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.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
A Rose in The Dark
To the one I love,
What if on Valentine ’s Day, everyone becomes blind and all roses suddenly lose their scent? How can I let you know that I love you aside from saying the words? How can I possibly touch your heart if you can never see the roses I am giving you? How can I find that beautiful rose if all I can see is darkness? What would happen to my dreams of leaving red and white roses on your bed so that you’d dream romantic dreams when you go to sleep? What would happen to my dreams of surprising you with a romantic shower of rose petals?
In the dark, in our blindness, there will be no romantic sunsets for us to behold. No majestic mountains and pristine seas for us to view. No candlelight to glow and glimmer between two dining lovers. No glistening stars for us to look up to in the serenity of the night. So where will I take you?
I’ll take you to a place where the cold wind blows. Be it a place where beautiful trees stand with utmost grandeur amidst a sea of shimmering green meadows, or a bleak, dry valley devoid of beauty and vegetation. For it will not matter what we shall see. Only what we shall feel. The wind’s hissing shall be the bright, blinding glare of sunlight. The gust, the blow of the wind, the stirring of the strands of our windblown hair, the tingling of our senses as the chillingly cool wind pricks our skin, they shall all be the sun rays that shower us with warmth. And when the wind seems to run out of breath, when its furious hissing becomes a soft, soothing murmur, that will be our romantic sunset. Maybe it won’t be as romantic as the breathtaking sunsets we have already seen in our lives. But what better thing can we have? What else can I offer you to make you feel the intensity of our romance? If I can’t offer you visual splendor, I’ll offer you the best I can. I’ll offer you the splendor of a beautiful feeling. If we can’t see the beauty around us, why can’t we just opt to feel all the beauty we failed to feel deeply enough because we were too busy seeing?
Come to think of it, my love. There must have been a time when no one saw the romance in sunsets. But we learned. Everyone learned to believe that there is romance in beauty. And that a beautiful sunset is a romantic sunset. So believe me, we shall also learn. We shall learn to feel the romance in each beautiful feeling. We will learn to feel romantic when we feel the wind. And let us begin the learning today. So we can start feeling the sweetness today.
As a gift, I can not give you roses. But I will give you the rain. When I hear the rain pouring, when the raindrops begin to knock on our roofs, I’ll know that my spring has come. So I’ll take you outside. And we’ll feel the coldness together. We’ll embrace and feel the countless raindrops slithering between my skin and yours. I know there won’t be a pleasant scent for us to relish. But at least we’ll have something intense and pleasant to feel. We’ll feel each other shiver. And that shiver, that little manifestation of a quiet inner suffering, that will be the assurance that this gift comes from the heart.
As for my dreams of showering you with rose petals, I will never give that up. Though blind, though handicapped, I will search the ground for every light little thing that can fly and flutter in midair, little things that will feel like rose petals when they fall on you. Be they merely torn paper, leaves or plastic garbage. And when I have gathered enough, I will throw them all up. So they can fall upon the two of us. Just like rose petals. And as they fall, I’ll hold your hand and we shall reminisce. We shall imagine. We shall believe that these light, little things are red and beautiful. For when our eyes can no longer see, we’ll see through our memories.
Memories. They are what can turn the ugly beautiful, the despicable endearing, and the painful soothing. One day we’ll find ourselves walking along the banks of a stinking, polluted river. But because that river is the same river we saw together each day as we went home, we’ll stop to relish the river’s putrid smell. Because that smell, no matter how offensive, will flood our minds with beautiful memories. Beautiful images that we shall never see again. One night, the hounds will shatter the night’s tranquility with their howls. But we shall not be disturbed. We shall not be angered by those maddening sounds. Because through the howling hounds, we’ll know that the moon and the stars are up there, glowing, glistening, existing. One night, we’ll find ourselves standing dangerously close to a fire. We shall not see its light. But we shall feel its warmth. The same warmth that shall remind us of the romantic candlelight and the glorious bonfires we stared at quietly on the countless nostalgic nights of our past. And because we’ll want to feel more, to remember more of the romantic past, we’ll extend our hands towards that warmth. And we’ll let the fire burn our palms until we could no longer bear the pain. Yes, it shall be painful. But can anyone blame us for wanting to feel this much?
One day, perhaps, in my search for light, little things that feel like rose petals; I’ll find a priceless treasure on the ground. As I try to pick up something, I’ll be pricked by the thing’s thorns. Because it is a real rose. And I will rejoice because of that miracle. In my joy I’ll grip the flower’s stem tightly, letting the thorns pierce my skin until the blood flows out. And as soon as I find you, I’ll hand you my gift. A rose in the dark. Incredulous, you will hesitate to reach for it. But because you love me, you’ll touch my hand, and feel the blood that drenches it. The same blood that had come out of the wounds caused by the rose. The same blood that proves to you that I have a real rose in my hand. The same blood that lets you know how much I love you. Then, reluctantly, you’ll touch the soft petals, and then slide your hand to the thorny stem, gripping it, letting your palm bleed as much as mine does. Letting your blood fuse with mine as it drips down the flower’s stem, and then down to your arms. We’ll bleed, feel each other bleed and find bliss in each other’s bleeding. We will grip the stem even more tightly, let the blood flow out more profusely. And then we’ll suffer, we’ll cry and find bliss in each other’s weeping. In another life, such pleasure would have been deemed sick. But can anyone blame us for wanting to feel this much? Can anyone stop us from loving this much? From being this passionate? For hurting ourselves this much because the pain brings back ethereally beautiful memories? Because this is the only way to feel our love at its deepest? As we cry, we shall embrace. And not care how much pain we have to bear, or inflict on each other, just to experience this much love.
Sometimes, for love to be truly passionate, the lovers will have to suffer and bleed.
What if on Valentine ’s Day, everyone becomes blind and all roses suddenly lose their scent? How can I let you know that I love you aside from saying the words? How can I possibly touch your heart if you can never see the roses I am giving you? How can I find that beautiful rose if all I can see is darkness? What would happen to my dreams of leaving red and white roses on your bed so that you’d dream romantic dreams when you go to sleep? What would happen to my dreams of surprising you with a romantic shower of rose petals?
In the dark, in our blindness, there will be no romantic sunsets for us to behold. No majestic mountains and pristine seas for us to view. No candlelight to glow and glimmer between two dining lovers. No glistening stars for us to look up to in the serenity of the night. So where will I take you?
I’ll take you to a place where the cold wind blows. Be it a place where beautiful trees stand with utmost grandeur amidst a sea of shimmering green meadows, or a bleak, dry valley devoid of beauty and vegetation. For it will not matter what we shall see. Only what we shall feel. The wind’s hissing shall be the bright, blinding glare of sunlight. The gust, the blow of the wind, the stirring of the strands of our windblown hair, the tingling of our senses as the chillingly cool wind pricks our skin, they shall all be the sun rays that shower us with warmth. And when the wind seems to run out of breath, when its furious hissing becomes a soft, soothing murmur, that will be our romantic sunset. Maybe it won’t be as romantic as the breathtaking sunsets we have already seen in our lives. But what better thing can we have? What else can I offer you to make you feel the intensity of our romance? If I can’t offer you visual splendor, I’ll offer you the best I can. I’ll offer you the splendor of a beautiful feeling. If we can’t see the beauty around us, why can’t we just opt to feel all the beauty we failed to feel deeply enough because we were too busy seeing?
Come to think of it, my love. There must have been a time when no one saw the romance in sunsets. But we learned. Everyone learned to believe that there is romance in beauty. And that a beautiful sunset is a romantic sunset. So believe me, we shall also learn. We shall learn to feel the romance in each beautiful feeling. We will learn to feel romantic when we feel the wind. And let us begin the learning today. So we can start feeling the sweetness today.
As a gift, I can not give you roses. But I will give you the rain. When I hear the rain pouring, when the raindrops begin to knock on our roofs, I’ll know that my spring has come. So I’ll take you outside. And we’ll feel the coldness together. We’ll embrace and feel the countless raindrops slithering between my skin and yours. I know there won’t be a pleasant scent for us to relish. But at least we’ll have something intense and pleasant to feel. We’ll feel each other shiver. And that shiver, that little manifestation of a quiet inner suffering, that will be the assurance that this gift comes from the heart.
As for my dreams of showering you with rose petals, I will never give that up. Though blind, though handicapped, I will search the ground for every light little thing that can fly and flutter in midair, little things that will feel like rose petals when they fall on you. Be they merely torn paper, leaves or plastic garbage. And when I have gathered enough, I will throw them all up. So they can fall upon the two of us. Just like rose petals. And as they fall, I’ll hold your hand and we shall reminisce. We shall imagine. We shall believe that these light, little things are red and beautiful. For when our eyes can no longer see, we’ll see through our memories.
Memories. They are what can turn the ugly beautiful, the despicable endearing, and the painful soothing. One day we’ll find ourselves walking along the banks of a stinking, polluted river. But because that river is the same river we saw together each day as we went home, we’ll stop to relish the river’s putrid smell. Because that smell, no matter how offensive, will flood our minds with beautiful memories. Beautiful images that we shall never see again. One night, the hounds will shatter the night’s tranquility with their howls. But we shall not be disturbed. We shall not be angered by those maddening sounds. Because through the howling hounds, we’ll know that the moon and the stars are up there, glowing, glistening, existing. One night, we’ll find ourselves standing dangerously close to a fire. We shall not see its light. But we shall feel its warmth. The same warmth that shall remind us of the romantic candlelight and the glorious bonfires we stared at quietly on the countless nostalgic nights of our past. And because we’ll want to feel more, to remember more of the romantic past, we’ll extend our hands towards that warmth. And we’ll let the fire burn our palms until we could no longer bear the pain. Yes, it shall be painful. But can anyone blame us for wanting to feel this much?
One day, perhaps, in my search for light, little things that feel like rose petals; I’ll find a priceless treasure on the ground. As I try to pick up something, I’ll be pricked by the thing’s thorns. Because it is a real rose. And I will rejoice because of that miracle. In my joy I’ll grip the flower’s stem tightly, letting the thorns pierce my skin until the blood flows out. And as soon as I find you, I’ll hand you my gift. A rose in the dark. Incredulous, you will hesitate to reach for it. But because you love me, you’ll touch my hand, and feel the blood that drenches it. The same blood that had come out of the wounds caused by the rose. The same blood that proves to you that I have a real rose in my hand. The same blood that lets you know how much I love you. Then, reluctantly, you’ll touch the soft petals, and then slide your hand to the thorny stem, gripping it, letting your palm bleed as much as mine does. Letting your blood fuse with mine as it drips down the flower’s stem, and then down to your arms. We’ll bleed, feel each other bleed and find bliss in each other’s bleeding. We will grip the stem even more tightly, let the blood flow out more profusely. And then we’ll suffer, we’ll cry and find bliss in each other’s weeping. In another life, such pleasure would have been deemed sick. But can anyone blame us for wanting to feel this much? Can anyone stop us from loving this much? From being this passionate? For hurting ourselves this much because the pain brings back ethereally beautiful memories? Because this is the only way to feel our love at its deepest? As we cry, we shall embrace. And not care how much pain we have to bear, or inflict on each other, just to experience this much love.
Sometimes, for love to be truly passionate, the lovers will have to suffer and bleed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)