Home 
Umberto Eco, in his book “Kant and the Platypus,” gives what for me is the best example to illustrate the limit of human awareness. I am retelling from memory, not quoting. But imagine if you will: you are watching an artwork in a museum. You see the artwork, make your observations and begin reading the artwork at various levels, its meanings, perhaps. By yourself, there is no problem defining the artwork. You can tell by and for yourself what it is. The problem occurs only when somebody else comes around and the both of you begin talking about what you see. If it is a complex artwork, it is most likely the both of you will see differently. In the end, if it must be decided what the thing really is, the both of you will have to discuss and even argue the point. Certainly you must have to negotiate a resolution between yourselves.
This story does not end there. It was meant as a preamble to show how truly ambiguous all definitions and meanings are. The root of the problem is that we need words to define anything at all. And words have an intrinsic limit for doing this. Words may not mean the same to everyone. In fact, the meanings that we have for words is not part of the word itself but results simply from a running agreement between people as to what a word really means, much the same way as two people in a museum might come to a negotiated agreement as to what an artwork is. This problem is compounded by the fact that words also grow in meaning or change over time. And because words are the only instrument we have for negotiating meaning, are the only containers we have for thought, and because thoughts are the building blocks of human awareness, then we can safely assume and come to understand the limit of awareness. We cannot be too sure of anything.
I needed this thought today in order to resolve an issue that came about after a German friend texted me weeks ago that the Catholic Church was at the root of much of the poverty in this country. This is not a strange assertion. Indeed, it is one I cannot help but bump into at almost predictable intervals. Usually, but not exclusively, it comes from a foreigner who comes to visit for such sufficient time as to make that conclusion. My German friend had grown up in East Berlin and thus, did not grow up with a Catholic mindset as I did. Indeed, I can safely conclude the Marxist-socialist mindset would have been native to him. Notwithstanding, he grew up to rebel against communism and was, like most of his people, instrumental for the eventual fall of the infamous Berlin Wall.
This background should give him some amount of disinterest where this issue is concerned, and, offhand, I would say he makes a good point, especially where the issue of population is concerned. There are, of course, other issues besides this to bolster his claim. Yet, my own personal background had also put me near activist priests who had worked very hard, in fact more than anybody else I knew, to address the poverty issue, especially in the times of martial law. Their persuasions may have been variegated. A few were communist ideologists. The greater number was not. All of them were organizers. All of them expressed their commitment to fight against poverty and injustice within the context of their strong Catholic faith. Thus, I must wonder about my German friend’s claim.
I resolve this issue by qualifying the complicity of Catholicism to the present condition of poverty. This complicity must be put inside the historical perspective. True, Catholicism was the target of attack by critics like Jose Rizal in the end of the 1800s. Yet, by the time of martial law, it was also Catholicism that produced the patriots who brought Marcos’ reign to an end. If the problem of poverty would ever be addressed in this country, the institution of the Catholic Church would most likely have to be there to bring about change.
Of course, I would be foolish to believe that the difference between my German friend and I would be as easily resolved. The position of Catholicism relative to the condition of poverty in our country is one that would have to be talked about and negotiated over time both by believers and non-believers. For now, it would be a hopeful sign if Catholics began to take seriously the impact of their faith on the general social condition. The impact is there. That much we can be certain just as surely as the two guys in the museum can be sure there is the artwork in front of them. What the artwork means is something else. For Catholics, now is a good time to dwell on the issue of our neighbors who are poor. For after all, Christ asked us to “love our neighbors as we would ourselves.” The issue of poverty is certainly at the center of that request. Although it might arguably help, there are issues that will not go away by prayer alone.
