If you see a little child crying alone in the middle of the playground, will you have the heart to make him sing? Will you even dare ask him to dance? If you see a crying child anywhere, the first thing you should do is to comfort the child. Ask him what makes him sad. Wipe his tears. And perhaps make him smile. But to ask him to dance again and again (while he continued crying) for ten thousand pesos? Regardless of the amount, that’s a gross display of insensitivity.
In an episode of the show “Willing Willie”, a teary-eyed 6-year-old child repeatedly danced like a macho dancer with the consent –and encouragement- of the host Willie Revillame. Much has already been said about that episode. But the most basic issue here is insensitivity. The child was already crying even before he danced. The first thing that any sensitive person should have done was to ask the child why he was crying. Which was exactly what Willie did. “Ba’t ka naiyak?(Why are you crying?)” he asked. When the child did not reply, Willie just kissed him affectionately. That was very sweet of him. But the sweet guy soon morphed into an insensitive idiot. After seeing the child dance like a macho dancer, Willie asked him to do it again and again. Asking a crying child to dance just once was bad enough. But to make him do it again and again? That’s a gross display of insensitivity! Anything like this shouldn’t be sold as a form of entertainment. This alone is already enough reason for the MTRCB to act. This alone is a reason for the public to be outraged.
“It looks like people took it for what it was until somebody injected malice to it,” said Atty. Leonard De Vera, Willie Revillame’s lawyer, referring to the “Willing Willie” episode. But the first person to inject malice into it was Willie Revillame himself. In that same episode, Willie made this comment: “ Ganyan na ho ang hirap ng buhay ng tao, Si Jan-Jan syempre nagsasayaw sya bilang isang macho dancer sa edad nyang ‘yan para sa kanyang mahal na pamilya (That’s how difficult life is nowadays, Jan-Jan is dancing like a macho dancer at his age for his beloved family).” This comment is an acknowledgement of the unflattering nature of a macho dancer’s job. Willie knew – and even reminded the audience about it – that being a macho dancer is so unflattering that only impoverished men are compelled to take on that profession. And still he made the child repeatedly dance like one! But that wasn’t the end of it. He made another malicious comment. “Para syang yung pelikulang burlesk queen na lumuluha pa (It’s like the part in the movie ‘Burlesk Queen’ where the dancer was crying),” Willie said. “Kaya nya ginagawa yun para sa pamilya nya (She’s doing it for her family).” Clearly, Willie knew – and even reminded his audience about it– that dancing provocatively like a burlesque queen was so humiliating that the ones doing it even cry. Yet he made the child dance repeatedly that way! And now, Willie’s defenders are wondering where the malice came from? “But he was just joking,” some might say. Of course he was. But that only makes the act more deplorable. Not only did he ridicule the impoverished macho dancers and strippers (What the hell is so funny about a weeping stripper?), he also tastelessly made fun of the child and his poverty.
Make no mistake. I don’t intend to persecute macho dancers and strippers. I believe that they, like the rest of us, deserve to be respected. They do not deserve to be judged for the nature of their profession. But do you think a macho dancer would be amused to see his own child performing a “macho dance” on national tv? Do you think a stripper would be proud to see her daughter dancing like her in public?
Which brings me to the issues of gender and loss of dignity. What if the child contestant was a girl and she danced like an exotic dancer? Imagine that. Imagine her crying while she danced. Imagine her being asked to dance again and again. Imagine the crowd laughing as she danced and wept. Imagine Willlie comparing her to a crying burlesk queen. And then at the end of it all, Willie would give her ten thousand pesos. The girl would not complain. The girl would probably not even feel the humiliation. But can you say that the child is not losing something? Can you say there’s nothing wrong with that? And if we would laugh at her, what kind of people would we be? The contestant was not a girl, I know. But the fact that he was a boy doesn’t make him less deserving of dignity.
This issue reminds me of an episode of Pinoy Big Brother Season 1 in 2005. In that episode, the female housemates (Cass, Nene, Say, Chx and Raquel) were given the task of being the personal ‘slaves’ of male housemate Uma. Since they were slaves, the women were supposed to follow all of Uma’s orders. Things were going well until Uma made the fully clothed women dance like strippers. That’s when the women began to weep. I have absolutely nothing against fully clothed women dancing like strippers on national TV. But I am never ever going to force a conservative woman to do the same if she finds the act offensive. In the same way, I have nothing against adult men who dance like macho dancers on national TV. But if an adult man doesn’t want to dance like a macho dancer because he believes that macho dancing is a form of prostitution, no one should force him to dance. No one should force him to change his beliefs. If he doesn’t want to dance like a macho dancer, that is his choice and it must be respected. But Jan-Jan? The child didn’t even have that choice, damn it! He had the right to wait until he grows up before making that choice but it was taken away from him. He hadn’t even had the chance to form his own beliefs yet. Think that’s fair?
I heard that TV 5 is calling for guidelines on dealing with minors on game shows. I appreciate the intention. But does a host have to wait for guidelines before he can show a modicum of sensitivity? Does anyone have to wait for guidelines before he could have the sense to uphold a child’s dignity? And can one possibly write guidelines on moderating tastelessness?
Now, having impugned Willie, I must make one thing clear: THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CHILD ABUSE. I myself have had little siblings and little cousins. And I must admit that a lot of times, I had been insensitive to them. A lot of times I had hurt their feelings and made them cry. Does that make me abusive? Does that make me a criminal? Certainly not. Yes, the child contestant’s parents taught him to dance like macho dancer, failing to foresee that someone might soon tastelessly make fun of him for it on national tv. So what? That’s just a manifestation of frailty not abusiveness. Some say that they are disappointed with the child’s parents for letting Willie make fun of him. But they were not there in the studio. Only his auntie was there. As for the auntie, let’s see things from her perspective. What would happen if she screamed at Willie and asked him to stop the show? It would have been very embarrassing and disappointing for the child. I’m not saying that she was right in choosing to let Willie go on with his act. What I’m saying is that it’s understandable. She’s imperfect. But who isn’t?
The same thing goes for Willie Revillame. To understand him, we need to see things from his perspective. Before the child began to dance, Willie did not know that he was going to dance like a macho dancer. And when the child finally performed, what was he supposed to do? Scold the child? Imagine what could have happened if Willie said, “Stop it, you immoral child!” That would have been very traumatic to the child. The right thing to do was to politely show a little appreciation for the child’s performance and then give him the ten thousand pesos. Unfortunately, he overdid it. He made the child dance again and again even as the latter kept crying. And he tastelessly made fun of the poor little boy.Yes, he had been insensitive. And, wittingly or unwittingly, he had demeaned the dignity of the child as a human being. But the man is not a criminal. He does not deserve to be convicted of child abuse. There was no intent to traumatize the child so deeply that he’d have a hard time moving on with his life.
I know that many people hate Willie.(I also have my thoughts on the claim that he promotes a culture of mendicancy but that’s not the issue here.) But I’m sure many people hate me, too. That doesn’t make me a criminal does it? A child has been wronged, no question about that. But let’s not forget that Willie, like the child, like all of us, is human, too. As frail as you and me.
In raising the issue of child abuse,references have been made to Republic Act 7610. Below is the portion of R.A. 7610 that defines child abuse.
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death
It may be claimed that the child has been subjected to emotional maltreatment. It may also be claimed Willie, by his deeds and words, demeaned the dignity of the child contestant. But if Willie can be jailed on those grounds, we might as well jail every teacher who humiliates a mischievous student in front of the class. Because that, too, is a form of emotional maltreatment. That, too, demeans the dignity of the child. I am not a lawyer. But I think it would be ridiculous to jail anyone who emotionally maltreats or demeans the dignity of a child regardless of the severity of the act. So how do we know if it’s child abuse or not? Below is Section 2 of Article 1 of RA 7610.
SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles.- It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to Provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination.
Again, I’m not a lawyer. But the way I see it, it appears that the goal of RA 7610 is to prevent children from being subjected to conditions prejudicial to their development. Willie, intentionally or not, subjected the child to emotional maltreatment. But the maltreatment wasn’t so severe as to compromise the child’s emotional development. Willie, wittingly or unwittingly, demeaned the dignity of the child, but not to the extent that the child could no longer have a dignified existence. Therefore, in my own humble opinion, Willie Revillame did not commit child abuse.
Willie Revillame must be held responsible for his actions. I believe a temporary suspension is justified. But let that be the end of it. Neither Willie nor the child’s parents committed child abuse. The sooner we drop the child abuse issue, the sooner the child contestant and his parents resume their normal lives.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Littlest Doubts, The Littlest Fears
No matter how hard you strive to live your life well, there just comes a point when you are struck by the pointlessness of it all. Because sooner or later, like anything that's great, like anything that's worthless, it is going to end. And when that realization comes, the only thing you'd want to ask for is a beautiful death.
How am I going to die?
A martyr? Maybe one day, as I walk in the streets of Manila, I'll see a little child--a grimy little vagrant--suddenly freezing out of fear in the middle of the street. A bus speeds towards her direction, threatening to run over her, but she does not move. For fear has already numbed her body and, for a few seconds, killed her mind. Should I save her? Of course I should. Maybe I'll die afterwards. maybe we'll both die. But either way, how would people call me afterwards? A martyr? Perhaps. Isn't that a beautiful way to conclude a life? All lives will end anyway. Why not end it this way? The good, altruistic way. And then after death, perhaps I'll ascend to heaven. Or maybe not. But isn't that what makes death beautiful, what makes heroism praiseworthy? The fact that no one knows for sure what comes after death?
But what if...? What if I have always been sure about heaven? What if I have always been sure that an all-powerful God would take my soul to heaven if i die a good man? If that's the case, if there is never any reason for me to fear the afterlife, then what fears would I feel when death stares me in the eye? And If I have no fear to feel, what do I have to conquer when I'm about to commit an act of martyrdom? If I am absolutely certain about the existence of heaven, then isn't an act of martyrdom just a way of giving myself a chance to enter it? And if so, what reason would anyone have to praise me or even any other martyr? And if there's really a God up there, what reason would he have to be pleased with me?
Will I die a patriot? Maybe one day, I'll find myself in the battlefield, fighting for my country alongside aother valiant men, clutching a firearm--no, embracing it--while abandoning my dreams of a good life as I and my comrades march to our death.
"Even if I live a thousand times," I'll say to myself, I will also die as many times. But how many times could I possibly have a death as beautiful as this? And after this,if the Buddhists are right, I'll just live again.Or If i am to belive my own Christian faith, I'll just ascend to heaven. Had I been younger, I'd pray for god to appear beforethe entire battalion and assure us that he really exists. But things are different now. A part of me wants to have a beautiful afterlife. But somehow, a part of me also wants to remain afraid. Because a part of me wants to believe that I am not abandoning my loved ones just to move on to a wonderful afterlife. That is the part of me that wants to be a hero. The part that wants to be remembered as a friend, a son, a brother. Someone who is not moving on to something better. This day, this death, this courage..they are only meaningful because nobody knows for sure what will happen when I die in the battlefield. If suddenly, God shows Himself to us and tells us what lies beyond death, then I, like all heroes, would never be called one. I would not even be a friend. Not even a son. Not even a brother. I'd just be a deserter. A coward eager to seek refuge in heaven. A weakling hurriedly escaping from the tough battlefield called life.
"So, God, if you are really up there, heed your child. Please take not our doubts about you. Take not our courage."
Will I die a man of faith? I hope so. Each night, I pray to God and ask for his grace. I pray that he protect all my friends, my family, my people. And i do so not because He has commanded me to. I pray for my loved ones because I love my loved ones.
But what if one day, god walks on this earth and assures us that all this time, he has been up there, waiting for the ascension of his beloved children? What would I possibly pray for? If I already know for sure that all my good loved ones would simply ascend to heaven if they die, what reason would I have to pray for their safety? And if I find myself standing face to face with Him, what would I say?
"Hide, my God!" I'd say. "Do you realize how pointless our lives have become since you had come here for everyone to see? Wasn't it you who taught me to be a good man? But how can I be a good man now? I want to be a kind neighbor. But any kindness I can offer anyone is nothing compared to the bliss awaiting him in heaven. I want to help people, save them! But each time I save someone, I am just prolonging his agony in this world and delaying his ascension to paradise. I want to wish people well...wish them the best! But right now, because we know what we know, the best thing that could happen to anyone is to die! Is that what a good man must do now? to kill them all?
"Can't You see? Doubt is the one thing that makes faith possible. Fear is the only reason why there is courage. Now that you are here before us all, there is no reason for me to doubt. that's why there is no reason for me to have faith.Now that i know that you'll be taking all good people to heaven, I have no reason to be afraid. No reason to be brave. Bring them back, my God! Bring them back! My littlest doubts....my littlest fears."
How am I going to die?
A martyr? Maybe one day, as I walk in the streets of Manila, I'll see a little child--a grimy little vagrant--suddenly freezing out of fear in the middle of the street. A bus speeds towards her direction, threatening to run over her, but she does not move. For fear has already numbed her body and, for a few seconds, killed her mind. Should I save her? Of course I should. Maybe I'll die afterwards. maybe we'll both die. But either way, how would people call me afterwards? A martyr? Perhaps. Isn't that a beautiful way to conclude a life? All lives will end anyway. Why not end it this way? The good, altruistic way. And then after death, perhaps I'll ascend to heaven. Or maybe not. But isn't that what makes death beautiful, what makes heroism praiseworthy? The fact that no one knows for sure what comes after death?
But what if...? What if I have always been sure about heaven? What if I have always been sure that an all-powerful God would take my soul to heaven if i die a good man? If that's the case, if there is never any reason for me to fear the afterlife, then what fears would I feel when death stares me in the eye? And If I have no fear to feel, what do I have to conquer when I'm about to commit an act of martyrdom? If I am absolutely certain about the existence of heaven, then isn't an act of martyrdom just a way of giving myself a chance to enter it? And if so, what reason would anyone have to praise me or even any other martyr? And if there's really a God up there, what reason would he have to be pleased with me?
Will I die a patriot? Maybe one day, I'll find myself in the battlefield, fighting for my country alongside aother valiant men, clutching a firearm--no, embracing it--while abandoning my dreams of a good life as I and my comrades march to our death.
"Even if I live a thousand times," I'll say to myself, I will also die as many times. But how many times could I possibly have a death as beautiful as this? And after this,if the Buddhists are right, I'll just live again.Or If i am to belive my own Christian faith, I'll just ascend to heaven. Had I been younger, I'd pray for god to appear beforethe entire battalion and assure us that he really exists. But things are different now. A part of me wants to have a beautiful afterlife. But somehow, a part of me also wants to remain afraid. Because a part of me wants to believe that I am not abandoning my loved ones just to move on to a wonderful afterlife. That is the part of me that wants to be a hero. The part that wants to be remembered as a friend, a son, a brother. Someone who is not moving on to something better. This day, this death, this courage..they are only meaningful because nobody knows for sure what will happen when I die in the battlefield. If suddenly, God shows Himself to us and tells us what lies beyond death, then I, like all heroes, would never be called one. I would not even be a friend. Not even a son. Not even a brother. I'd just be a deserter. A coward eager to seek refuge in heaven. A weakling hurriedly escaping from the tough battlefield called life.
"So, God, if you are really up there, heed your child. Please take not our doubts about you. Take not our courage."
Will I die a man of faith? I hope so. Each night, I pray to God and ask for his grace. I pray that he protect all my friends, my family, my people. And i do so not because He has commanded me to. I pray for my loved ones because I love my loved ones.
But what if one day, god walks on this earth and assures us that all this time, he has been up there, waiting for the ascension of his beloved children? What would I possibly pray for? If I already know for sure that all my good loved ones would simply ascend to heaven if they die, what reason would I have to pray for their safety? And if I find myself standing face to face with Him, what would I say?
"Hide, my God!" I'd say. "Do you realize how pointless our lives have become since you had come here for everyone to see? Wasn't it you who taught me to be a good man? But how can I be a good man now? I want to be a kind neighbor. But any kindness I can offer anyone is nothing compared to the bliss awaiting him in heaven. I want to help people, save them! But each time I save someone, I am just prolonging his agony in this world and delaying his ascension to paradise. I want to wish people well...wish them the best! But right now, because we know what we know, the best thing that could happen to anyone is to die! Is that what a good man must do now? to kill them all?
"Can't You see? Doubt is the one thing that makes faith possible. Fear is the only reason why there is courage. Now that you are here before us all, there is no reason for me to doubt. that's why there is no reason for me to have faith.Now that i know that you'll be taking all good people to heaven, I have no reason to be afraid. No reason to be brave. Bring them back, my God! Bring them back! My littlest doubts....my littlest fears."
Monday, April 5, 2010
Wishes
I wish the diamond ring was never invented. Without it, romance would be far less expensive.
I wish the air conditioner was never invented. Without it, we would all have to rely on natural sources of cool ventilation. The skyline would be filled with countless hanging gardens that provide fresh air and spectacularly beautify the city. Man-made lakes and vast hanging pools , which serve as sources of cool breezes, would be constructed all over the metropolis, turning the landscape into a beautiful collage of green, gray and blue. Furthermore, because everyone has to breathe the unfiltered city air, automakers will be compelled to shift to clean fuels such as LPG and the urban air would be far less polluted.
I wish the high-heeled shoe was never invented. Without it, the corporate world would have no excuse to compel women to wear shoes that unnecessarily make walking very stressful. And there would be more varicose-vein free legs for men to ogle at on the streets.
I wish the shave was never invented. Without it, every man would have his face concealed beneath a thick mustache and a long beard. Girls would never know which guys are handsome and which ones are ugly. And even the ugliest men could have prettiest women!
I wish the automobile was and the motorcycle was never invented. Without them, we’d be digging canals instead of constructing concrete/asphalt highways. Instead of riding cars and motorbikes, we’d be riding jet skis and speedboats. And anytime you arrive late at work, you can always claim that you were attacked by a crocodile in the canal.
I wish the suit was never invented. Without it, male office workers in tropical countries like the Philippines wouldn’t have to sweat profusely when they leave their air-conditioned workplace. And the MRT (Metro Rail Transit) cars would be much less stinky.
I wish the perfume was never invented. Without it, no one would be hated for smelling bad.
I wish the karaoke was never invented. Without it, the murder rate in the Philippines would be much lower.
I wish the mirror was never invented. Without it, the global suicide rate would be much lower.
I wish the clock was never invented. Without it, no one would ever be late.
I wish the calendar was never invented. Without it, we’d all be ageless.
I wish the air conditioner was never invented. Without it, we would all have to rely on natural sources of cool ventilation. The skyline would be filled with countless hanging gardens that provide fresh air and spectacularly beautify the city. Man-made lakes and vast hanging pools , which serve as sources of cool breezes, would be constructed all over the metropolis, turning the landscape into a beautiful collage of green, gray and blue. Furthermore, because everyone has to breathe the unfiltered city air, automakers will be compelled to shift to clean fuels such as LPG and the urban air would be far less polluted.
I wish the high-heeled shoe was never invented. Without it, the corporate world would have no excuse to compel women to wear shoes that unnecessarily make walking very stressful. And there would be more varicose-vein free legs for men to ogle at on the streets.
I wish the shave was never invented. Without it, every man would have his face concealed beneath a thick mustache and a long beard. Girls would never know which guys are handsome and which ones are ugly. And even the ugliest men could have prettiest women!
I wish the automobile was and the motorcycle was never invented. Without them, we’d be digging canals instead of constructing concrete/asphalt highways. Instead of riding cars and motorbikes, we’d be riding jet skis and speedboats. And anytime you arrive late at work, you can always claim that you were attacked by a crocodile in the canal.
I wish the suit was never invented. Without it, male office workers in tropical countries like the Philippines wouldn’t have to sweat profusely when they leave their air-conditioned workplace. And the MRT (Metro Rail Transit) cars would be much less stinky.
I wish the perfume was never invented. Without it, no one would be hated for smelling bad.
I wish the karaoke was never invented. Without it, the murder rate in the Philippines would be much lower.
I wish the mirror was never invented. Without it, the global suicide rate would be much lower.
I wish the clock was never invented. Without it, no one would ever be late.
I wish the calendar was never invented. Without it, we’d all be ageless.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
To Save A Mockingbird
The last cop I would trust is a cop who makes a career out of arresting prostitutes.
In this country, if you’re a cop and you want to keep your job, you’ll have to turn a blind eye to the crimes of some of your corrupt bosses. You’ll have to risk your life for politicians who plunder the nation’s coffers with impunity. Many times, you’ll have to restrain yourself from arresting the countless extortionists among your colleagues because if you don’t, they’ll just gang up on you and you’ll just end up being another powerless, unarmed loser who’d have to helplessly watch both the civilian and ‘uniformed’ extortionists raid the pockets of honest men. Most of the time, you’ll have to stand among ruthless men who have more blood in their hands than all of the petty criminals detained at your station. And if you can put a harmless prostitute behind bars, if you can punish a woman for job that’s already punishing enough, even though you can deliberately forget about the law when dealing with the more privileged crooks, what kind of person are you?
No I do not think lowly of our policemen. Neither do I judge the cops for not enforcing the law all the time. No matter what the Catholic Church says about the evils of relativism, real people like us often have to choose between the wrong and the worse, and not just right and wrong. If you’re a new cop and you find yourself in the company of colleagues moonlighting as drug pushers, what are you supposed to do? Arrest them? Then let their cohorts kill you afterwards, leaving your family with no breadwinner and no protector? So what happens after your heroic act? You die. Your wife and children die either through starvation or murder. Your corrupt colleagues live on. Society loses one good cop. And a hundred other crimes will happen because you won’t be there to stop them. But if you choose to be prudent, if you stay alive, albeit tainted, you’ll have a chance to prevent some crimes. Though few, there would be people who’d benefit from your enforcement of the law. And after each dangerous day of your life, you’ll still come home to a loving family. In this case, staying alive isn’t exactly the right thing. Tolerating evil is wrong no matter how you look at it. But if you were in that situation, what would you do? Quit and find another job so that you’ll never have to sin at all? Come to think of it, if all good cops refused to sin, if none of them was ever willing to be wrong, there wouldn’t be anyone left to save us when we cry, “Thieves!”
And if I can be kind to the armed cops, so should I be to the powerless prostitutes. The whores are sinners, no doubt. But far from being hardened criminals. What they do for a living is definitely immoral. And like the good cops who can’t always do the right thing, they have their own reasons for doing the wrong thing. Some do it so that their children can live another day. Some do it so that their younger siblings can finish college and will never have to sin as much as they do just to earn a living. While some simply do it so that neither the government nor their families would have to worry about them. If you can swallow all your pride, open yourself to public ridicule, give up your dignity and even risk being raped or mugged in the dark streets of the city almost every night just to support a child or a sibling, what kind of person are you? Evil?
Will the prostitutes burn in hell someday for their sins? Maybe. Do they displease God as they practice their ‘profession’? Perhaps. But even as they continue to sin, even as they go on displeasing the Creator, they still deserve to stay alive. I still want them to stay alive. We all should.
Unfortunately, in this hypocritical world, it is not difficult to find people who’d be happy to wish the prostitutes dead. Just recently, the so called ‘holy men’ of the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) raised hell over the Department of Health’s distribution of free condoms. I know that those condoms won’t be enough to save all the prostitutes from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It’s no secret that condoms are not 100% effective. But every means to save lives must be exhausted, even if that means is not 100% effective and even if those lives belong to the sinful prostitutes. It’s like transplanting an organ. A transplant is never a guarantee that a person with an ailing organ will be saved. But if it can be done, why stop the surgeon from performing it?
Ironically, just last year, a bishop publicly opposed the planned military action against the Abu Sayaff on the grounds that violence would lead to more violence. If bishops can show concern for people who may be killed by bullets, why can’t they do the same for women who might be killed by AIDS?
As children, we were taught good values by our parents and teachers. And in time, we learned to take pride in adhering to our absolute moral standards. But sometimes, that same pride, the one that strengthens our own individual sense of morality, also leads us to distance ourselves from those who fail to be as morally upright as we are. And there, in the vast space we create between them and us, a wall of apathy grows increasingly thicker. It’s about time we end that apathy.
Next time you see a prostitute in the streets of Manila at night, waiting to be picked up by a moneyed customer, ask yourself this: Why is she out there? She can choose to be a thief and just take away your hard-earned possessions. She can choose to be a drug-dealer and earn more money than any of her pimps ever will. Or be a mistress of a corrupt politician and live off her lover’s ill-gotten wealth. But instead, she chooses to stand in that dark corner, praying that the shadows would somehow conceal her face but not her entire body from the passing motorists, hoping that the robbers would deem her so pitifully impoverished that they wouldn’t even bother mugging her, hoping that the next customer would not infect her with AIDS. Why? There is only one answer. She is where she is…
Because she has a conscience.
In this country, if you’re a cop and you want to keep your job, you’ll have to turn a blind eye to the crimes of some of your corrupt bosses. You’ll have to risk your life for politicians who plunder the nation’s coffers with impunity. Many times, you’ll have to restrain yourself from arresting the countless extortionists among your colleagues because if you don’t, they’ll just gang up on you and you’ll just end up being another powerless, unarmed loser who’d have to helplessly watch both the civilian and ‘uniformed’ extortionists raid the pockets of honest men. Most of the time, you’ll have to stand among ruthless men who have more blood in their hands than all of the petty criminals detained at your station. And if you can put a harmless prostitute behind bars, if you can punish a woman for job that’s already punishing enough, even though you can deliberately forget about the law when dealing with the more privileged crooks, what kind of person are you?
No I do not think lowly of our policemen. Neither do I judge the cops for not enforcing the law all the time. No matter what the Catholic Church says about the evils of relativism, real people like us often have to choose between the wrong and the worse, and not just right and wrong. If you’re a new cop and you find yourself in the company of colleagues moonlighting as drug pushers, what are you supposed to do? Arrest them? Then let their cohorts kill you afterwards, leaving your family with no breadwinner and no protector? So what happens after your heroic act? You die. Your wife and children die either through starvation or murder. Your corrupt colleagues live on. Society loses one good cop. And a hundred other crimes will happen because you won’t be there to stop them. But if you choose to be prudent, if you stay alive, albeit tainted, you’ll have a chance to prevent some crimes. Though few, there would be people who’d benefit from your enforcement of the law. And after each dangerous day of your life, you’ll still come home to a loving family. In this case, staying alive isn’t exactly the right thing. Tolerating evil is wrong no matter how you look at it. But if you were in that situation, what would you do? Quit and find another job so that you’ll never have to sin at all? Come to think of it, if all good cops refused to sin, if none of them was ever willing to be wrong, there wouldn’t be anyone left to save us when we cry, “Thieves!”
And if I can be kind to the armed cops, so should I be to the powerless prostitutes. The whores are sinners, no doubt. But far from being hardened criminals. What they do for a living is definitely immoral. And like the good cops who can’t always do the right thing, they have their own reasons for doing the wrong thing. Some do it so that their children can live another day. Some do it so that their younger siblings can finish college and will never have to sin as much as they do just to earn a living. While some simply do it so that neither the government nor their families would have to worry about them. If you can swallow all your pride, open yourself to public ridicule, give up your dignity and even risk being raped or mugged in the dark streets of the city almost every night just to support a child or a sibling, what kind of person are you? Evil?
Will the prostitutes burn in hell someday for their sins? Maybe. Do they displease God as they practice their ‘profession’? Perhaps. But even as they continue to sin, even as they go on displeasing the Creator, they still deserve to stay alive. I still want them to stay alive. We all should.
Unfortunately, in this hypocritical world, it is not difficult to find people who’d be happy to wish the prostitutes dead. Just recently, the so called ‘holy men’ of the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) raised hell over the Department of Health’s distribution of free condoms. I know that those condoms won’t be enough to save all the prostitutes from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It’s no secret that condoms are not 100% effective. But every means to save lives must be exhausted, even if that means is not 100% effective and even if those lives belong to the sinful prostitutes. It’s like transplanting an organ. A transplant is never a guarantee that a person with an ailing organ will be saved. But if it can be done, why stop the surgeon from performing it?
Ironically, just last year, a bishop publicly opposed the planned military action against the Abu Sayaff on the grounds that violence would lead to more violence. If bishops can show concern for people who may be killed by bullets, why can’t they do the same for women who might be killed by AIDS?
As children, we were taught good values by our parents and teachers. And in time, we learned to take pride in adhering to our absolute moral standards. But sometimes, that same pride, the one that strengthens our own individual sense of morality, also leads us to distance ourselves from those who fail to be as morally upright as we are. And there, in the vast space we create between them and us, a wall of apathy grows increasingly thicker. It’s about time we end that apathy.
Next time you see a prostitute in the streets of Manila at night, waiting to be picked up by a moneyed customer, ask yourself this: Why is she out there? She can choose to be a thief and just take away your hard-earned possessions. She can choose to be a drug-dealer and earn more money than any of her pimps ever will. Or be a mistress of a corrupt politician and live off her lover’s ill-gotten wealth. But instead, she chooses to stand in that dark corner, praying that the shadows would somehow conceal her face but not her entire body from the passing motorists, hoping that the robbers would deem her so pitifully impoverished that they wouldn’t even bother mugging her, hoping that the next customer would not infect her with AIDS. Why? There is only one answer. She is where she is…
Because she has a conscience.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Election MARVELs
Just a few months before the national elections in 1998, I saw on TV a news report about a psychic in the 1960's who predicted that the initials of the next 6 Philippine presidents would be (in the following order) M, A, R, V, E and L--which all form the wonderful word MARVEL. Until 1998, this prediction seemed true. The Presidents from 1965 to 1998 were (Ferdinand) Marcos, (Corazon) Aquino and (Fidel) Ramos, their initials forming the first half of MARVEL. But the prediction was finally disproven when Joseph Estrada won the presidency in 1998.
I’m guessing that the MARVEL prediction was fate’s way of telling us (or the psychic who saw it coming) that we would have MARVELous years of progress ahead. If so, what was the implication when MARVEL was cut short and replaced by “MARE” (Marcos, Aquino, Ramos and Estrada)? Did that mean that the MARVELs would be replaced by nightMAREs? Uh-oh! This can’t be good! First, the last 44 years had already proven to be nightmarish! Second, and worse, it seems like we’re in for another nightMARE! The current president, who also happens to be the successor of Estrada, is Gloria Macapagal. If we are to believe the surveys, the next president would probably be Noynoy Aquino. If his administration doesn’t mess up (the way Gloria Macapagal’s did), his successor would likely be MAR Roxas. And unless a new breed of bright, young and charismatic politicians emerges within the next 12 years, MAR’s successor might just be Francis Escudero. Macapagal, Aquino, Roxas and Escudero. That’s another MARE for you!
Now, before we worry about the next nightMARE, let’s go back to MARVEL. Thinking about the elections next year, I can’t help but wonder if that 1960’s psychic really had his vision right or he just confused six presidencies for one election. When he saw the word MARVEL, was he really trying to foresee the next 4 decades or did he erroneously look into the year 2010? Come to think of it. The year 2010 has MARVEL written all over it! Aside from Gilbert Teodoro (who’s a pitifully weak presidential candidate), can you think of any strong/winnable presidential candidate who has an initial outside of MARVEL? If elections push through in 2010, the persons most likely to become president next year are (A) Aquino, (R) Roxas, (V)Manny Villar, (E) Escudero and Estrada, and (L)Loren Legarda. If elections do not push through, on the other hand, we’ll be stuck with a dictator named Macapagal (Is this irony or just cruel historical poetry? The star of “Hello Garci!” and the chief executioner of Andres Bonifacio were both named MACAPAGAL!). If Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Panfilo Lacson decide to run, there would be another two MARVEL candidates joining the presidential race in 2010. If Raul Roco hadn’t died of cancer a few years ago, he’d also be a strong MARVEL candidate next year.
Interestingly, the MARVEL charm doesn’t seem to be limited to the presidency. Who are he strongest candidates for vice president in 2010? Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (I hope I’m wrong about the ‘strongest’ part.), Edu Manzano, MAR Roxas, Bong Revilla and Loren Legarda. There’s also Vilma Santos, who’s certainly more known as Vilma than Ms. Santos. She might also use the monicker “Ate Vi”.
Does Jejomar Binay stand a chance? Who knows? Baka nabulol lang ang tadhana! (Maybe fate just happened to be speech-impaired!). Maybe when fate was whispering its secrets to the that psychic 4 decades ago, it was really trying to say “MARBEL!” but ended up blurting out “MARVEL!”. (Ah, remember our lovely grade school teachers who taught us about “Frime Pactors”?). There you go! There’s a “B” in MARVEL, uh, I mean MARBEL!
Before I go too far, let me remind everybody that the elections are still six months away. So who are we to predict the future? There’s still a lot of time for weak candidates to radically alter their campaign strategies. And still a lot of time for the voters to get to know Vayani, Vinay and giVo! Right?
I’m guessing that the MARVEL prediction was fate’s way of telling us (or the psychic who saw it coming) that we would have MARVELous years of progress ahead. If so, what was the implication when MARVEL was cut short and replaced by “MARE” (Marcos, Aquino, Ramos and Estrada)? Did that mean that the MARVELs would be replaced by nightMAREs? Uh-oh! This can’t be good! First, the last 44 years had already proven to be nightmarish! Second, and worse, it seems like we’re in for another nightMARE! The current president, who also happens to be the successor of Estrada, is Gloria Macapagal. If we are to believe the surveys, the next president would probably be Noynoy Aquino. If his administration doesn’t mess up (the way Gloria Macapagal’s did), his successor would likely be MAR Roxas. And unless a new breed of bright, young and charismatic politicians emerges within the next 12 years, MAR’s successor might just be Francis Escudero. Macapagal, Aquino, Roxas and Escudero. That’s another MARE for you!
Now, before we worry about the next nightMARE, let’s go back to MARVEL. Thinking about the elections next year, I can’t help but wonder if that 1960’s psychic really had his vision right or he just confused six presidencies for one election. When he saw the word MARVEL, was he really trying to foresee the next 4 decades or did he erroneously look into the year 2010? Come to think of it. The year 2010 has MARVEL written all over it! Aside from Gilbert Teodoro (who’s a pitifully weak presidential candidate), can you think of any strong/winnable presidential candidate who has an initial outside of MARVEL? If elections push through in 2010, the persons most likely to become president next year are (A) Aquino, (R) Roxas, (V)Manny Villar, (E) Escudero and Estrada, and (L)Loren Legarda. If elections do not push through, on the other hand, we’ll be stuck with a dictator named Macapagal (Is this irony or just cruel historical poetry? The star of “Hello Garci!” and the chief executioner of Andres Bonifacio were both named MACAPAGAL!). If Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Panfilo Lacson decide to run, there would be another two MARVEL candidates joining the presidential race in 2010. If Raul Roco hadn’t died of cancer a few years ago, he’d also be a strong MARVEL candidate next year.
Interestingly, the MARVEL charm doesn’t seem to be limited to the presidency. Who are he strongest candidates for vice president in 2010? Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (I hope I’m wrong about the ‘strongest’ part.), Edu Manzano, MAR Roxas, Bong Revilla and Loren Legarda. There’s also Vilma Santos, who’s certainly more known as Vilma than Ms. Santos. She might also use the monicker “Ate Vi”.
Does Jejomar Binay stand a chance? Who knows? Baka nabulol lang ang tadhana! (Maybe fate just happened to be speech-impaired!). Maybe when fate was whispering its secrets to the that psychic 4 decades ago, it was really trying to say “MARBEL!” but ended up blurting out “MARVEL!”. (Ah, remember our lovely grade school teachers who taught us about “Frime Pactors”?). There you go! There’s a “B” in MARVEL, uh, I mean MARBEL!
Before I go too far, let me remind everybody that the elections are still six months away. So who are we to predict the future? There’s still a lot of time for weak candidates to radically alter their campaign strategies. And still a lot of time for the voters to get to know Vayani, Vinay and giVo! Right?
Friday, March 27, 2009
God's Design
(Note: On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical entitled "Humanae Vitae", which stressed the Catholic Church's stand on the issue of contraception. The said document/ letter listed down the Vatican's arguments for its opposition to birth control. The complete encyclical can be viewed at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.)
….Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
-from the ENCYCLICAL LETTER HUMANAE VITAE OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF PAUL VI TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
What if tomorrow, a large meteor suddenly passes through the Solar System, fortunately not colliding with the earth but leaving a trail of radioactive matter that causes all of the earth’s inhabitants to become sterile? If that happens all, young men would inevitably cease to think of sex as an act of procreation. In such a situation, should all young men be deprived of sexual knowledge lest they forget the reverence due to a woman? Would it be fair to assume that just because a man sees sex as anything other than an act of procreation, he is doomed to be a chauvinist pig who reduces a woman to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires?
Clearly, the church is afraid. It fears that contraception may cause men to disrespect women. But the problem with the church is that it fears what it should not and promotes what it should fear. Women are far more respected today, in the era of contraception, than in ancient times, when women were coldly regarded as mere bearers of children. When biblical proofs for the evils of contraception are sought, most Christian leaders are quick to refer to the 38th chapter of Genesis, which tells the story of Onan, a man who was killed by Yahweh after practicing the contraceptive act of withdrawal (i.e. “spilling the seed”). But before the withdrawal, whom did Onan have sex with and why? He had to do the act with Tamar, the wife of Onan’s brother Er, after the latter had been killed by Yahweh himself. Apparently, to preserve the family’s honor, Onan had been tasked to sire a child with his deceased brother’s widow. Did it matter whether or not Tamar had feelings for Onan? Hardly. Whether Tamar liked it or not, she had to have intercourse with her dead husband’s brother, simply because she had been widowed. The intercourse had to happen not because of love but because of the need to procreate. Is that what the church wants? A society which sees women more as bearers of children than as human beings who have the right to love and express that love in the most passionate ways? The church is concerned that contraception may promote a culture that disrespects women but unbelievably, it is not even worried that its stand against contraception may revive a culture that relegates women to being mere instruments of men’s desire to please God and procreate!
Which brings me to my next question. Do couples really go against God’s design when they have sex without effecting procreation? Below is another excerpt from the Humanae Vitae.
….If [men] further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.
Let’s talk about nature. It is natural for a man to get sick. But if a brilliant doctor can find a way to alter the course of nature and prevent a man from becoming ill, why should anyone stop him? It is natural for a sick man to die. But if someone could be bright enough to save an ill person from death, why should anyone prevent him from reaching the sick man? It is natural for buildings to crumble during an earthquake. But if a brilliant engineer could design edifices which could stand the wrath of earthquakes, why stop him from realizing those designs? It is natural for a man to get wet in the rain, but if he chooses to seek shelter, if he chooses only to be cooled and not to be cleansed by the rain, why should anyone compel him to do otherwise? It is natural for a couple to have an offspring after coitus. But if someone could find a way to let an impoverished couple express their love for each other in the most passionate way without conceiving an innocent child who would be forced to inherit his parents’ poverty, why should anyone keep him from doing so? If a man can offer his wife the sacred gift of sexual enjoyment without forcing her to go through nine months of a pregnancy that may cost her her life, why stop him?
In this world, there is nothing more natural than the humans’ capacity to think and decide. It must be central in God’s design that we maintain our capacity to improve our fate and the world around us. To use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. Now is a time when the human intellect has made it possible for parents to space the births of their children in such a way that each child would not be deprived of the love, attention and education that he deserves, when couples could relish the sacred gift of sex without affecting the spacing of children’s births. If we refuse to benefit from our own intellect, even when benefiting from it does not bring harm to our fellow men, we are wasting God’s precious gift. We are rendering useless an instrument that was meant to make things better for us and for our children.
Why deprive ourselves? Why suffer? Below is another excerpt from the Humanae Vitae. In the following paragraph, the justifications for allowing the use of natural family planning methods in lieu of artificial methods are presented.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
When I was a child, I often wondered what would happen to our souls if one day someone makes charity impossible. Priests never grew tired of telling us to commit acts of charity because such acts please God. So I thought, what if there comes a time when the world runs out of beggars to give alms to? What if the world runs out of sick people to cure? What if the world runs out of weak people to help? Would God be far less happy now that His beloved children are no longer committing acts of charity? Certainly not. Because He does not ask us to commit acts of charity just for the sake of pleasing Him. We are asked to commit such acts because he wants us to make our fellow men happy. He wants us to save our fellow men from suffering.
We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save mankind. But if there is no need to save mankind, would God the Father want to send His Son to suffer on earth? Would he want to let his Son suffer for the sake of suffering alone? I don’t think so. When men choose to suffer to save mankind, to make life far less painful to the ones they love or to make sure that no one else suffers after them, they are committing acts of holiness. But if they choose to suffer even when there is no one to benefit from their suffering, they are committing acts of foolishness. They are wasting their time. Time that could have been better spent helping their fellow men.
Christ carried the cross because He didn’t want us to suffer. Because He wanted us to be happy. And if the chance to experience happiness is staring us in the face, and grabbing that chance would cause no harm to anyone, would He be happy to see us letting go of that chance? Would He be happy to know that we are depriving ourselves of happiness? If a man and his wife have the opportunity to offer each other happiness through sex, why stop them? Why deprive them of happiness? Why force them to abstain from sex? They need to give proof of a true and authentic love? If so, why must he proof come in the form of suffering? Is suffering a pre-requisite to happiness?
Which brings me back to a point I made earlier. If one day the world runs out of people who need charity, should we please God by forcing people to need charity? If the world runs out of beggars to give alms to, should we turn some of our fellow men into beggars so that there would be beggars we could give alms to? If the world runs out of sick people, should we make people sick so that there would be sick people to heal? Do we need to see people suffer before they could be recipients of our good deeds? Does a person have to become a beggar before we can give him a wonderful gift? Does a person have to be sick before we can show him how much we care for him? Does a person have to be lonely before he could deserve to feel our embrace? Do couples have to be sexually deprived first before they could attain happiness through sex?
We are God’s beautiful creations. We are more than just biological machines designed to reproduce and multiply. We are complex beings who deserve to be happy and are endowed with the intellectual power to create our own paths towards happiness. And when we utilize our intellect to search for happiness, we are only conforming to God’s design.
We are blessed with the capability to produce and nurture children. But our children are not born into this world just to serve as sources of our parental bliss. And neither are they golden eggs that we lay to please our creator. They are humans who deserve to be happy and be saved from sufferings. And when parents use their intelligence, as well as the technologies created through the efforts of the most intelligent men and women to ensure that their children would not be deprived of all the love, attention, education and happiness they deserve, they are only conforming to God’s complex but brilliant design.
….Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
-from the ENCYCLICAL LETTER HUMANAE VITAE OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF PAUL VI TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
What if tomorrow, a large meteor suddenly passes through the Solar System, fortunately not colliding with the earth but leaving a trail of radioactive matter that causes all of the earth’s inhabitants to become sterile? If that happens all, young men would inevitably cease to think of sex as an act of procreation. In such a situation, should all young men be deprived of sexual knowledge lest they forget the reverence due to a woman? Would it be fair to assume that just because a man sees sex as anything other than an act of procreation, he is doomed to be a chauvinist pig who reduces a woman to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires?
Clearly, the church is afraid. It fears that contraception may cause men to disrespect women. But the problem with the church is that it fears what it should not and promotes what it should fear. Women are far more respected today, in the era of contraception, than in ancient times, when women were coldly regarded as mere bearers of children. When biblical proofs for the evils of contraception are sought, most Christian leaders are quick to refer to the 38th chapter of Genesis, which tells the story of Onan, a man who was killed by Yahweh after practicing the contraceptive act of withdrawal (i.e. “spilling the seed”). But before the withdrawal, whom did Onan have sex with and why? He had to do the act with Tamar, the wife of Onan’s brother Er, after the latter had been killed by Yahweh himself. Apparently, to preserve the family’s honor, Onan had been tasked to sire a child with his deceased brother’s widow. Did it matter whether or not Tamar had feelings for Onan? Hardly. Whether Tamar liked it or not, she had to have intercourse with her dead husband’s brother, simply because she had been widowed. The intercourse had to happen not because of love but because of the need to procreate. Is that what the church wants? A society which sees women more as bearers of children than as human beings who have the right to love and express that love in the most passionate ways? The church is concerned that contraception may promote a culture that disrespects women but unbelievably, it is not even worried that its stand against contraception may revive a culture that relegates women to being mere instruments of men’s desire to please God and procreate!
Which brings me to my next question. Do couples really go against God’s design when they have sex without effecting procreation? Below is another excerpt from the Humanae Vitae.
….If [men] further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.
Let’s talk about nature. It is natural for a man to get sick. But if a brilliant doctor can find a way to alter the course of nature and prevent a man from becoming ill, why should anyone stop him? It is natural for a sick man to die. But if someone could be bright enough to save an ill person from death, why should anyone prevent him from reaching the sick man? It is natural for buildings to crumble during an earthquake. But if a brilliant engineer could design edifices which could stand the wrath of earthquakes, why stop him from realizing those designs? It is natural for a man to get wet in the rain, but if he chooses to seek shelter, if he chooses only to be cooled and not to be cleansed by the rain, why should anyone compel him to do otherwise? It is natural for a couple to have an offspring after coitus. But if someone could find a way to let an impoverished couple express their love for each other in the most passionate way without conceiving an innocent child who would be forced to inherit his parents’ poverty, why should anyone keep him from doing so? If a man can offer his wife the sacred gift of sexual enjoyment without forcing her to go through nine months of a pregnancy that may cost her her life, why stop him?
In this world, there is nothing more natural than the humans’ capacity to think and decide. It must be central in God’s design that we maintain our capacity to improve our fate and the world around us. To use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. Now is a time when the human intellect has made it possible for parents to space the births of their children in such a way that each child would not be deprived of the love, attention and education that he deserves, when couples could relish the sacred gift of sex without affecting the spacing of children’s births. If we refuse to benefit from our own intellect, even when benefiting from it does not bring harm to our fellow men, we are wasting God’s precious gift. We are rendering useless an instrument that was meant to make things better for us and for our children.
Why deprive ourselves? Why suffer? Below is another excerpt from the Humanae Vitae. In the following paragraph, the justifications for allowing the use of natural family planning methods in lieu of artificial methods are presented.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
When I was a child, I often wondered what would happen to our souls if one day someone makes charity impossible. Priests never grew tired of telling us to commit acts of charity because such acts please God. So I thought, what if there comes a time when the world runs out of beggars to give alms to? What if the world runs out of sick people to cure? What if the world runs out of weak people to help? Would God be far less happy now that His beloved children are no longer committing acts of charity? Certainly not. Because He does not ask us to commit acts of charity just for the sake of pleasing Him. We are asked to commit such acts because he wants us to make our fellow men happy. He wants us to save our fellow men from suffering.
We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save mankind. But if there is no need to save mankind, would God the Father want to send His Son to suffer on earth? Would he want to let his Son suffer for the sake of suffering alone? I don’t think so. When men choose to suffer to save mankind, to make life far less painful to the ones they love or to make sure that no one else suffers after them, they are committing acts of holiness. But if they choose to suffer even when there is no one to benefit from their suffering, they are committing acts of foolishness. They are wasting their time. Time that could have been better spent helping their fellow men.
Christ carried the cross because He didn’t want us to suffer. Because He wanted us to be happy. And if the chance to experience happiness is staring us in the face, and grabbing that chance would cause no harm to anyone, would He be happy to see us letting go of that chance? Would He be happy to know that we are depriving ourselves of happiness? If a man and his wife have the opportunity to offer each other happiness through sex, why stop them? Why deprive them of happiness? Why force them to abstain from sex? They need to give proof of a true and authentic love? If so, why must he proof come in the form of suffering? Is suffering a pre-requisite to happiness?
Which brings me back to a point I made earlier. If one day the world runs out of people who need charity, should we please God by forcing people to need charity? If the world runs out of beggars to give alms to, should we turn some of our fellow men into beggars so that there would be beggars we could give alms to? If the world runs out of sick people, should we make people sick so that there would be sick people to heal? Do we need to see people suffer before they could be recipients of our good deeds? Does a person have to become a beggar before we can give him a wonderful gift? Does a person have to be sick before we can show him how much we care for him? Does a person have to be lonely before he could deserve to feel our embrace? Do couples have to be sexually deprived first before they could attain happiness through sex?
We are God’s beautiful creations. We are more than just biological machines designed to reproduce and multiply. We are complex beings who deserve to be happy and are endowed with the intellectual power to create our own paths towards happiness. And when we utilize our intellect to search for happiness, we are only conforming to God’s design.
We are blessed with the capability to produce and nurture children. But our children are not born into this world just to serve as sources of our parental bliss. And neither are they golden eggs that we lay to please our creator. They are humans who deserve to be happy and be saved from sufferings. And when parents use their intelligence, as well as the technologies created through the efforts of the most intelligent men and women to ensure that their children would not be deprived of all the love, attention, education and happiness they deserve, they are only conforming to God’s complex but brilliant design.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Great Plebeians: The People Power Story
On his deathbed, 30 years after victoriously leading his nation in a war against imperialist invaders, and after 30 years of being a poor farmer, a Great Plebeian wonders if the war he won was worth winning in the first place.
"When a country needed a leader in war, I stepped forward," he recalls. "But after the war was won, when my people asked me to be their perpetual dictator, I humbly declined. For I knew that while I could be a good leader in a time of war, I'd be a mediocre one in a time of peace. I was just a warrior and a farmer, with hardly any formal education or experience in civil government. The nation was better off being led by men far more intelligent than me, I thought. That's why I relinquished my post and went back to farming. That's heroism, right? But 30 years later, why does it feel more like stupidity than heroism?
"If that war was worth fighting, why am I dying a poor man?” he asks himself. "If stepping forward to lead this country was the right thing to do, why was I never rewarded a good life? Maybe I should have let those bastards from the empire conquer this land. Maybe I should have remained as dictator and plundered the nation's treasury. Maybe I should have sold this country to the empire when I had the chance. "
The above story is fictional. But reflecting on it may help us understand the plight of the Filipino people. Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the 23rd anniversary of the People Power Revolution. And 23 years after ousting a dictator, like the great plebeian who had won a glorious war and lived an impoverished life, the heroes of the revolution are asking themselves, "Did we do the right thing?"
More than two decades after the peaceful revolution that earned us the admiration of the world, the Filipino people still find themselves having a million reasons to feel ashamed. Corruption is still rampant. The streets are teeming with trash. The masses are starving. Our Southeast Asian neighbors are overtaking us economically. And elections are still as bloody and chaotic as they had been during Marcos era. If taking part in that revolution was right, why are the children of those brave men and women starving today? If that revolution was worth fighting for, why isn’t this country being rewarded with prosperity?
Participants of the Second People Power Revolution in January 2001, the one that led to Joseph Estrada’s ouster, must be asking similar questions. If marching on EDSA to oust Erap was right, how come Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was rewarded with power while the rest of the country had to suffer the punishment of being under her rule? If that revolution was worth fighting for, why are our lives today not any better than they were eight years ago?
Like the great plebeian in the story, the Filipino people find themselves regretting their heroic acts after failing to reap the rewards they expected. And like that great plebeian, the Filipino people are asking the wrong questions and expecting the wrong rewards.
The great plebeian in the story deserved nothing but praise for his courage and leadership during the war. But why should he expect that his success in the battlefield would lead to success in farming? The victory would make thing easier for him as a farmer. Because there would be no invaders to burn his crops, no stray bullets or arrows to kill his livestock, no threat of violence to keep him from diligently tilling the land each day. But the blood of the enemy that spilled into the ground would never miraculously cause the earth to grow crops out of nothing. A farmer, even if he is a great plebeian, can only reap as much as he sows. His success as a farmer would depend on his competence as a farmer. Not on his competence as a warrior.
The Filipinos who took part in the People Power uprisings deserve nothing less than posterity’s admiration for their valor. The success of the two peaceful revolutions made progress possible. But the fall of leaders like Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada would never miraculously cause the Philippine economy to suddenly boom. A businessman’s success in business depends on his competence as a businessman. An engineer’s success depends on his engineering skills. A writer’s success depends on his writing skills. Businessmen, engineers and writers can not have successful careers by simply taking part in a revolution. If they fight for justice, they will deserve to be honored. But none of them should expect to be wealthy because of that honor. A political milestone like the People Power Revolution of 1986 is something that the Filipino people should be proud of. But they should not expect social and economic progress to be achieved solely because of that political milestone.
In the near future, more political milestones may be achieved. Brave citizens of countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea may someday compel their leaders to institute major political reforms. But even the most heroic citizens should suffer no delusions. The struggle for progress does not end with political triumphs.
"When a country needed a leader in war, I stepped forward," he recalls. "But after the war was won, when my people asked me to be their perpetual dictator, I humbly declined. For I knew that while I could be a good leader in a time of war, I'd be a mediocre one in a time of peace. I was just a warrior and a farmer, with hardly any formal education or experience in civil government. The nation was better off being led by men far more intelligent than me, I thought. That's why I relinquished my post and went back to farming. That's heroism, right? But 30 years later, why does it feel more like stupidity than heroism?
"If that war was worth fighting, why am I dying a poor man?” he asks himself. "If stepping forward to lead this country was the right thing to do, why was I never rewarded a good life? Maybe I should have let those bastards from the empire conquer this land. Maybe I should have remained as dictator and plundered the nation's treasury. Maybe I should have sold this country to the empire when I had the chance. "
The above story is fictional. But reflecting on it may help us understand the plight of the Filipino people. Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the 23rd anniversary of the People Power Revolution. And 23 years after ousting a dictator, like the great plebeian who had won a glorious war and lived an impoverished life, the heroes of the revolution are asking themselves, "Did we do the right thing?"
More than two decades after the peaceful revolution that earned us the admiration of the world, the Filipino people still find themselves having a million reasons to feel ashamed. Corruption is still rampant. The streets are teeming with trash. The masses are starving. Our Southeast Asian neighbors are overtaking us economically. And elections are still as bloody and chaotic as they had been during Marcos era. If taking part in that revolution was right, why are the children of those brave men and women starving today? If that revolution was worth fighting for, why isn’t this country being rewarded with prosperity?
Participants of the Second People Power Revolution in January 2001, the one that led to Joseph Estrada’s ouster, must be asking similar questions. If marching on EDSA to oust Erap was right, how come Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was rewarded with power while the rest of the country had to suffer the punishment of being under her rule? If that revolution was worth fighting for, why are our lives today not any better than they were eight years ago?
Like the great plebeian in the story, the Filipino people find themselves regretting their heroic acts after failing to reap the rewards they expected. And like that great plebeian, the Filipino people are asking the wrong questions and expecting the wrong rewards.
The great plebeian in the story deserved nothing but praise for his courage and leadership during the war. But why should he expect that his success in the battlefield would lead to success in farming? The victory would make thing easier for him as a farmer. Because there would be no invaders to burn his crops, no stray bullets or arrows to kill his livestock, no threat of violence to keep him from diligently tilling the land each day. But the blood of the enemy that spilled into the ground would never miraculously cause the earth to grow crops out of nothing. A farmer, even if he is a great plebeian, can only reap as much as he sows. His success as a farmer would depend on his competence as a farmer. Not on his competence as a warrior.
The Filipinos who took part in the People Power uprisings deserve nothing less than posterity’s admiration for their valor. The success of the two peaceful revolutions made progress possible. But the fall of leaders like Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada would never miraculously cause the Philippine economy to suddenly boom. A businessman’s success in business depends on his competence as a businessman. An engineer’s success depends on his engineering skills. A writer’s success depends on his writing skills. Businessmen, engineers and writers can not have successful careers by simply taking part in a revolution. If they fight for justice, they will deserve to be honored. But none of them should expect to be wealthy because of that honor. A political milestone like the People Power Revolution of 1986 is something that the Filipino people should be proud of. But they should not expect social and economic progress to be achieved solely because of that political milestone.
In the near future, more political milestones may be achieved. Brave citizens of countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea may someday compel their leaders to institute major political reforms. But even the most heroic citizens should suffer no delusions. The struggle for progress does not end with political triumphs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)