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.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento