our lives are not taught in school. They don't teach you how to survive in the real world, how the mind works, how the left brain and right brain correlate or how to recall. They don't teach how to get into states for better ways of performing at school. Motivation stimulants are important because we need to know what stimulates us, what is it that gets us going. What gives us vitality and energy to take action. One of those things is understanding why you do something. Ask specific questions such as: how will this help me? Find out all the reasons perhaps using the Pain Pleasure Principle: what will happen if you don't learn this and how will that make you feel? What will happen if you do learn this and how does that make you feel?

For example, you might be watching a commercial that gets you motivated to take up self-defense. You turn on the television and a gentleman comes out and says, "This could happen to you!" The screen shows Billy, a nice young man, getting beaten badly by a street thug. The camera pans back to the spokesperson who asks some very intense questions : "What will happen if you don't learn to defend yourself? How does that make you feel?" He then goes on to inform you that the chances of being attacked are the same for everyone."It doesn't matter where you work, where you live or who you are. The chances are equal that you could be attacked, mauled, beaten, molested, shot, or mugged. This is all a reality."

After a short pause the camera shows Billy returning to the same situation yet this time with the knowledge of Martial Science, he has learned to defend himself. With his new skill he takes care of the assailant with little difficulty and walks away happy and unharmed. The announcer comes back with one last blow to your emotions and says, "What if you could defend yourself, what if you knew in your heart and mind that you could protect yourself and others, how would that make you feel?"

Motivation can be based on how it makes you feel. If you feel frightened about not being able to protect yourself, it may be just enough motivation to get you going. So next time you are about to embark upon something and you want to dig up some reasons or motivational gas, you can ask yourself the following questions:

What will happen if I don't achieve this? How does that make me feel?

What will happen if I do achieve this? How does that make me feel?

This is called the Pain Pleasure Principle or PPP. By using the carrot and the stick, we can motivate ourselves to get up and go. Every decision we make is based on the Pain Pleasure Principle.When we are asked to make a decision, we ask ourselves if we associate pain or pleasure to the answer. If I ask you, "would you like to go jump the Grand Canyon with me next week?" Your brain might scream "PAIN" and you say, "no thanks." Or your brain might yell "EXCITING" and you say, "I'll be there." Or your brain might at first indicate "PAIN" and you
think, "no thanks, but wait...if I don't do it, I may lose my friends which is GREATER PAIN," and you say, "okay...I'll go."

The "don't" is a stronger motivation than the "do," i.e., pain is a greater motivator than pleasure. We will do more to avoid pain than we will do to gain pleasure.

To make this principle funny and easy to remember we can call it the Pee Pee Principle. What is Pee Pee? You guessed it, the urge to release your natural wonders. Think about it...you have pressure thatmakes you want to go and you have relief that gives you pleasure when you do. So when you want motivation all you have to do is link enough pain (build pressure) to not doing it and pleasure to doing it.

Motivating Goals
Have you ever had a new goal and woke up early in the morning totally excited to get started on it? Well that's one of the greatest ways to get going each day, have a goal. Get a goal that gets you out of bed. If you're still in bed and sleeping away the day, you have the knowledge but no motivation; you're a "lazy genius." If you have the motivation but no knowledge, you're an "excited idiot." Balance is the key.

Action
With the right amount of motivation, we have the drive to take action. Without action, nothing happens; there is no reaction. We take action before knowledge because to gain knowledge we have to experience and to experience, means we need to do something. You will not learn by sitting in the corner of your room all day. In order to make your life the way you want it you have to take action. Your life is your own movie and no movie is made with the director saying, "lights, camera, let's wait to see what happens."

Knowledge
Experience comes from the actions we take. If we make a plan, it is usually good to balance motivation with knowledge and then take action. However, experience is gained by failing and learning from it. None of us are born with this knowledge. We have to take action and learn from it. Intelligence is the ability to learn, ability to solve problems, the ability to grow, and the ability to survive. It is doing what you need to do, not simply knowing the square root of the world's circumference. Some people seem very intelligent, yet they can't peewithout a guidebook to tell them how to find the bathroom. People are intelligent when they do what they do to survive. There can be two highly intelligent people who know absolutely nothing about what the other one does. Does this make them any less intelligent? No, it would be foolish for them to waste time learning something they are not going to use to improve their lives. I believe that you need to get a black belt - that is, a black belt in what you do. If you're an accountant don't just be average, be a black belt accountant.

Stadium crowd pushes for Islamist dream

The BBC's Lucy Williamson reports from Indonesia, where tens of thousands of Islamists have gathered to push for the creation of a single state across the Muslim world. Hizb ut-Tahrir managed to fill the Gelora Bung Karno stadium

The dull roars of a football match, the twanging music of a youth group concert - from a distance it is not always easy to tell an Islamic conference from a holiday crowd. Inside Jakarta's Gelora Bung Karno stadium the clues get easier. There are about 100,000 people inside, and everyone is in Islamic dress. The women's section - by far the biggest - is a pitter-patter of ice-cream colours. On their parasols, one word is printed over and over again: Khilafah, caliphate. This is the reason why people have come here. To show their support for a single, unified, Islamic state. Maybe I chose Hizb ut-Tahrir because it unites the masses better than other Islamic organisation

Yani, Hizb ut-Tahrir member

They have been invited by the international Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. Not everyone believed they would fill the stadium, but Hizb ut-Tahrir is good at bringing in supporters - and keeping them. Milling around outside the stadium we found 24-year-old Akbar. He was not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but he said: "This conference is not just for one group. In my opinion, if you support there being sharia law in Indonesia, you've got to be here." Yani, a student from Bogor, said she had come to show there was support for Islam, and support for a Caliphate too. It can take several years to gain membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir

Next to her, Wisnu told us she was there to increase ties with other Muslims. "Maybe I chose Hizb ut-Tahrir because it unites the masses better than other Islamic organisations, " she said. But if the audience turnout was impressive, not so the speakers lined up to address the crowd. One by one, over the past few days, seven of the delegates invited to speak have dropped out. 'Uncommon democracy' One of those who did turn up to speak was Din Syamsuddin - an establishment figure rather than a firebrand, and leader of Indonesia's second largest Muslim organisation, Muhammadiyah. Many Hizb ut-Tahrir member are from Indonesia's middle class

But this was a conference that would like to overturn Indonesia's democratically elected government and install an Islamic state - so where does he stand on that? "I think democracy is OK," he said. "But it's not enough. I think democracy in Indonesia should be supported by religious, ethical and moral values." "Because this is a country where the majority of its citizens are religious people. So maybe not liberal democracy, but uncommon democracy; based on religious values - I say religious values, not necessarily Islamic values." There was a lot of speculation before this conference began about what kinds of messages would be reflected here. Hizb ut-Tahrir says it is not an extremist organisation: it does not have a paramilitary wing, and has never been charged with violence. But its hardline agenda and rhetoric, and its secretive recruitment process have won it many opponents. Educated classes Kholid has been a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Indonesia for six
years. He joined at college and says the teachings of the party have changed the way he views the West. "It comes as a matter of course," he told me. "I've come to believe that Muslims have the right to defend themselves when attacked, but we're not allowed to be aggressive against Westerners if they're not attacking us. "The method used in Hizb ut-Tahrir is a change in thought patterns. We call it 'thought revolution'. When someone is given Islamic teaching - given the brilliant thinking of Islam - then they'll naturally undergo a thought revolution, and will see what is good and what is bad." Hizb ut-Tahrir will not say how many members it has. But those close to the group say membership is extremely difficult to win - often taking several years. Unlike many other Islamist movements here, Hizb ut-Tahrir seems less interested in a broad mass following than a smaller more committed core of members, many of them drawn from Indonesia's educated middle classes. The organisation has only been operating openly in Indonesia for seven years. The conference is one sign that its doing well.

EENS- Penting Buat Orang Katolik

Dokumen yang dikeluarkan Kongregasi Doktrin Iman (CDF) baru-baru ini haruslah dilihat dalam konteks Konsili Vatikan II dalam hal ini Lumen Gentium serta beberapa dokumen KV II lain seperti "Unitatis redintegratio" (soal ekumenisme), atau Ensiklik Paus Paulus VI "Ecclesiam Suam" dan dari Johannes Paulus II "Ut Unum Sint".

Dokumen yang dikeluarkan CDF ini hanyalah berupa penegasan/penjelasa n dari dokumen-dokumen yang disebut diatas. Dokumen ini dikeluarkan dan ditandatangani oleh Kongregasi Doktrin dan Iman yang diketuai Kardinal Levada. Maka, jelas keluar dari konteks kalau dokumen ini semata-mata diattribusikan kepada pribadi seorang Paus Benedictus XVI, karena pokok-pokok yang ada dan disebut/dijelaskan dalam dokumen tersebut sudah muncul sejak Konsili Suci lebih dari 40 tahun yang lalu.

Perlulah ditegaskan bahwa Konsili Vatikan II TIDAK menyatakan bahwa “Di Luar Gereja ada Keselamatan”. Yang dinyatakan dalam Konsili Vatikan II adalah bahwa mereka yang tidak mengenal Kristus dan GerejaNya tetap berada di dalam rencana keselamatan Allah (bdk Lumen Gentium art.16). Mereka dapat memperoleh keselamatan apabila secara tulus hidup seturut kehendak Sang Pencipta, dan berusaha hidup baik (artinya: mau bekerjasama dengan rahmat Allah). KV II menyebutkan dengan jelas bahwa Yesus Kristus lewat GerejaNya adalah mediator/sarana keselamatan yang satu dan unik.(bdk Lumen Gentium art.14).

Soal “Di Luar Gereja Tidak Ada Keselamatan” (EENS), bolehlah saya ikut menyumbangkan beberapa point pemikiran :

1. Tentunya EENS haruslah pertama-tama dipahami dalam kerangka “IMAN KATOLIK”, dan doktrin gereja, BUKAN dalam konteks relasi atau dialog antar agama. Konsili Vatikan II (dalam Konstitusi Dogmatik tentang Gereja: Lumen Gentium) sudah menegaskan kepada UMAT KATOLIK bahwa Yesus Kristus lewat GerejaNya adalah mediator/sarana keselamatan yang satu dan unik. Dan satu-satunya juru selamat kita itu ada dalam Yesus Kristus. Lagi-lagi ini soal iman, dan ini tidak bisa begitu saja dibaca dalam konteks relasi/dialog antar agama. Dokumen baru yang dikeluarkan Kongregasi Doktrin dan Iman beberapa hari lalu pun juga harus dipahami dalam konteks dan semangat yang sama.

2. Dengan demikian EENS tetaplah valid dan berlaku sepanjang segala masa. Inilah IMAN KATOLIK. Maka kalau ada umat katolik yang menolak atau tidak setuju dengan EENS saya kira ini hanya pertama-tama dilatarbelakangi karena ketidaktahuan dan kurangnya pemahaman yang tepat soal EENS. Sebaliknya, ada umat katolik yang justru jatuh dalam fanatisme sempit ketika “memaksakan” doktrin dan keyakinan iman ini kepada orang lain.

3. Lantas bagaimana dengan umat yang tidak mengenal Kristus dan GerejaNya? Lumen Gentium sudah memberi jawaban yang jelas. Apa itu? Mereka yang tidak mengenal Kristus dan GerejaNya tetap berada di dalam rencana keselamatan Allah (bdk Lumen Gentium art.16). Mereka dapat memperoleh keselamatan apabila secara tulus hidup seturut kehendak Sang Pencipta, dan berusaha hidup baik (artinya: mau bekerjasama dengan rahmat Allah). Tentunya Penyelenggaraan ilahi ataupun karya Roh Kudus bekerja dan berkenan memberi rahmat keselamatan kepada mereka. Namun perlu diperhatikan bahwa Lumen Gentium Konsili Vatikan II tidak menyatakan bahwa agama-agama lain ini menjadi sarana keselamatan. Tetapi, ini tidak bisa diterjemahkan bahwa mereka tidak diselamatkan.

Kardinal Ratzinger, dalam notifikasinya kepada Pater Dupuis, SJ pada tahun 2001 juga menyebutkan dengan jelas:

“….It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions; However, to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in catholic theology….”.

Berkaitan dengan Gereja/komunitas kristiani yang tidak dibawah Paus, Lumen Gentium menunjukkan sikap yang sangat positif:

“They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”

Kalau menengok pada naskah dokumen yang dikeluarkan CDF ataupun juga Lumen Gentium, kata "subsist in" mungkin menjadi kata kunci yang menarik untuk dibahas disini. Konsili Vatikan II dengan jelas memilih kata ini dengan maksud bahwa Gereja Kristus "hadir/berada secara penuh" dalam Gereja Katolik, dan di sisi lain menghargai bahwa ada elemen2 kebenaran dan kesucian dalam Gereja/komunitas Kristen lain yang merupakan bagian dari Gereja Kristus yang dimana elemen itu berada secara penuh dalam Gereja Katolik (mohon dicatat bahwa kalimat ini adalah usaha saya untuk menterjemahkan apa yang tertulis dalam dokumen ke dalam bahasa yang lebih mudah dipahami. Kalau ada ketidaktepatan penterjemahan mohon dikoreksi). Secara "penuh" ini tentunya mengacu pada Gereja yang SATU, KUDUS, KATOLIK dan APOSTOLIK.

Perlu dicatat pula bahwa dokumen CDF yang baru ini memberi penekanan pada hal sbb:

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"

Bisa diartikan bahwa walaupun dalam konsep iman katolik kita Gereja-gereja dan komunitas lain memiliki "kekurangan" seperti yang kita pahami dalam iman kita sebagai sebuah GEREJA,mereka tetap berada dalam rencana misteri keselamatan Allah, dan Roh Kristus sendiri tidak akan terhalangi untuk memakai mereka sebagai sarana keselamatan yang nilai dan keutamaannya ditimba dari rahmat dan kebenaran yang diwariskan kepada Gereja Katolik.


Orang lantas bisa bertanya, “kalau semua orang diselamatkan, lantas apa keunikan dari Gereja?”

Iman pada Kristus tentunya merupakan sebuah rahmat yang istimewa dan kita sebagai orang katolik percaya dan yakin bahwa jalan keselamatan dan ajaran iman yang dibawa Yesus sendiri tetap dilestarikan dan dihayati seturut Kitab Suci dan Tradisi yang dimulai dari Gereja perdana di bawah pimpinan tahta Santo Petrus (bdk. Lumen Gentium art. 14). Dalam Gereja Katolik-lah kita percaya bahwa jalan keselamatan yang dirintis oleh Yesus menjadi jalan yang harus kita ikuti. Sekali lagi ini soal iman. Dalam Gereja Katolik, dibawah pimpinan Bapa Suci, kita mendapatkan petunjuk dan juga bimbingan untuk menghayati dan menekuni panggilan hidup kita di dunia ini seturut iman kita pada Yesus Kristus, dan dari sisi inilah, dalam Gereja Katolik, kita percaya bahwa semangat dan juga cara hidup jemaat perdana dalam imannya pada Yesus Kristus diteruskan turun temurun; dan juga bahwa soal iman katolik bukanlah melulu soal kesalehan pribadi. Iman katolik haruslah dihayati dan dipahami dalam konteks “Gereja”, menghayati kitab suci dan tradisi, bawah pimpinan Tahta Suci. Inilah arti mendasar bahwa “di luar Gereja tidak ada keselamatan”.

Di sini saya mau menggarisbawahi bahwa iman katolik itu perlulah dihayati dalam konteks Gereja sebagaimana terlihat dalam semangat Gereja perdana. Artinya kebersamaan dalam Gereja dengan pimpinannya yang adalah pewaris/penerus Tahta Apostolik Santo Petrus itu merupakan hal yang esensial dalam Iman Katolik. Soal ini sudah jelas ada dalam "AKu Percaya" yang selalu kita ikrarkan dan nyatakan tiap perayaan ekaristi hari minggu. Dengan demikian, memahami ajaran/doktrin iman katolik sebagai kesetiaan pada iman katolik berarti juga menaruh kepercayaan dan menghormati pimpinan Gereja. Sekali lagi ini soal iman, karena kita percaya bahwa roh kudus bekerja di dalam Gereja. Kita perlu selalu percaya bahwa roh kudus akan membukakan hati kita untuk dapat menerima terang kebenaran yang diwartakan dalam doktrin iman atau percaya bahwa roh kudus senantiasa berkarya di dalam Gereja.

Dokumen ini juga ditujukan kepada UMAT KATOLIK dan mau menanggapi paham yang ada di antara sebagian UMAT KATOLIK yang berpendapat bahwa Gereja-Gereja lain adalah sama saja dengan Gereja Katolik, “that one church is as good as another and that the one you belong to really doesn’t matter”. Dalam Doktrin dan penghayatan Iman Katolik, pendapat ini sangat tidak tepat.

Sekali lagi saya mau menegaskan bahwa soal EENS ini tidak bisa dibaca sebagai sebuah argument/cara untuk mengkotak-kan umat beragama selain katolik. Ada sebagian umat katolik yang bersikukuh bahwa EENS (karena valid dan berlaku sepanjang masa dan merupakan kebenaran iman katolik) menjadi senjata yang ampuh bila berhadapan dengan serangan dari agama-agama lain berkaitan dengan paham teologis. Paham EENS biasanya juga menjadi argument ampuh para apologis untuk mengcounter serangan2 dari pihak protestan. Bagi saya ini keliru besar, dan merupakan sikap yang tidak berguna sama sekali. Ini soal iman, dan soal doktrin kebenaran iman tidaklah bisa dipaksakan atau diyakinkan melulu lewat argumentasi. Soal iman adalah soal pengalaman eksperiensial dengan Allah sendiri dan sesama. Tidak banyak berguna meyakin-yakinkan orang lain atau berargumentasi ngotot-ngototan dengan mereka yang bukan katolik bahwa EENS itu valid dan benar, dan bahwa mereka tidak akan selamat karena tidak bergabung dengan Gereja Katolik atau tidak percaya pada Kristus.

Kesaksian kita untuk setia dalam iman katolik dan nilai-nilai kebaikan yang diajarkanNya justru saya yakin menjadi sebuah jalan masuk yang baik untuk menumbuhkan kehidupan dan nilai-nilai hidup bersama, sekaligus kesaksian iman kristiani kita. Saya kira ini lebih positif karena dengan demikian kita pun mengusahakan keselamatan bersama dan bekerja sama dengan Roh Kudus dalam Karya Keselamatan.

Jadi, tidak perlu berdebat atau bersikukuh bahwa orang lain tidak selamat. Perkara keselamatan adalah rahmat kemurahan Tuhan sendiri (bdk. Lumen Gentium art.16). Kita hanya diajak untuk berpartisipasi di dalamnya lewat kesaksian hidup kita sebagai orang yang beriman katolik, bukan berseru-seru bahwa mereka yang tidak dalam Gereja Katolik akan binasa. Ini namanya menakut-nakuti, intimidasi dan diskriminasi serta bisa disebut kekerasan. Jelas ini bukan sikap kristiani yang baik.

4. Konsili Vatikan II dalam Nostra Aetate (NA) secara jelas memberi penghargaan terhadap agama-agama lain. NA memberi titik pijak sekaligus ajakan bagi segenap umat katolik untuk berdialog dan bekerja sama dengan umat dari agama lain. Ini sebuah ajakan yang sangat simpatik dari Gereja Katolik kepada umatnya dan ini sudah dimulai sejak 42 tahun yang lalu. Dari titik ini kita bisa bicara soal dialog dengan agama-agama lain. Disebutkan dalam NA bahwa Gereja Katolik tidak menolak apa yang benar dan baik seperti tercermin dalam agama-agama lain, dan juga mengakui bahwa dalam agama2 lain tersirat keinginan untuk mencari nilai-nilai hidup dan hakekat hidup manusia yang sejati.

5. Dalam Nostra Aetate disebutkan: Gereja menyerukan kepada umat katolik bahwa hanya lewat dialog dan kerjasama dengan umat dari agama lain, tentunya dengan sikap bijak, cinta kasih dan sebagai kesaksian atas iman kristiani dan juga nilai-nilai kehidupan, kita dapat memperjuangkan kebaikan bersama, nilai-nilai hidup, spiritual dan moral dan sekaligus mengembangkan nilai-nilai social budaya yang baik di antara umat beriman. Nostra Aetate juga menegaskan bahwa Gereja menolak diskriminasi berdasarkan agama

Dari 5 points yang saya urai di atas saya harap bisa membantu anda semua untuk memahami EENS. Saya terus terang kecewa kalau ada umat katolik yang getol diskusi EENS dengan motivasi yang keliru dan pemahaman yang tidak tepat, dan lebih cenderung jatuh pada fanatisme sempit.

Diskusi soal EENS beberapa waktu ini cukup marak di milis-milis katolik, bahkan sebelum munculnya dokumen baru dari CDF. Ada dugaan, saya kira diskusi EENS ini mungkin salah satunya dilatarbelakangi oleh kegemaran baru sebagian umat katolik Indonesia akhir-akhir dalam membaca “kesaksian” pengalaman iman tokoh yang pindah agama menjadi katolik. Bukunya menjadi kegemaran baru bacaan sebagian umat katolik Indonesia, seperti terungkap di berbagai milis-milis katolik. Jelas, umat katolik perlu lebih kritis dan berhati-hati dalam membaca buku-buku sejenis, dan penerbit/penterjema h perlu berhati-hati dalam mempublikasi buku-buku serupa dalam konteks Gereja Katolik Indonesia. Mohon dicatat bahwa saya memakai kata “kritis” dan “berhati-hati” . Tentunya kata ini dipilih secara sadar untuk tidak menimbulkan kesan bahwa saya “tidak setuju” atau mengusulkan “pelarangan” berkaitan dengan buku-buku tersebut. Samasekali tidak demikian. Untuk hal ini saya harap saya bisa menulis tentangnya di waktu lain. Di sisi lain, nampaknya kehadiran kelompok-kelompok “konservatif” atau “self-proclaimed apologists” (begitu biasanya mereka menyebut dirinya) seperti www.ekaristi. org dan beberapa website yang berkaitan dengannya, dalam dinamika Gereja Katolik Indonesia mulai sedikit menunjukkan eksistensi dan pengaruhnya lewat media internet. Tentunya ini dinamika yang perlu dicermati juga.

Banyak media massa yang menulis soal dokumen dari CDF ini dengan tidak tepat. Misalnya saja, artikel dari Sydney Morning Herald, yang berjudul "You are not real churches, Pope says to Protestants" , saya berpendapat bahwa inilah sebuah contoh penulisan berita yang sensasional dan misleading dari media massa.

Di dalam Judul ditulis dengan gamblang : YOU are not real Churches: Pope says to PROTESTANTS (huruf besar dan penebalan saya tambahkan)

Ini jelas-jelas judul yang sensasional, bombastis, dan tendensius sekaligus mengandung kekeliruan mendasar. mengapa demikian??

1. Dokumen yang baru itu dikeluarkan oleh CDF dan ditandatangani oleh Kardinal Levada. Jadi mengatakan "Pope says....." itu sebuah penulisan yang tidak tepat dan sangat menyimpang (alias dipelintir). Pertanyaan saya: mengapa Paus yang satu ini disegani banyak orang dan selalu menjadi sasaran media, baik sebelum dan setelah diangkat menjadi Paus? Orang Katolik perlu berhat-hati dalam membaca berita dari media massa soal Paus Benedictus XVI. Saya pribadi melihat seringkali beritanya menjadi sensasional dan mendiskreditkan pribadi Paus dan tak jarang sebagian umat katolik terpengaruh. Kalau anda membaca pemikiran beliau lewat buku-bukunya anda akan tahu betapa cemerlang dan visioner pemikiran beliau soal Gereja Katolik dan dunia.

2. Dokumen tersebut ditujukan untuk ORANG KATOLIK atau lebih khususnya para teolog katolik. Maka sangat tidak tepat mengatakan "Pope says to Prostestants" . CDF tidak urusan dengan umat beragama non-katolik, dan dokumen yang dikeluarkannya tidak ditujukan untuk umat protestant.


Goenawan Muhammad pun dalam Majalah Tempo juga jatuh dalam kekeliruan yang typical dilakukan media-media barat dalam menuliskan berita-berita soal Vatikan/Gereja Katolik. Sangat memalukan bahwa orang sekaliber GM menulis soal “tidak ada keselamatan di luar Gereja” tanpa merujuk dokumen-dokumen Konsil Vatikan II lebih dulu, khususnya Lumen Gentium dalam kaitannya soal pemahaman dokumen “Dominus Iesus” dan dokumen yang baru dari Kongregasi Doktrin dan Iman. Ketelitian jurnalismenya dalam kesempatan ini mungkin bisa dipertanyakan, apalagi bila melihat tulisannya, sangat terkesan bahwa GM tidak memahami konteks dari doktrin tersebut. Beliau pun mengutip Bulla “Cantate Domino” tanpa melihat konteks/isi bulla secara menyeluruh. Bulla itu dikeluarkan dengan latar belakang munculnya sekte-sekte sesat Kristen pada masa itu seperti manikeanisme dan arianisme. Dalam Bulla itu Paus berbicara soal orang-orang yang mendengar, mengetahui dan meyakini Gereja Kristus dan kabar gembiraNya tetapi tetap menolak untuk bersatu denganNya dalam GerejaNya atau memiliki tafsiran sendiri lepas dari kebersamaan dengan Gereja. Entah orang-orang pagan, yahudi, kelompok sesat, kalau ada dalam situasi yang demikian ini (sudah mendengar, mengetahui dan meyakini Gereja Kristus dan kabar gembiraNya tetapi menolak untuk tinggal di dalamNya) maka dia tidak akan diselamatkan. Paus TIDAK berbicara sama sekali soal mereka yang TIDAK pernah mengenal dan menerima Injil dan GerejaNya. Soal konteks ini penting, dan GM rupanya tidak memperhatikan konteks dokumennya tetapi hanya jatuh pada soal redaksional Bulla tersebut. Dokumen CDF yang baru pun tidak berbicara bahwa orang-orang di Gereja lain tidak diselamatkan. Agaknya GM tidak/belum atau tidak teliti membaca dokumen baru CDF ini. Mungkin hanya baca dari media massa saja tanpa melihat dokumen aslinya. GM jelas tidak melihat point penting yang ada dalam dokumen CDF yang baru:

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"


Tidak sedikit orang katolik yang membaca berita soal vatikan dan Gereja Katolik HANYA dari mediamassa tanpa membaca dokumen original ataupun penjelasan dari pihak yang kredibel. Kutipan-kutipan yang keliru dan keluar dari konteks adakalanya lebih sensasional tetapi di sisi lain mengaburkan makna dari dokumen itu sendiri. Contoh lebih jauh, dalam media lain disebut bahwa Orang protestant tidak akan selamat. Ini jelas-jelas keliru karena dokumennya sendiri tidak bicara demikian dan justru bicara sebaliknya. Kutipan di atas sudah menjelaskannya.

Lalu bagaimana memahami konteks dokumen baru dari CDF ini?

Cara mudah dan sederhana untuk membayangkan konteks dokumen ini adalah sbb:

bayangkan suatu saat ada orang katolik yang bilang: "bagi saya semua Gereja sama saja, sama baiknya. Maka ke Gereja manapun tidak masalah sejauh berdoa pada Kristus"

Lalu pihak Vatikan menjawab: "oh tunggu dulu!. Tidak demikian menurut IMAN KATOLIK yang kita hayati. Gereja yang kita hayati adalah Gereja yang SATU, KUDUS, KATOLIK dan APOSTOLIK. Ini adalah unsur2 pokok Gereja Kristus, dan umat katolik kan meyakini hal itu seperti terungkap dalam Credo/Aku Percaya. Artinya Gereja Kristus adalah Gereja yang dipimpin oleh Tahta Santo Petrus yaitu di bawah Bapa Suci sendiri: Gereja Katolik. Inilah Iman Katolik kita"....dst dst.... sesuai penjelasan dalam dokumennya.. .. :)

Apakah bila ada orang katolik yang berpendapat demikian lalu anda berharap bahwa vatikan seharusnya menjawab "oh betul...semua Gereja sama baiknya dan tidak ada bedanya karena kita sama-sama beriman dalam Kristus. Oleh sebab itu anda bebas kemanapun pergi ke Gereja sebagai orang katolik. Kita kan atas dasar cinta kasih, maka welcome dan demi hubungan baik anda dipersilahkan dan dianjurkan untuk sering-sering pada hari minggu berdoa di Gereja lain, sekaligus sebagai outreach activity Gereja Katolik, dan mengenal liturgi Gereja lain sekaligus berdialog dengan mereka"
Apakah anda mengharapkan jawaban yang kurang lebih demikian??

silakan pilih sendiri mau "jawaban vatikan" model yang mana......

mudah-mudahan illustrasi ini sedikit membantu.

Di sisi lain, ada sebagian orang yang berpendapat bahwa walaupun dokumen CDF ini adalah soal doktrin iman dan ditujukan kepada umat katolik khususnya para teolog, mereka cenderung agar penggunaan bahasa yang positif dan toleran hendaknya sedemikian rupa perlu dikedepankan.

Saya bisa setuju dan bisa tidak alias tidak bisa hitam putih mengatakan setuju dan tidak setuju. Kalau penggunaan bahasa yang positif hanya semata-mata demi sikap "politically correct" saya jelas menolaknya. Soal doktrin IMAN harus dijauhkan dari "politically correct attitude". Pimpinan Gereja memiliki tanggungjawab untuk menekankan pokok-pokok iman katolik dan memberikan sebuah pendirian yang jelas berkaitan dengannya. Politically correct attitude bukanlah sebuah sikap yang tepat dalam hal ini.

Kalau dokumen ini menimbulkan ketidaksetujuan ataupun ketidakpuasan dari kalangan orang katolik sendiri, mungkin kita semua perlu menempatkan dokumennya pada konteks yang tepat. Artinya, dokumen ini harus dibaca sebagai sebuah doktrin iman. Apakah doktrin iman ini bisa disebut doktrin yang "fanatic" dan sempit? TIDAK. Kita berbicara soal apa yang kita imani. Sedangkan di sisi lain untuk soal relasi dengan umat lain kita bisa mengacu pada dokumen lain yang misalnya tetap memberi penghargaan dan hormat pada umat beragama lain, bahkan Gereja Katolik menyerukan pada umatnya untuk bekerjasama dengan mereka. 2 hal ini harus dibedakan. Soal iman adalah soal iman, dan ini bukan soal kesombongan.

Lain soal, Dialog antar umat beragama ataupun ekumenisme pun harus dimulai dari sikap untuk menghargai apa yang diimani oleh kelompok lain. Kalau kita tidak menyatakann dengan jelas apa yang kita imani, sulit nampaknya melakukan dialog yang tulus dan jujur dengan umat lain. Itu hanya akan jatuh sekali lagi pada semata-mata soal "politically correct attitude"... .alias basa-basi dan dangkal.


Regards,

Joseph

Segala Sesuatu adalah Agama

Seorang Pengkhotbah dari Amerika bertanya kepada seorang pelayan restoran di Beijing arti agama bagi orang Cina.

Pelayan itu mengajaknya ke luar ke balkon dan bertanya, "Apa yang bapak lihat?"

"Saya melihat jalan, rumah dan orang berjalan serta bus dan taksi mondar mandir."

"Apa lagi?"

"Pohon-pohon."

"Apa lagi?"

"Angin yang berhembus."

Orang Cina itu merentangkan tangannya dan berseru, "Itulah agama!"

Engkau mencarinya dengan cara seseorang mencari penglihatan dengan mata terbuka! Begitu jelas sampai sulit dilihat.


Anthony de Mello, SJ Doa Sang Katak 2

Terpaksa Menggunakan Otak

Dengan bantuan PETUNJUK PEMAKAIAN seorang wanita selama berjam-jam mencoba merakit alat rumah tangga yang rumit, yang baru saja ia beli. Akhirnya ia menyerah dan membiarkan bagian-bagian alat itu terserak di maje dapur.

Bayangkan, betapa ia terkejut ketika beberapa jam kemudian ia kembali dan menemukan alat itu sudah dirakit oleh pembantunya dan bekerja dengan sempurna.

"Bukan main, bagaimana engkau mengerjakannya?" serunya.

"Ah ibu, kalau orang tidak dapat membaca, dia terpaksa menggunakan otaknya," jawabnya tenang.


Anthony de Mello, SJ
"Doa Sang Katak 2"