Fools rush in when good men do nothing
What is the difference between a good man who does nothing and an evil man who tries to do something useful to address a problematic situation? Which is a better person: a bad man for a long time, who now decides to do a good thing for a change, or a good man for so many years, who now commits one grievous and serious evil act ? These are philosophical questions that come to mind when we remember the late Jaime Cardinal Sin who said once, that if a notorious gambling lord decides to donate a large sum of money to the Church, he would accept the same and give it all to the poor. The other bishops firmly declared that receiving donations from ''sinners'' would implicitly give an imprimatur to their ''sins." Is this then the official stand of the Church?
And so, would religious leaders today rather allow the thousands of starving poor to eventually get sick due to poverty, or die of starvation, simply because the Church would never accept help from gambling lords, drug lords, kidnappers, and carnappers? Or would the Church dare to receive help from any ''polluted'' sources just to save lives of human beings? ? If you are a church leader, or an official leading and managing the operations of a charitable NGO's, would you adopt as a policy that your organization should never accept help from "questionable" personalities ? These questions are moral and ethical issues that must be reflected on this season of Lent.
If a son is seriously sick and the penniless father steals one small loaf of bread and medicine to remedy both the child's hunger and disease, would society condemn the man? Would society insist that the father should find a job, earn honest money to buy food and medicine for his son? Which is more reprehensible in the eyes of God, the father who uses a sinful means to achieve a noble end, or the pretentious human society that merely condemns the poor and hopeless father but refuses to help him and his son? Which is more abominable to the divine judgment, the poor father who is trying to save his son, or the politicians who steal millions from the money intended for the poor?
The Bible itself presented some hypothetical situations. When your neighbors have nothing to eat, or have no clothing to save them from the extreme cold or the extreme heat, would it be enough for you to verbalize your mercy and compassion by promising to pray for them? Wouldn't it be better that you give them food to eat and clothing to protect them from the elements, instead of just promising them prayers? Would not the rich millionaires have more accountability to the people, if they earn their millions by grabbing lands from the poor, cheating their workers of their wages, and blatantly evading taxes, while ravaging the environment and stealing the country's national patrimony?
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Injustice abounds because many of the rich do not care. They have a lot of money to gamble in casinos, to go on world tours but they have neither time or intention to visit a neighbor who is dying. They change cars like they change their shirts but they do not even help in community outreach programs. The people have become too self-centered and materialistic. Success is measured solely in terms of material possessions and financial standards. Ours is a country that has lost its social conscience and soul. We have lost our loving feeling, and we have no more compassion.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Lord told of a priest and a Levite who both refused to help a badly injured man who was dying alongside the road. It was a Samaritan, a '' second class'' citizen, the most unlikely person to do such a helpful act, who took the effort, and spent his hard-earned money in order to help a man whom he did not even know. Today, in the midst of too much sufferings, how many of our rich and powerful citizens opt to remain unmindful of the pains of the people? I submit that the greatest sin of man is not murder, kidnapping, or rape. It is the vain refusal to extend a helping hand.
- Latest
