I have become a Republican

Pullman's His Dark Materials affected me, first and partly because of the sad end which I'll admit got to me bad because I was once in the same position as the characters found themselves in, and reading it brought back the same painful emotions. Not to mention it happened to the characters I've come to love, which was sad. It took me a sleepless night and the whole day after to get over that. Leaving the bitterness of the ending and looking back with the eyes my literature teacher trained us with, I've come to see the genius of the work (the sad ending only made the story better), which believe me I could talk about for hours.

But making me realize how amusingly useful my literature class is not what I meant about the story affecting me. It is that I, an admirer of universes conjured up by the imaginations of authors like Tolkien and Lewis, have found something else in Pullman's novels, something beyond the mere wonderful storytelling of a fairytale (which already is fantastic). It is the idea of the Republic of Heaven.

The idea hit me like a truck: it makes sense, plain and simple. I'm a Catholic, and for a time now also have been a vocal critic of the Church. I've come to the point where I'm fully devout, fully questioning the very foundations of the Church teachings. I've settled on the label "Agnostic", but make it clear I'm an Agnostic Catholic, reconciling both sides of my dual belief regarding religion. This is even what drew me to reading His Dark Materials in the first place, because of it's reputation as being Church-critical.

But now I've not only discovered a magnificent work of imagination, but encountered a 'philosophy' I've come to adopt, because like I said, it makes a whole lot of sense, and suddenly it just arranged my confused personal religious views into a coherent idea.

The idea of the Republic of Heaven is quite simple. It says that the Church focuses too much on the afterlife and that we must build our happiness in the here and now. It's not as blasphemous an idea as it sounds. The best way to sum it up is in through this quote which says "they tell the poor people that they must be content with their poverty, and they shall have their heaven hereafter. But why may we not have our heaven here (that is, a comfortable livelihood in the earth) and heaven hereafter too, as well as you?" Isn't that a valid question? my disoriented view on religion has just found it's foundation, and the structure it can build on at the same time.

Pullman's comments, manipulated to reflect my own, can show you what I mean. He says "The kingdom of heaven promised us certain things: it promised us happiness and a sense of purpose and a sense of having a place in the universe, of having a role and a destiny that were noble and splendid; and so we were connected to things. We were not alienated..." (I'm a Christian)"...I don’t think I will continue to live after I’m dead..." (My agnostic view of the afterlife)"...so if I am to achieve these things I must try to bring them about – and encourage other people to bring them about – on earth, in a republic in which we are all free and equal – and responsible – citizens." The end there just pretty much reconciled it together. Like I said, it's not blasphemous. Let me continue that statement:

"Now, what does this involve? It involves all the best qualities of things. We mustn’t shut anything out. If the Church has told us, for example, that forgiving our enemies is good, and if that seems to be a good thing to do, we must do it..." (Yes i agree religions serve as moral compasses) "...If, on the other hand, those who struggled against the Church have shown us that free inquiry and unfettered scientific exploration is good – and I believe that they have – then we must hold this up as a good as well..." (If the church says it's good, adopt it. if it says it's not, take a step back first before you shun it. Take the case of population control for example. A runaway population is clearly not good for the environment, yet the church refuses to reverse it's pro-life stance.)

It talks about making the world a better place. It talks about using all the good virtues to build Heaven here on Earth. Even I think God will like that. I will live my life, I will live it, here and now, and while I'm doing it, I'm striving to do good for the world - I'm a development studies student after all.

It's name even sounds cool. The Republic of Heaven should be built here, because where we are is always the most important place. And that's why now I'm proud to call myself a Republican Catholic, unfortunate it may be that whenever I say it people will always think of the American political party.

Now, the question is, will my new found philosophy that's clearly incredibly humanistic stand up to the most (in)famous theology teacher in Ateneo?