NOT ALL CHEATERS NEVER WIN

Lying seems to be inevitable this time especially when someone is caught and agitated by the evil effect it may cause him. Come pressing time of investigation, the liar will find his way out of his quandary. The search for the truth, whether the agent is guilty, responsible or not rest on the hands of the prefect of discipline. Paul Glenn, in his book entitled Ethics, states that “Evil is done only when it assumes the aspect of good, as something that will bring satisfaction or will lead to it and it cannot be willed as such or for its own sake.” Likewise, C. Henry Pescke, in his book entitled “Christian Ethics,” specified that there are some obstacles which impair the coming about of a human act in its roots by diminishing or preventing the free will or a clear knowledge of the object of the act. It is obvious then that an evil act, perceived to be good and satisfying, will no longer be imputable to the agent, hence, he will not be fully held responsible of his act.

            There was one time in the seminary when all of the Second Year Philosophy seminarians were late in the mid-day praise. Certainly, it was a violation of the horarium: being late in the chapel for praise. More than that, it was a neglect of once duty to give God the praises He deserves. After the prayer after meal during dinner, the Liturgy committee head asked them to defend their case. One seminarian said that they got confused with the schedule, specifically on the time of the midday praise. Another seminarian reacted that they asked their cluster leader to call them before the praise starts but they did not receive any notice in return. The cluster leader seemed to be upset and just admitted the mistake and carry the burden by himself. I was frustrated when I learned that no sanction was given to them. This instance is a typical sample of an agent freed from his responsibility which emanate from his evil deed. How much more if the case had been grave?

            Black and white had been my standard when it comes to rule and regulations. No BUTs, no IFs. If you violated a rule, corresponding penalty will be applied unto you. If you are following the rules, then, everything is okay; nothing extra special is worth a commendation yet. Things changed when God made me realize how sinful I am. That despite my sinfulness, He still pours forth His blessings on me and considers me His son. And who I am to judge the people around me who are my co-equal in the eyes of the Lord. Yes, we have specific rules to follow. But, isn’t it that LOVE rules over the law of the land and humanity? With this realization, my learning so far in ethics reaffirms that my decision was right to enter the seminary for priesthood. Ethics made me appreciate a deeper look and further consideration on someone’s sinfulness; there might be some modifiers that would lessen the burden of being held responsible of an evil act he thought would make his life more meaningful.

Instead of focusing on someone’s wickedness, reassessing the wickedness as a potent avenue for instilling God’s love and mercy is now more interesting to do, though it is quite challenging. Like the holy men and women who used to be cheaters and now enjoy the heaven, the cheaters alike may be one day called holy. On that day, they surely win the kingdom in heaven.

FEMINISM IN PATRIARCHAL REALM

In attempts to challenge the foundations of morality, different schools of thoughts served the world with different sets of choices to assess the morality of an act. Existentialism, for one, proposes that we are free to choose our moral principles. Hume suggests in his Naturalistic Fallacy that no is implies an ought. Likewise, Moore recommends the idea that good is just a simple quality; you either know it or you don’t. On the other hand, Logical Positivists advocates that morality (moral statements) is neither true by definition nor by observation but merely an expression of feelings of someone. However, the thoughts of feminism, not femininity, is quite provocative in its attempt to define morality on the basis of developing human relationship, instead. For feminist, morality is not about the conflict of rights or institutionalization of abstract principle of justice. Its goal are not centered on individual autonomy and liberty but on caring for specific persons in specific situations: a life of virtue rather than one impartial justice.[1]

In a church that is considered patriarchal, like the Catholic Church, and in a community where machismo must be of certainty, a seminary as such, feminism seem to be out of perspective. It is customary that in a community of young man masculinity is observed. Young seminarians are expected to be tough physically and dense emotionally. He is expected be clever, practical and objective with his intellectual views. Being fickle-minded or easily swayed with his decisions is a big no-no. It is even observable nowadays that being bully would mean manly, delinquency is paralleled to virility, messiness becomes mannish and basagolero is equated to macho. With these characters imbibed by most of the seminarians, one thing they often neglect – the sense of community based on charity. They tend to pursue individuality rather than commonality. Being relational by saying and meaning LOVE at the same time is nothing but an awkward thing to do for us guys. But, what about our Christian moral living? Are we not taught that LOVE is the highest of all virtues and that Christian laws are founded on LOVE? Jesus speaks to us through the Gospel of John when He said: “I give you a new commandment: Love one another as I have loved you.” (Jn 13:3-4) With this, we are presumed as Christians to care about our brothers as Jesus cares for us. Love should be a universal mechanism which should not be discriminated with women alone.  We, as Filipinos, are even culturally bounded by our traditional virtues in building a truly Christian community, a genuine pagsasamahang Kristiyano with pagdadamayan, bayahihan, pakikipagkapwa-tao, and pagkamakadiyos as building blocks.[2] (CFC #792) This certainly suggests that we are supposed to be developing human relationships in every situation of our life even in our seminary formation – something which feminism argues to be moral.

I happened to talk to a seminarian in our Latin class. We talked about some strategies on how their lives with Latin subject will be appeased. It was a surprise on my part when he exclaimed that the grouping our professor initiated for group studies were not observed for a simple reason – kanya-kanya syndrome has become viral in them which they cannot get rid of. Not long after that, while we were having our break in our classroom, I heard the class discussing about the dues of some seminarians. The committee head was begging for some generous brothers to lend their money to those seminarians who have not paid fully their dues on their gala uniform so they can claim them all at once before their occasion. Sadly, only one raised his hand, the other kept their silence. There was even one who bragged his right over his own extra money. Are they becoming moral, then? This scenario is not different to some of my experiences in our own seminary especially when foods are served. You are lucky if something is left for you to eat. And as you pick that last piecemeal serving left on the table, you will see your brothers grinning at you with their teases and gags. Are we not supposed in the seminary to practice charity and commonality? Or, are these just concepts applicable only in circumstances of sufferings and needs?

Amidst today’s great stress on globalization, secularization, materialism, hedonism, and individuality, the world view of morality has become blurry. According to Paul Glenn, morality is a quality of human acts which leads us to call some of them good and some evil.[3] In like manner, CFC clearly describes a moral agent as a Christian disciple as person, endowed with the tremendous gift of freedom, operating according to conscience – the inner power which discerns and calls us to do what is good and to avoid evil, according to the law of God written in our hearts. (CFC #790) It is quite clear that feminism seem to find its lot in the realm of patriarch community of the seminary when we speak of morality. Everything we do is morally upright should we act in accordance to the laws of God which is summarized in one thing called LOVE or charity where we willing the good of others in a sense of community. One thing, I think, we should clarify, though, that carrying out this mission does not require us being feminine in our ways. It may sound odd for us normal men to talk about feminism in a sanctuary of masculinity but we cannot deny this fact that we are all called by God to spread His love. Yes, we can still be tough and be fierce but now on our faith and on our expression of our love for God. We must even the more become clever, practical and objective in our sharing and witnessing of God’s love.  Without question on our sexuality, we all share God’s charity and mercy - something we ought not to forget.

---

[1] (Handout in Introduction to Philosophy, 2001, p. 43)

[2] (Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, Catechism for the Filipino Catholics, 2008, p. 193)

[3] (Glenn, Ethics, 1930, p. 97)

LOVING HIGH; NEEDING LOW

Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs is extensively utilized in the educational system of our country. I, myself, was taught that an individual becomes actualized to accomplish higher motives only after they have fulfilled certain basic needs. For Maslow, one must satisfy his physiological needs first before he can satisfy his needs for safety or security, love and belongingness, self-worth and self-esteem, and self-actualization. This is so evident to many families, even to individuals, that they secure first their food, clothing and shelter. Subsequently, they work on their job security, invest on their health and well-being, and spend some amount on insurance policies. Later on in their life they will shift their focus in gaining friends and be intimate with somebody whom they can build a family with. People will then engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued in any group or community. Finally, they will desire to become more and more of what they are, to become everything that they are capable of becoming. In one way or another, this set-up is quite materialistic and individualistic. This was my mindset before I returned to Bicol in 2010 after working in Manila for more than five years after graduating in college. I was brought up and educated in a state university to serve the world and gain any recognition it can afford. I needed more material and temporal gratifications only to know that I was loved less.

            As I searched for that true happiness - what I can be, the one I must be, I shifted my attention to my family and to my community with the intent to be of service to them. It is with this simple intent I realized that there is something more to life than pleasing the world and be fulfilled by the world. I thought that I can find genuine happiness by serving the people. But, I was wrong. For serving the humanity does not mean always serving the Lord. CCC teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement – however beneficial it may be – such as science, technology and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love. (cf. CCC 1723) Noone taught me this thing in our family, nor in my classes in Religious Education. Well, I wouldn’t know what could have been my life had I know it when I was young. Given that, there is this sense of panghihinayang on my part that it took me almost thirty years to realize that. Though, I am exultant that I made that courageous act of entering the seminary – of finally answering His call. In our recent discussion in class, I was struck by a passage in our handout saying: Loving at a higher level makes the lower needs and their frustrations and satisfactions less important, less central, and more easily neglected. This thought is beyond sexuality; it caters our life as a whole in general. Had I know this thing early on in my life, I could have been the happiest person by now. In our seminary, there is no more luscious foods on the table, no comfortable bed, no rights over the authority, no special treatment, no certainty of ones future… full of nothingness. Despite this nothingness, the unfulfilled human needs, something greater is at stake that flows from the hand of our Loving God. Emptying myself out for my community is no longer painful as it was when I was outside. For it gives me immense happiness everytime I do my tasks in the seminary with love and out of love. Considering myself less among my brother seminarians is no longer hurting as it was before. For it gives me that sense of fulfillment whenever I put God first in everything I do. I may have nothing, but loving and serving the Lord makes the material and temporal needs and their frustrations and satisfactions insignificant and negligible. Indeed, there is more with God. For when God reigns in one’s life, loving high means needing low. God alone suffices and only to the Divine love and affection we abandon ourselves.

TWENTY-TWO IS GOOD TO GO

The documentary 22 (Bente Dos) vividly depicts a huge poverty-stricken family living in a socially ill and economically deprived Baseco compound in Tondo. At a glance, the family seems to be enjoying a home imbued with filial attachment, generosity and gratuity, patience and sympathy, and heroism. Later on the movie flick unraveled the several family problems – meager income, failed relationship, too much dependence, and unfinished schooling… all of these were associated with their big family. The mother (Mrs. Cabañez) of the family can be quoted saying: “Hindi naman namin alam iyang family planning na iyan. Wala naman sa aming nagsasabi ng tungkol diyan.” On the other hand, the father (Mr. Cabañez) was saying that it was the result of his fidelity to her wife that they have many children rather than committing the grievous sin of adultery. Moreover, the film was successful in showing one of the realities of having a huge family but did not give its viewer an opportunity to assess the other side of the coin. I know a family in our town who had more than twelve children and yet managed to succeed in their family life economically, socially and spiritually. The film did not give us either even a glimpse on the realities of having a small family. Nonetheless, some issue are predominant in its theme – unawareness on family planning, a huge family, irresponsible parenthood, and poverty.

            The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity. [2335] In marriage the physical intimacy of spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. [2361] …The truly human performance of intimate and noble union of spouses fosters the self-giving they signify, and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. [2362] The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. [2363] Both man and woman give themselves definitively and totally to one another by the virtue of fidelity. [2364] Likewise, fecundity is a gift for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful [2366]. A particular aspect of which concerns the regulation of procreation. [2368] From the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, the then Supreme Pontiff underlined that the conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of responsible parenthood. He stresses out, too, that responsible parenthood means knowledge and respect of the function of biological processes, that responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over instinct or passion; that responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth; and that responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. [1] Furthermore, in view of birth regulation, the soon to be Saint John Paul II made it clear in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Christian Family in the Modern World that when, instead, by means of recourses to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of sexuality the are acting as ministers of God’s plan and the benefit from their sexuality according to the original dynamism of total self-giving, without manipulation or alteration.

            In the case of Cabañez family, it is apparent that the couple has adhered to some of teachings of the Church although failed on some. Yes! They may be big but Mrs. Cabanes chose life over death through abortion. Yes! They are many, but Mr. Cabanes has remained loyal to his wife and has been avoiding infidelity since they got married. They have submitted themselves fully to their partners and allowed their union of love bear much fruit without manipulation or alteration to avoid new birth. This was evident in the manner they narrated their story with openness and comicalness. However, the couple has failed to consider responsible parenthood in their love affair especially on the aspect of birth regulation – a baby is born after another. Nonetheless, the couple must not be grilled on the aspect of morality here. We know for a fact that it is NOT just to subject an ACT of MAN to the evaluation of morality.[2] Since the couple lacks knowledge on family planning and of their faith, an essential quality of human act is lacking, making their act an act of man; hence, we cannot subject the couple to the evaluation of morality. Further, the conception of a child, the moral object in this case, is never immoral. The consequence is quite favorable too for they live in a not so good environment, so to speak, and their union is exclusive to their spouses and done naturally. Although the intention might be not that of pro-creation, nonetheless, they did not had any ill-intent in doing so. Numerous number of children and birth space, per se, do not pose any problem for me, neither education nor poverty; but the real problem of the family in the film is their lack of understanding and appreciation of their faith. The circumstances could have been different, even if they have many children, had they been informed and made to understand their faith. Ramon Garcia de Harro enumerated in his paper, The Moral Foundation of Family Planning, the principal means of assuring good moral married life. These are: a faithful and positive presentation of Catholic Doctrine, recourse to grace, ascetic commitment, and adequate pastoral help.[3] A bit of religiosity was caught in a scene showing a rosary, though. But, there is not much spirituality involved in the married life of the couple. These are the things which were never made obvious in the film; something the Church authorities must ponder on, especially on the first and last means. It is time for the church leaders and workers to be more pro-active and exert more effort in partaking in the new evangelization. Before another family resorts to contraception, we must be one in our ways in spreading our doctrine to the lay men and women. Twenty-two is indeed good to go should love reign in the family. Love that stems from faith and serves as an expression of their true faith in God. We have heard of many stories of dysfunctional and unhappy family which are considerably small with one or two children. We can say, therefore, at one point family size and its spacing do not guarantee any economic, social, or emotional advantage for the family should there be no love at all. More importantly, so long as they do not see themselves made by God and for God alone, eternal happiness they will never achieve in their family, in their community, and in the country at large.

---

[1] Natural Family Planning in the Document of the Church. (n.d.). Documentation Service, 2-6

[2] Glenn, P. J. (1930). Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. B. Herder Book Co.

[3] Harro, R. G. (-). The Moral Foundations of Natural Family Planning. Documentation Service, 25.

ROBBED COMMODITY; RUBBED IDENTITY

The devastation brought about by monster typhoon Yolanda came as a surprise not only to the Filipino nation but to the whole world as well. Everyone was shocked by the aftermath of the typhoon most specially in the city of Tacloban which was given much attention by different local and international media organizations. The survivors gained a bit of favorable media mileage to clamor on their condition and eventually won the sentiments of the citizens of the world, not only the Filipinos’. Material and financial help were outpouring from both ends of the world. Different organizations got themselves busy with different fund raisers to beef up the aid soon to be deployed in many relief operations. Unfortunately, all these good intents and good works were put on a halt by the difficulty in distributing the so-called humanitarian help with urgency due to limited transportation to forward goods, lack of manpower to do the jobs, obstructed roads, to name a few reasons. Due to the unwanted delay of relief operations, if I may say that, people started to get hungry and fought for their own survival. With the emergence of the civil unrest, looting had become an option for many. At this point, many a few felt so frustrated with the robbers and the robbed commodities. Some were heard defending the cause of the stealers; some were heard demeaning the looters.

            The determinants of morality are enumerated, viz., the act itself (object), the end of the agent (end), and the circumstances other than the end of the agent (circumstance). For an act to be morally good, the three criteria must be present and established to be good. Hence, an act is morally good act only if the act is good in itself, in its end and in its circumstances, says Paul Glenn. Further, Glenn added that the object or act itself is the primary determinant of morality; that if the object is evil, nothing can make it good.[1] Applying these rules on the looting incidents in Tacloban, we can say that the acts are indeed morally evil. For one, stealing is intrinsically evil. The seventh and tenth commandment clearly state: “Thou shall not steal.” and “Thou shall not covet your neighbors’ goods.” These laws are considered Divine Law authored by God Himself; as such, the highest law. Noncompliance to these laws are grievous and evil. Furthermore, the evil act of stealing can never become good by the intention of the looters – for survival. The famous line “the end justifies the means” seem to be obsolete here; instead, we might say, the end should specify the means. Lastly, the dreadful conditions of Tacloban can never turn stealing into morally good act. With these, we can tag these looters immoral. However, our quest must not end here.

            Going back to the fundamentals of ethics, only human acts can be subjected to the evaluation of morality. An act is human act if it is done with knowledge, freedom and voluntariness. Obviously, looting was done with consciousness on the part of the survivors. Likewise, doing the looting is comprehended as willed by them. However, freedom as an essential part of human act on the part of the looters is quite gray. Hard Determinism would tell us that since everything has causes that determine it to be what it is, there is no real freedom. Hence, people must not be held morally responsible for their actions.[2] In the case of Tacloban, looting was caused by shortage of supplies. With the situation they were in, there seemed to be no choice left for the survivors but to steal others good for their prolonged existence. In here, a window is opened for us to glance at and be convinced that the act of stealing committed in the ravaged area of Tacloban undeniably fell short on the requirements for it to be considered human act. Henceforth, the looters must not be scrutinized, with regard to morality, for their act is now considered act of man.

            With these opposing views at hand, we might want to refer ourselves to our scripture and see what could be the best thing to do to reconcile the difference. In an encounter of Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees when He restored the withered hand of a man, Jesus asked them, knowing the thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it? (cf. Gospel of Matthew) In another occasion, when the Pharisees saw the hungered disciples pick grains for them to eat on a Sabbath, Jesus said unto them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his men were hungry? He entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, something here is greater than the temple. The scripture says that it is kindness that I want, not sacrifices.” (cf. Gospel of Matthew) Clearly, we are encouraged by these passages to respond like Jesus in the parables who proposed charity and value for life, instead. In this trying times, we must extend not only our helping hands but our sympathies to the survivors without being judgmental. Yes, we must preserve the law and order, but more than that we must maintain in ourselves some kindness and a bit of sacrificing. Our moderator group, Oratio, was prompted by this tragedy to savor our substantial work of week-long prayer for the victims with some good concrete deeds of packing our humble used good clothes (those which we hardly give away) for them. Ours is surely not enough but such little acts of charity tendered collectively could offer remedy for their rubbed identity.

---

[1] Glenn, P. J. (1930). Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. B. Herder Book Co.

[2] Handout in Introduction to Philosophy. (2001). Holy Rosary Minor Seminary.