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.

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.

A World Without Confusion

When I was a teenager, back when almost every kid in the Philippines was going crazy over Japanese animated shows, there was a newspaper article (which, unfortunately, I can no longer find) which claimed that dubbed/translated cartoons showing Japanese, European and American characters speaking in Filipino made Filipino children confused. Indeed, why wouldn’t Filipino children be confused by such shows? The country they lived in was full of brown-skinned, dark haired people whose beliefs often contradicted those of the characters in foreign animated shows. Naturally, they’d be surprised to see white-skinned blondes speaking Filipino on TV and Filipino-speaking protagonists practicing non-Filipino, non-Christian traditions. In one episode of Samurai-X, a series about a former samurai struggling to live a fulfilling life in the first few years of the Meiji era (The Meiji emperor abolished the samurais' right to be the only armed force in Japanese society.), Japanese Christians were even depicted as powerless minorities fleeing their own country to escape the wrath of the authorities, minorities whose religious beliefs could be respected but not embraced by the “mainstream” characters in the show. That episode had certainly confused many Filipino children. Suddenly,because of that episode, the Christian faith that their Filipino parents taught them to believe turned out to be just another ridiculous foreign religion in another land. And the fleeing Christians that were supposed to be viewed as saints or martyrs based on Christian beliefs were being viewed by the show’s protagonists as “merely” respectable fellows with a strange religion. Yes, the newspaper article was right, foreign animated shows left the young Filipino people confused. But is there really something wrong with that?

Just three or four years ago, when I was already in my twenties, a major TV network showed a holy week cartoon special (dubbed in English) about Christopher Columbus and the supposed introduction of the Christian faith to the New World. There, Christopher Columbus was shown treading a dirt road in his native Spain, walking alongside a fellow Spaniard, conferring with the latter about his plan to journey to the west in search of a new world. Columbus seemed upbeat and excited about his plans, but the other man warned him not to expect too much because at that time their country had a concern far more important than discovering another land—reclaiming their own from the “evil” Moors. And then, like despicable villains in a cheap action movie, a few Moors were shown hiding in a grove not too far from Columbus and his companion, aiming their arrows at the Spanish protagonists. The arrows were shot, but not one of them hit the Spaniards, allowing the "heroes" to escape and live on. Though the appearance of the attackers was brief and fleeting, there was more than enough time for the viewers to see their villainous nature. While the Spaniards’ faces were pleasant and angelic, the Moors’ were ugly and terrifying, their noses crooked, their eyes bloodshot and gazing predatorily, like those of a vulture, their mouths shaped in the most devilish grins. The message was clear: the Christian Spaniards were good and the Islamic Moors were evil. Never mind that Columbus’s voyage to the New World would lead to the Spaniards’ massacre of the Native Americans. Never mind that the Europeans’ occupation of America was far more brutal and horrifying than the Moors’ occupation of Spain. The Christians were the protagonists and the rest were villains, period. There was no confusion. Is that what we want? A world without confusion?

When a female celebrity dresses scantily on national TV, the Church and other religious institutions raise hell over the matter. When male show hosts utter sexually tinged remarks, the censors do not hesitate to lash at the offenders. But when supposedly Christian programs demonize non-Christians and distort children’s understanding of history for the sake of absolving “great” Christian men like Columbus of their sins to the non-Christian world, both the Church and the censors remain silent. And if they do make a sound, it’s just that of applause. Are they happy to know that our children do not have to go through any kind of confusion about their faith, that our children are being raised as closed-minded bigots?

Somewhere down there in Southern Philippines, a young Muslim is learning to see his Christian compatriots as fanatical believers of the wrong God. And not far from that young Muslim is a young Christian who believes that Muslims are idiots who could never please the right God. But you know what? I’m glad that in this age of confusing animated shows, there is a chance that one day; those young Filipinos may be confused about the world and about their closed minded beliefs. And hopefully, because of their confusion, they will seek enlightenment. And as they take the long journey towards enlightenment, I pray that they practice tolerance.

Somewhere in Iraq, a child is being told by his parents that Americans, the same people whose government decided to punish Saddam Hussein with economic embargoes that left thousands of Iraqis starving, are the most merciless animals on earth. Somewhere in Afghanistan, a young boy is being made to believe by his father that a woman who dares to expose her face is a despicable sinner and that any godly man must punish her by spraying acid on her face. Somewhere in Palestine, young men are being taught that suicide bombing, when committed for the sake of their people’s liberation, is an act of martyrdom. Somewhere in Lebanon, children grow up believing Israelites, the same people who ruthlessly bombed Beirut to punish Hezbollah leaders, are brutal barbarians who deserve to get their own violent comeuppance someday. All over the world, children are being told by their closed-minded, conservative parents that women are inferior to men, that divorced couples are sinners, that homosexuals are incapable of feeling true love, that dark-colored people are ugly and white-skinned ones are beautiful, that theirs is the only respectable religion, that theirs is the best race in the world, and that theirs are the only correct beliefs.

I can only hope that one day, they shall also be confused.

Graduality

From space, the view of the planet earth is spectacular. A mesmerizingly beautiful glob of blue light glowing ethereally in the middle of space’s vast darkness. A luminescent blue jewel mysteriously floating on a frightening dark sea. But the best view perhaps is that from directly above the North Pole. From there the earth seems to be divided distinctly between two hemispheres—the illuminated half and the dark half, the one seeing the light of day and the one hidden in the dark of night. And if I were out there, floating somewhere way above the earth, looking down at those two distinct hemispheres, I’d wonder how it would be like to stand along the line that clearly divides the earth’s dark and bright sides. If from space, the earth seems to be clearly divided between the bright and the dark halves, shouldn’t it follow that from down there on earth, someone would see the sky clearly divided between black and blue?

The pictures taken from space can not lie. There must be a line that clearly separates the dark and bright sides of the earth. And once each day, we pass through that line. Because once each day, as the earth rotates, the day turns into night. But has anyone ever seen the sky clearly divided between black and blue? Even if we don’t wait for the earth’s rotation to take us to that line, even if we can run across the world from east to west just to be able to cross that line, would we ever find ourselves staring at a sky clearly divided between black and blue? Never. The day never suddenly shifts into night. The day can only fade into night. And if we run across the world in less than a day, even if the earth were not rotating, we would not see our surroundings suddenly turning from bright to dark. We would only observe our environment gradually losing its brightness, the land basking in sunlight before slowly crawling beneath the pall of twilight and then finally hiding in the dark cloak of nighttime. And when we find ourselves in the dark, we’ll know that we have crossed that line, the one which, from space, seems to clearly divide the earth between black and blue. But if we ask ourselves how far we are from that line, can we give ourselves an answer? If we try to recall the exact moment that everything around us was already dark, can we succeed?

Can you believe it? 365 times each year, the day turns into night. But how many times have we actually stood out there in the open at sunset, staring at the darkening sky, saying to ourselves with absolute certainty, “At this very moment, the day has completely turned into night.”? Apparently, nature has a playful side. It lets the most amazing natural phenomena unfold before our very eyes but at the same time conceals them from us.

It’s like what nature does to love. One day we just realize that we are in love. But by the time that realization comes, we have already been in love for quite some time. And when we ask ourselves how long we had actually been in love, we can not come up with the accurate answer. Love happens. We cross the line between friendship and love, that between admiration and love, that between lust and love, or that between infatuation and true love. But how many times have we found ourselves honestly and correctly saying, “At this exact moment, I have crossed the line between love and something else.”?

It’s like what nature does to memories. Life gives us a beautiful experience, we remember it, relish its memory for countless days, and then eventually, there’ll be nothing for us to reminisce. Because that beautiful memory has already faded into oblivion. But how many times in our lives do we find ourselves honestly saying,”Today, this beautiful memory has been erased from my mind.”?

Which is the same thing that happens to emotional pain. We feel it, suffer because of it, and then one day, we realize that the pain is gone. But by the time that realization comes, the pain has already been gone for quite some time. And though we repeatedly bear pain in our lives, how many times do we find ourselves honestly and accurately saying, “At this exact moment, the emotional pain has suddenly vanished.”?

It’s like what happens to happiness. For years, we struggle in our pursuit of happiness. And then one day, we realize that we are already happy. But by the time that realization comes, we have already been happy for quite some time. And though happiness has come to countless people, how many of us have accurately and honestly said to ourselves, “At this exact moment, I have attained happiness.”?

Now, I know what’s so damn wrong with my life. All this time, I’ve been expecting happiness to suddenly come into my life, like a thunderbolt fleetingly illuminating the dark night, when in fact, it can only come gradually, like the sunrise slowly brightening up the morning landscape. One day, perhaps, I’ll just realize that I’m happy, even though when that realization comes, I will have already been blissful for quite some time.

The same thing applies to progress. Growing up in a third world country, I have often heard my countrymen say that there is no hope for this impoverished land of ours. Because there hasn’t been any drastic change in the country for the past fifty years. But then, why do we expect progress to come through sudden, drastic changes? When the progress of human civilizations are discussed, we often focus on major political milestones—revolutions, conquests, legislation, treaties. Meanwhile, often overlooked are the long and silent miracles accomplished by the humble merchants who made commerce possible, the lowly peddlers who made it possible for humans to succeed without unleashing terror and violence, the same people who have quietly and gradually made it possible for millions of people to triumph in peace. Come to think of it, if those lowly merchants had not been so patient and persistent I selling their wares, there would be no such thing as an economy, and success would only come to those heartless enough to become ruthless kings and conquerors.

Someday, I’ll find happiness and success. But for now, I have to be patient. Because I know that such things can only come gradually. Someday, a country as impoverished as mine can attain prosperity. But for now, its people have to be patient because progress can only come with graduality. One day, I’ll just find myself happy, successful and living in a prosperous country. But when that realization comes, I will already have been happy, successful and living in a prosperous country for quite some time.

I wonder what other silent miracles are unfolding gradually before my eyes. I wonder how many lines I’m crossing each day. I wonder when the next startling realization of having crossed an invisible line would hit me.