On Team Life and of clarity

In a better world (or even just a better country), people will say what they mean or believe in. To be more specific, a Filipino can actually say by simple yes or no whether he or she agrees with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception or not. Surely, with all the apparent learning being shown all around, such is possible. 

And surely everyone could benefit by knowing what Fr. Joel Tabora, SJ really wants to say. Because, no matter how many times I read his articles relating to RH, I simply can't get his point. And so far, none of my friends can too. And I'm pretty certain nobody else does.

In articles (see here and here) and tweets, he has written passionately (some would say agitatedly) on what seems to be his thoughts on the RH Law and the participation of Catholics in public life. Unfortunately, one can't understand Fr. Tabora because he seems to be not in agreement even with himself on what he wants to say. He says he agrees that Catholic teaching on contraception is sound theologically and in accordance with reason. Yet he ignores the fact that his colleagues keep teaching otherwise. And he strangely declares the RH Law in keeping with the Catholic faith, in complete disregard of his bishops' position. Then he absolves Pro-RH advocates for acting like spoiled teenagers (more on that later), ignoring facts and reason for the sake of pure stubbornness, while castigating Catholics for being "unthinking". Then he suggests people adopt Fr. Bernas' sense of humor. What was the joke? If there was one, it wasn't very funny because it's at the Filipino's expense. 

Instead, what is "unconscionable" (to use Fr. Tabora's word) is that Fr. Tabora  also seems to want the Church (of which he is a priest of and beholden to teach its doctrines) to be deprived of its constitutional right to participate in the public square of ideas (which the Diocese of Bacolod correctly did, when it exercised its right to free speech - see here).

But in the same way that that he sees it fit to imply that those who adhere to Church doctrine as 'unthinking' for rhetorical or political argumentation purposes, then so should Catholics be free to express their views of certain politicians as they feel appropriate (within reasonable bounds).

In this regard and as an aside, the term "cafeteria catholics" is not denigrating for simply being a statement of fact, a term referring to those who pick and choose teachings that they like from those they don't. It's not on the same level as calling people as "fundamentalists" or "unthinking" (as Fr. Tabora tacitly did of his fellow Catholics), or "medieval".

Which leads me to think on how hard it is to understand how cafeteria catholics can think and act like spoiled teenagers. They feel free in saying the Church is wrong and yet wants the Church to say they're alright. And then, when the Church, logically, comes and says 'sorry, you're wrong', they throw tantrums and heap abuse on the Church, and ask that the Church be silenced. Which makes no sense. 

If they think they're correct, then what does it matter anymore what the Church's opinion of them is? And if they don't agree with the Church, then why remain in the Church? There are thousands of religions that I'm sure will accommodate their 'spirituality'. Or better yet, why not create their own religion, which is what they're doing right now anyway. 

As for Fr. Tabora, I believe there is a need to proceed from a proper understanding of the true meaning of Church/State separation (an intricate concept first brought up fully by the Catholic Church through St. Augustine and, before him, Jesus). Furthermore, Fr. Tabora should again reconsider that the Church believes that there is indeed truth, that humans are capable by their reason to know that truth, and that an objective moral standard, contrary to the disguising through the use of the words 'plurality' or 'secular' when one actually means "relativism", is there showing us what it means to be truly human. 

The pluralism of society must be based on reason and coherence.  While indeed we should all respect other’s beliefs, it has to be accepted that to do so would not make those beliefs necessarily correct. To those saying that "nobody has the right to impose one's morality on others," they have to recognize that every law imposes a morality. The only question is which one to impose. Any law that purports to be free of morals is still a law imposing its own kind of morals. 

Interestingly enough, a substantial number of Philippine academicians seem to have been entranced with John Rawls idea of “plurality” and “public reason”. However, the response here is that Rawls concept of plurality is so constructed ("unreasonably narrow" in fact, according to George) as to exclude religious arguments and heavily favor liberal advocacies such as abortion and same sex marriage. Furthermore, while Rawls' plurality does make a pitch for public reason, his concept of "public reason" (see Rachael Patterson's critique, as an example) is so, well, "unreasonable" or ambiguous, as such that it becomes impracticable. In any event, we must not also confuse plurality, as well as the need for tolerance and respect for others' belief into actually thinking that it will magically transform all of our individual beliefs to be all correct. To tolerate and respect the belief of others will not necessitate us agreeing to such others' belief. 

A short word on “tolerance”: “The root meaning of the word [tolerance] suggests what the virtue involves. The Latin tol- is related to a group of words having to do with carrying a burden: German dulden, to be patient, to endure; Old English tholian, to suffer; Latin tuli, I have borne. When we tolerate we bear with someone or something; we bear the existence of a wrong. We do so because, given the circumstances, to protest would invite a greater wrong. There is a time for public correction, and a time for quiet endurance and, if the opportunity arises, private correction.” (see Tolerance and reciprocity, Professor Anthony Esolen, Public Discourse).

If indeed one has that truth, then it's one's duty to share that truth. Pluralism, secularism, the demand for individualistic freedom will not make us arrive at that truth. Instead, as Jesus taught us, it is truth that will set us free. 

To be clear: we all have the right to disagree. But I believe that one must put one's foot done when pro-RH advocates insist in thinking incoherently and inconsistently, and then demand we all think the same way. Because whether they agree or not, the fact remains that centuries and centuries of philosophical and theological thought, constitutional law, and even scientific facts form the wellspring of the Catholic Church's position. 

On the other hand, what do pro-RH advocates have as basis for their position? Simply put, because they just want it to be so.

Philippine caste system and the myth of the elections

Here's a brilliant article by Bobby Tiglao, worth posting in full.

Indeed, in this country, it's family surname and not talent that counts. And if you happen to have the latter but not the former, your best bet is to merely accept having your talent at the mere service of those elite families.

Hence, the unfortunate fact that most people who don't belong to the elite spend all their efforts trying to be in the elite families' good graces: sending them to the same schools, imitating their lifestyles, offering their children up at the same parties.

This grip that the old elite families have on our country must end. And it will. It just can't come soon enough.

****

In college, we learned about the caste system in India, which still continues in the modern age, despite its state’s Herculean efforts to dismantle it.

We all expressed horror over it. A person’s place in that four-tiered social strata is hereditary, and one is born, lives, works, marries and dies, strictly within his caste: brahmins (priests and scholars), kshatriyas (rulers, bureaucrats, and warriors), vaishyas (traders and merchants) and shudras (laborers, servants of the first three castes). At the bottom, or even outside of it are the “untouchables,” impure from birth that they are hardly considered humans and whose work can only be the most menial.

Scratch the surface of Philippine society; it has its version of the caste system, despite all its trappings of democracy and capitalism. The essence of caste system has been operating in our country: A Filipino’s place in life is determined by birth and he lives, works, marries and dies in the class he is born in, and so will his children and their children.

Consider Juanito Furugganan, born out of wedlock to the stepdaughter of a poor fisherman (shudra?). He would likely have lived and died like millions of Filipinos like him in some poor village. But his lawyer-politician (brahmin-kshatriya) father took him into his caste and Furugganan would be a Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the most powerful (and probably richest) men in modern Philippines.

On the other hand, our laundry woman many years ago worked as hard as she could to save money for her son’s education. But she could afford to send him only to public elementary and high schools—the quality of which drastically deteriorated in the past few decades. And then poor nutrition—the kind the poor gets from cheap instant noodles—has been proven to reduce a child’s IQ by as much as 20 percent.

With the very low quality of basic education her son got in those schools, it was impossible for him to pass the entrance test in UP, the most affordable for an indigent. Even college scholarships were not accessible to him, as they require tests he’d likely fail because of his poor education. He ended up in some cheap diploma mill, to drop out after two years, to work his life as a shudra.

(I often wonder if tycoons that their college scholarships merely help out those already in the Filipino middle class. To make a dent in our caste system, they must put poor families’ children through good elementary and high school, so they’d have a fighting chance of passing college-entrance tests.)

Think about people you’ve met in your life. UP as the home of “Iskolar ng Bayan,” my foot. I met only one schoolmate in UP who lived in a slum area in Quezon City, but even his father turned out to be a local politician from a Visayan town who decided to venture, unsuccessfully, in the big city. Another told our gang his father was a farmer in the Cordilleras. A decade later, I learned that he had to return to his village as his father died and he’d have to assume his father’s role—as chieftain.

On the other hand, one or two rich schoolmates in the Ateneo would continue to be spoiled brats in their adulthood, run several businesses to bankruptcy and splurge millions of pesos in women and drugs. Yet their children would still go to the best schools here and even abroad. Their lolos and lolas would give them capital for some boutique business, to be good members in good standing of their upper caste. You can’t get more hereditary than that.

There are rare cases of course, but have you heard of a “scion” of a rich family, no matter how irresponsible, criminal or unlucky he is, becoming a day laborer? On the other end of the society, short of winning the lotto, have you heard of a real Filipino who “swam in garbage” in his youth to become a tycoon? (Well, the tycoon who claimed that, after all, studied business administration in UP without scholarship, which makes you wonder if his mother’s fish business was as small as he portrayed it to be. More importantly, perhaps, he married upward to a landed politician’s clan.)

The archetype of a high-caste clan, and its imperviousness through generations is President B.S. Aquino’s family. Not even a dictator like Marcos could change the Aquino-Cojuangco clan’s high-caste status. Hardly ever having a real job (except formally heading a security agency, which had the family’s Hacienda Luisita as its sole client), this unico hijo got to be member of the ‘pork-barrel’-filled Congress for a dozen years and then got to be president.

A Brookings Institution study found that the majority, 58 percent of children born to parents in the poorest strata of the American population get to move out from that level. Eight percent of American children manage to jump from the lowest fifth of the income strata to the highest fifth.

There are no comparable figures for the Philippines, but unless anybody can show me contrary proof, I would bet that only a very insignificant number—less than 5 percent—of children born in our poorest strata get to move out of that quagmire. E-mail me information on an upper-class person whose parents were really dirt poor and not just an “underpaid teacher or government servant,” and I’ll devote a column celebrating his life. (Exclude however a rare exception: former Comelec chairman Ben Abalos who worked himself through law school partly by caddying, who’s already widely known to have been a rare exception to our thesis here.)

The most common bridge out of the poorest strata is a good college education, as Abalos had demonstrated. Even the poorest in the US can go through free public school for basic education and then get a good college education either through scholarships, or student-loan systems, in which repayment is required only when he is employed. Such a bridge does not exist our country.

Perhaps, knowing how unfair our system is and that the poor shouldn’t learn about how bad it is, the Philippine ruling class has created a myth that there is inter-caste upward mobility and even marriage in our country.

Former president Joseph Estrada (the jeepney driver) and presidential candidate Fernando Poe (Ang Probinsyano and Eseng of Tondo were two of his movies’ titles) played the role poor working-class heroes winning the hearts of upper-class women, that Filipinos mistook their movies for reality. The King of Comedy Dolphy became endeared by the masses playing the part of a poor John married to a rich unica hija Marsha.

The most successful myth in our caste society is our elections. Browse through the list of senatorial candidates. Is there anybody there who is not from the upper caste? There is even, interestingly, somebody from the Brahmin (“priestly” class): Eddie Villanueva, “brother” you should address him, and of course many from the kshatriya caste, professional politicians and even two former “warriors.” There are no representatives from the laboring caste, except for pretenders like Teodoro Casiño (“Born to a rich family,” according to his wikipedia entry, which he or his allies obviously posted); and Risa Hontiveros, who obviously has not had a need for a job for taking up activism as her hobby. After the glory days of the Left in the 1980s, it seems, it has run out of real proletarian and peasant leaders like former taxi-driver Crispin Beltran.

Check out who are running for congressmen and other local posts in your area: Is anybody really from, or genuinely representing, the poor?

An alien anthropologist visiting our planet and studying our country would be puzzled. Here is a system by which these Filipino earthlings —a pathetic lot as a quarter of them are dirt-poor poor and at most only 5 percent well off—choose who would be in their “Council of Elders” (i.e., Senate, from the Latin senex, meaning “elder”).

But all the candidates are from the rich 5 percent! How stupid this civilization is, or maybe how devious its ruling class is, the alien anthropologist would have concluded.

Understanding the Pope, understanding the Church

From Fr. Ces Magsino's Viatores blog:

Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation has drawn much commentaries and opinions from everyone. Many of these comments are about the Church’s present state and its future.

Take for instance Inquirer’s February 15, 2013 editorial: “Did he push back the reforms of Vatican II?… Did he make the Church more conservative? Set aside the fundamental futility of applying essentially political terms to religion, but the record does seem to skew toward conservatism, with important exceptions of a liberal or even progressive character.”

I agree with the supposition that it is futile to apply political terms to religion and to the Catholic Church. The Church is really is mystery in more meanings than just one. It is enigmatic, puzzling, and difficult to understand. In Christian theology a mystery means a visible reality that has an invisible and supernatural dimension. And so it will really be futile to apply political categories to the Church. It is at the same time conservative and progressive. It is ancient and current. It is old and new. It preaches death and Life. A mystery.

But just like in any institution the Church is best understood from the “inside”. It is not a spectator sport.
About the Church’s future, we can read this comment from Conrado de Quiros in his February 15, 2013 column, Crossroads: “Far more than Benedict’s actual resignation, it’s the relative lack of impact it had for much of the world that’s the more dismaying. It shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church has been epically diminished in the eyes of the world. Indeed, it shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church stands at a watershed, or crossroads, in history between continuity and obscurity, relevance and irrelevance, life and death. If you’re one of the faithful, of course, it won’t occur to you that the Church can possibly die. But if you’re not, which much of the world is, it most certainly can.”

The general tone of the comment, so it seems to me, is negative and pessimistic. The Church is dismissed by the world, the Church is between life and death and it can die. The usual problem with a negative and pessimistic outlook is that objectively it is not realistic. Reality is black, white and gray and all the colors in between. Moreover, because we lack perspective, it is usually difficult to just the present from a historical viewpoint.

Historically, when the Church was just beginning and Christians were few the Roman Emperors vowed to destroy it. Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Decius, Valerian and Diocletian tried to exterminate the Church. It could have died. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformation seemed to succeed in diminishing the Church’s numbers and sucking life out of it. In the same century, it spread to America and the Philippines. In the eighteenth century the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution aimed at destroying the Church in France. It survived and the French Revolution is now history; though Enlightenment ideas are still here with us.

The Church can die? The Church is a mystery: though it has a human component – it is made up of men – has also a divine dimension: God, Jesus, his teachings, the souls in heaven, grace,.. Can you kill God? Can you kill Jesus? Can you kill an idea? Can you kill a soul in heaven?

For twenty centuries people have been claiming the Church is dying. And yet the Church is still here with us with more than a billion members.

Of dynasties and the elite

Here a compilation of my past articles emphasizing the point that this country's main problem is the so-called old 'elite', 'de buena familias' that has incompetently, corruptly, and at times even traitorously controlled this country's business and politics. Feel free to share:

> It's the inequality, stupid!
> Tama na, sobra na, palitan na!
> Our mad, lunatic, insanity
> Of Ilustrado and the elections
> Still on the elite
> Vox populi
> Occupied Philippines
> Coffee with Jose Almonte
> The politics of excuses
> The trouble with priests
> Class war

And two somewhat technical articles on our oligarchy problem and how international trade and a good competition policy law could be of help to the country:

> Trade and human rights
> Anti-trust and corruption

Offending hate speakers

is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in the recent Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld. Because I am running for Congress as the second nominee for the Pro-Life party list (No. 42 on the ballot), election laws dictate I have to go on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week up to the end of the campaign period in May. So this will be the last Trade Tripper for a long time indeed. Hope all you readers continue to visit this blog nonetheless. Cheers and have a good week ahead to you all.

Last week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.

LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

RELATED STORIES Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.


Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.

- See more at: http://bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Offending-hate-speakers&id=65539#sthash.UEzvMSXY.dpuf

LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.

RELATED STORIES Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness" Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"

We will ignore complaints that Article 133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled with justice.

Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.

Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.

The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).

One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.

Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.

The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."

The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.

Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.


Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.

- See more at: http://bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Offending-hate-speakers&id=65539#sthash.UEzvMSXY.

Natural law and marriage

As in a previous episode of Naturang Batas, Fr. Ces Magsino made some draft notes for the episode Natural Law and Marriage. However, the 'drafts', like that for Natural Law and Contraception, are so instructive that I again asked the permission of Fr. Ces to share it to my readers. And here it is:

Segment 1

- What is meant by marriage?

By marriage we understand the consortium of lives of a man a woman who naturally unite in one flesh for the purposes of having children, establishing a family and extending to each other love and mutual help.

- Please give brief historical account of marriage? Who created marriage: The State? The Church? Society or culture?

Marriage is a natural institution. By this we mean that it is part of natural law and that the institution and its attendant qualities are rooted in human nature.

Different cultures and different historical circumstances have presented different customs and practices as regards marriage. Wives have been “obtained” by men through different means: by capturing them, by winning a war or battle, by arrangement, by payment, by convenience. But naturally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Naturally also marriage has been associated in many cultures with religion and religious ceremony.

Even if marriage is as old as mankind itself, its status has been elevated by Jesus Christ and Christianity. This faith has taught men that marriage has these essential qualities: unity, indissolubility, mutual help and openness to life. Reason itself can attest to the goodness and the need for these qualities.

Marriage has its roots in the mutual attraction of the man and the woman which leads them to conjugal love. This love is at the root of the marriage partnership. Although Christianity has raised marriage to the level of the personal love of spouses, this phenomenon is a universal one. It is enough to see how love songs are found in all cultures.

So if marriage is based on human nature and human nature has its origins in God the Creator, then we can say that God created marriage. And he has endowed it with its specific characteristics. Neither the State, nor the Church, nor society nor culture is the creator of marriage.

Is is true that monogamy is a modern invention? What about arranged marriages? Is it true that romantic relationships are merely a modern invention?

Although marriage has existed in all societies, even the ancient ones, its characteristics have changed throughout history.

Though certain primitive peoples have practiced monogamy, it was not the usual custom. Monogamy as an essential characteristic of marriage is a specifically Christian contribution to the institution.

But even if it is a Christian tenet, any person can understand the reasonableness of this teaching because in the end monogamy is based on something reasonable and in keeping with the dignity of persons. If we take a look at human love we can find the universal phenomenon of jealousy. This is simply the sadness any married person experiences when he or she learns that his or her spouse has given to another person the attention or care that he thinks he alone deserves. Jealousy is simply the human indicator that married love ought to be exclusive.

Exclusivity or that fact that married love is between one man and one woman is the quality that will assure the adequate respect that is owed to a person because of his or her dignity. Any other arrangement like polygamy or polyandry degrades the status of the man or woman to an object that is owned or possessed.

The quality of exclusivity when it is extended through time becomes the quality of fidelity.

The other qualities of marriage: children and mutual help can also be seen as natural consequences of married love. Love as a human sentiment has a myriad of expressions: it is a many splendored thing as the song goes. Many of its expressions indicate goodness that one spouse can give to the other. The highest expression of married love is the conjugal act which reason tells us is naturally ordered to the transmission of life.

Segment 2

- Again, what is natural law and why should it be considered in relation to marriage?

Natural law is the light of our practical reason that indicates to us what acts are good and what are evil and it gives us the command that the good must be done and evil must be avoided. It is based on practical reasonableness in relation to our human nature and the demands of our human nature.

It is necessary to consider what natural law tells us in relation to marriage because marriage is a very important institution for human life and society. It is in marriage that human life ought to begin and it is within marriage that human lives grow and develop. Experience of history and of societies has shown that when the institution of marriage is compromised, the children suffer, families suffer and society suffers great evils.

For example, marriage even by natural law standards ought to be stable thus enjoying the qualities of unity and indissolubility. We don’t need to be geniuses to see how divorce has harmed families and lives.

- Is sex a necessary component of marriage?

By definition marriage is union of man and woman so that they become “one flesh”.  So we can say that the sexual union is a necessary component of marriage. At least at one point in the lives of the spouses each must be able to render to his or her spouse the marital debt. By the law of the Catholic Church, the inability to render this debt will invalidate a marriage.

- Is children a necessary component of marriage?

Nature itself has determined that most marriages have children and some do not have children. The fact of not bearing children does not invalidate a marriage provided that childlessness is the result of circumstances beyond the will of the spouses. However, if a man and a woman enter into a marriage with the express will of not having children at all, then they are choosing to exclude an essential quality of marriage. In fact they union they are choosing is not marriage and so they lack “matrimonial consent”. This fact will invalidate their marriage.

- What about marriages where one spouse is sterile or impotent, are they proper marriages?

Sterility means that incapacity to conceive life. It may affect the man or the woman. Sterility does not go against the establishment of a marriage because the marriage between sterile couples keeps intact the essential features of marriage: union in one flesh, mutual love and openness to life. Although they can not conceive new life, the couple’s will remain open to life as long as they do not deliberately deprive their conjugal acts of their intrinsic relationship to conception.

- Would divorce be against natural law?

If we consider natural law to be the principles of reason that work for obtaining true personal goods and development, then yes divorce would go against the natural law.

Divorce is a very complex issue. It is claimed that in a certain case, the marriage of a man and wife has failed. Now, they claim they have the right to be happy. And the way they see they can achieve happiness is to be released from this present bond and enter into a new one. And so divorce is seen as a right and a need.

Though it is true that everyone has a right to be happy, no one has a right to do something evil. Using reason, we can see that divorce goes against great human goods: the unity of the spouses, their fidelity to each other and the good of the children.

When the divorce mentality has set in a society it has become the quick solution adopted to resolve marital problems. At the first difficulty, divorce. No man is perfect and so no marriage is perfect: everyone knows that. At first the man marries the woman he loves; but as time goes on he gets to love the woman he married. But with divorce easily obtainable, the man quickly dismisses the woman when the love is gone.

Segment 3

- What does natural law say about same-sex marriages?

Natural law reasoning has always looked upon same-sex unions as unnatural. I would not like to call them “marriages” so as not to cloud our thinking. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. And so a union between persons of the same sex is not marriage.

Because from the outset, this union is unnatural then natural law reasoning will tell us it is a disorder. Its unnaturalness resides in this: that the sexual pleasure that is concomitant with the conjugal act is obtained for its own sake in a sexual act that is not a conjugal act. It is an act against chastity.

- But how different is same-sex marriage between heterosexual spouses who are unable to have children?

The difference is galactic. Although both acts might be similar in that they are both unable to conceive new life, the rest of the equation is completely different. Spouses who are truly married live out their marriage when they render to each the marital debt and when they show their love for each other in many other ways. At the source and root of their love is something legitimate and noble: their one flesh union. This union is based on the natural differences and complementarity of the sexes.

In the case of the persons of the same sex, the difference and complementarity is lacking. In a real sense what a man loves in this case is a “man like me” and so the sexual relationship cannot transcend into an act of total self-giving but is essentially narcissistic. Statistics prove that these “unions” do not last long.

- What are the considered natural law sanctions for violating the good of marriage?

The natural consequences of violating the good of marriage are patent for all to see: we have infidelities, adulteries, mariticide or uxoricide, broken families. The social toll of these evils are very heavy for society to bear.

Natural law and contraception

The following are draft notes made for the show Naturang Batas (episode on "Natural Law and Contraception) by Fr. Ces Magsino. However, the 'drafts' are so instructive that I asked the permission of Fr. Ces to share it to my readers. And here it is:

What is meant by contraception?

Contraception is a kind of behavior whose context is the conjugal life of a married couple. So we are not talking about sexual relations of two unmarried persons because then we would talking instead of fornication or adultery.

Contraception is any action by which the married couple intentionally renders their conjugal act unfruitful by any means whatsoever. It involves the decision to do the marital act but also the decision to intentionally deprive it of its capacity to transmit life. The method that is used does not make any difference: the couple might use the pill, a diaphragm, a condom, spermicide, IUD, or withdrawal and in all these cases the marital act will be contraceptive.

A special case of contraception can happen in the case of a couple who intentionally exclude having children from their married life without any serious reason for doing so and have marital relations only during the infertile periods of the wife. Apparently this kind of behavior is natural family planning; but it really is another form of contraception.

Contraception is a moral evil. We can understand contraception better if we contrast it to the true human good to which it is opposed. It is really opposed to two human goods: responsible parenthood and marital chastity. The two are related to each other. Responsible parenthood demands the practice of marital chastity and this latter facilitates very much the practice of the former.

In the case of the couple that excludes having children for no serious reason these persons are not practicing responsible parenthood. Even if they use natural family planning they will still be doing something evil because their actions go against a true human good.

In the case of the couple that uses artificial means of contraception, they are deciding to have marital relations instead of the possibility of abstaining since they have used certain means to make the act unfruitful and so they consider it “safe”. Here aside from not practicing responsible parenthood there is also typically the choice of not practicing self-discipline over the sexual urges and hence the lack of chastity.

What again is the natural law?

It has been the claim of the Catholic Church that its teaching that contraception is evil is part of the natural law. And so, it will make sense to ask what this natural law is when we talk about contraception.

Natural law is nothing else than our very same reason that tells us what acts or kinds of behavior are good or evil. Then, moreover, it tells us that good must be done and evil must be avoided. It is our reason that tells us that lying, killing persons, hurting others, disrespecting people are evil actions and that we should not do such actions. And it is also our reason that tells us that truthfulness, honesty, working well, respecting others, helping others are all good actions and we must do such actions. We come to have these ideas spontaneously, meaning that no formal syllogism is needed to arrive at such a conclusion as to kill an innocent person is evil. But even if we do not perform any syllogistic reasoning to know this idea, our practical reason can see the reasonableness of such proposition.

What again is human nature?

Natural law is said to be based upon human nature. The typical understanding is this: our human nature is what tells us the principles of the natural law. This will need a little explanation because this point is not as clear as it seems at first sight.

We can understand human nature in the physical sense: a man is made of flesh and bones, organs and tissues, nerves and brain, bodily systems and functions. This is what the medical doctors study. Of course, knowing how the body functions will make us know what is good for our health and what is harmful. And so we avoid certain foods or handling certain contaminated materials because they are not good for our health. This is a kind of law we follow but this is not yet the natural law we are talking about here.

The human nature we are talking about as the basis of the natural law is man’s nature as being a person, a rational individual. Being a person he has a specific dignity, a quality that demands that he be respected. Being a person, he is reasonable, that is he tends to act according to reason. And so the natural law we are referring to is what is reasonable for man, what accords with his reason. In the end, what is reasonable for a person is what contributes to his full development and his happiness.

Why is contraception said to violate natural law?

Contraception as we defined it goes against two human goods as we have said. By saying this we are also saying that it goes against reason and reasonableness. And whatever goes against reason and reasonableness will go against the true good for man and against the natural law.

By choosing contraception, a married couple purposely renders their marital act unfruitful. Presumably the couple wants the benefit of sexual pleasure without the supposed burden of having a child. By any reasonable standard this way of acting is irresponsible. Our actions have natural consequences. If we eat fatty foods we raise our cholesterol levels. If we give in to laziness and don’t do our jobs, then we can get laid off. Any person will agree that someone who does something or omits doing something should be responsible and face the consequences. To have a sense of responsibility is a basic quality of any normal and upright person. Irresponsibility harms persons and society. Contraception promotes irresponsibility in parenthood. In fact it is the denial of parenthood.

Very much related to irresponsibility involved in contraception is the lack of chastity. By choosing to do contraception the couple chooses not to abstain from having marital relations so as to avoid a conception. The choice of not abstaining has its roots in the decision not to control one’s sexual urges when there is a reason for doing so. This is the lack of chastity.

Chastity is a very important personal good. Its absence has tremendous repercussions not only for one’s personal life but also for the life of a family and the society in general. One just has to realize that at the root of crimes like rape and adultery, and social maladies like broken families, separation, divorce, juvenile delinquency is precisely the lack of chastity.

Are there any exceptions? Dangerous pregnancies? Too many children already? Gays using condoms?

Contraception is said to be intrinsically evil. This means that the principle “contraception is evil” does not admit of exceptions. In a similar way other principles of the natural law like “killing an innocent person is evil”, “lying is evil”, “fraud is evil” do not admit of exceptions. Imagine if these principles of the natural law admitted exceptions, there would be chaos in our society.

The problem of spacing the births of children, assuming the couple has good reasons for doing so will not constitute a reason for admitting the practice of contraception because there is a reasonable way of proceeding if the goal of the couple is to space the next birth. The reasonable way of acting is to practice periodic continence.

Many years ago, it was claimed that the methods available for the practice of periodic continence were so unreliable and unpredictable that these methods placed an onerous burden and strain on conjugal relations. Those days are over since the current scientific and medical knowledge about female fertility makes determination of the wife’s fertile days very accurate.

The question of homosexual relations is a different issue altogether. Their practices cannot be classified as contraceptive because they are naturally unnatural and unfruitful.

Why can’t it be sex for the sake of sex? Can’t married couples enjoy sex just for the sake of sex?

If we reflect is a little bit about the differences between the male and female person especially as regards their sexual organs, we come to the conclusion they are configured excellently for the transmission of life. Any person who learns about the intricacies of the union of the sexual gametes and the ensuing conception of life will be awed at the tremendous complementarity and complexity involved in the entire process. And so it is reasonable to conclude that the sexual union has for its purpose the transmission of life.

But since man is not just an animal but a person, the sexual union for him and her is not just a physical and biological event. It is also expressive of the married love of husband and wife. It is the sign of their love and self-giving. From the personal point of view, the conjugal act is an act of total self-giving, where each person gives the other the totality of his personhood. Now part of that personhood is the husband’s masculinity and the wife’s femininity and this includes one’s fertility. A silent sign and witness of this exchange is the husband’s seed being left in the womb of the wife. Naturally a concomitant of the exchange is the intense sexual pleasure that is given and received.

From this standpoint, we can see that contraception makes the conjugal act cease to be an expression of total self-giving because each one’s fertility is not given because of a deliberate choice of the will. The act in fact ceases to be a conjugal act. Both parties are aware that they have chosen to enjoy the marital act but deliberately depriving it of its relation to fruitfulness. This is what happens when they perform sex for the sake of sex.

What is difference of contraception with NFP?

I have asked married couples that same question: what difference would it make for you if you took pills or if you practiced NFP. They always answer the same way: oh, there’s a whole world of difference. With pills you don’t have to practice abstinence or self-control. With NFP you have to practice self-control. I think that answers the question. It comes from the couples themselves.

Although it might seem that there is no difference between contraception and NFP because the premises are the same (the marital act is performed) and the conclusions are the same (there is no conception), the difference does not lie in the mechanics of the entire process but in the choice of the will of the couple. The couples that practice NFP have decided to practice a virtue: marital chastity.

But we also have to remember that aside from chastity the other virtue demanded by natural law for married persons is responsible parenthood. If a couple decide to use NFP but with the purpose of not practicing responsible parenthood (meaning they do not want to have children without serious reasons) then their choice will also go against the natural law. It will also be evil.

But isn’t it true that NFP is merely last resort? Please explain.

NFP is the only naturally viable option for married couples who want to space the birth of their children. It is the only option that is morally sound.

Some critiques of this idea claim that NFP is evil because it inhibits the “spontaneity” of the couples and introduces a “wedge” in their relations which is the calendar.

This criticism equates evil with the lack of spontaneity and so we can say it equates goodness with spontaneity. Furthermore, the assumption here is that what is spontaneous is what is natural. It is easy to realize that not all spontaneous acts in a person are reasonable and good for the person. Any spontaneous action in a person will still have to be subject to the governance of reason for the action to be truly good. One’s emotions or feelings, for example, are spontaneous events. People say: I could not help fall in love with her. We know of many cases where people have regretted being carried away by their emotions or feelings.

As to NFP putting a wedge between couples, this claim is denied by many couples who bear witness to living very satisfied married lives while practicing periodic continence.

What would be possible sanctions for violating natural law with contraception?

The sanctions for the practice of contraception are what we can call the “natural sanctions” for contraception and these are patent to all.

Because contraception goes against life at its beginnings, its natural offspring is the certain attitude or mentality that does not respect life and so we have the so-called culture of death. This is the culture that has gripped the old world: Europe and North America. When people do not see anymore that abortion is clearly murder then you have the culture of death in full force.

We already said that contraception also promotes the lack of responsibility and chastity among persons. The social consequences of these vices are also obvious to any reasonable person.