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.

Me, myself, and I

... is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:

A few years back I wrote how disturbing it was that everybody nowadays, even just doing ordinary things in ordinary places would unthinkingly, dramatically perk up upon having a camera thrust in their faces. You see it everywhere, people moseying along, bored expression on their faces, and then suddenly somebody takes a camera and people just switch on and start posing and projecting like mad.

Everybody now is a celebrity in their minds. People that normally would have (and should have) no claim to fame (or even notoriety) would find their faces and their most mundane activities on the Internet. Being ill informed, unread, or without any semblance of writing skills doesn’t stop them from airing their views extensively on Facebook.

Some people believe this is a good thing. I don’t. While indeed the democratization of information, the full utilization of the wisdom of crowds, and the greater participation of the public in the marketplace of ideas is ostensibly beneficial, not so if it leads people to sloppiness in thought.

Writer and Cambridge lecturer (never mind Oxford) Edward de Bono certainly thinks so. In an interview with news.com.au, he said: “There is danger on the internet and social media... that you do not have to think to be very dangerous. Social media causes laziness, that we feel will get more information and do not need to have his own ideas. We got the idea from someone else, we do not need to look at the data, we only see what others have to say.”

Reality TV is perhaps even worse. The behavior exhibited by the so-called “stars” often verge on the bizarre: every little thing results in violent arguments, no opportunity (even the lack thereof) for public sexual antics is wasted, and every mundane (actually stupid) opinion is aired out at the highest possible volume. While, of course, the rationale for such over-the-top behavior is understandable from the ratings perspective, it may (alas oftentimes does) sadly encourage (consciously or not) similar conduct from its fans.

Which makes me think: what effect does this instant celebrity (or whatever it is) have on the population? Without the need to acquire the skills, humility, and patience garnered from the constant supervision by one’s superior, the burden of redoing repeatedly a piece of work until it’s properly done, without the need of honing craftsmanship, researching and verifying the credibility of sources, the constant nagging and disciplining by an elder whether a work has logic and methodical train of thought, how does that affect the development of their character? When all they have to do, by way of example, is copy and paste obscure articles on the internet, Google and Wiki their way through research, then publish their works to the admiration of their peers who wouldn’t know any better? What’s the point of hard work and a demanding experienced mentor if one can be an instant star on the internet or reality TV anyway?

Ironically, having a “me,” self-centered, “if it feels good then do it” mindset (along with the capacity for instant gratification) has not made people any happier. In a 2009 study (reported in the Telegraph) involving Britain, for example, it was found that while its individualistic mindset made “for a dynamic and innovative population, it also appears to make it more anxious and unhappy, claim psychologists. The study by Northwestern University in Chicago compared levels of depression and anxiety in individualist societies like Western Europe and America with collectivist societies like China and Taiwan. They were surprised to find that there was a direct correlation between the two. The more individualistic the country, the higher the levels of depression.”

This reminded me of what Helen Alvaré, associate professor at George Mason University Law School, pointed out: the US sexual revolution had “four to five decades to prove itself.” And yet, “were increases in sexual liberty for women a key determinant of happiness (sufficiently key to raise birth control above even life-saving medicines for federal favor), a simple time-series graph correlating the percentage of women using contraception in the United States with the percentage of women reporting themselves as ‘happy’ would show a direct relationship. Instead, we have more women accessing birth control but less female happiness as described above.”

So much for the insane assertion that “satisfying sex” is a human right.

It would be great — to borrow from Paul Kengor — to have a leader who tells us that while “liberty is enshrined in our laws, but liberty should not be license for opportunities for the flesh. Our liberties, protected and permitted as they are, should not be exploited to do anything and everything we want, including things harmful to oneself, to one’s family, to one’s neighbors, to one’s culture, to one’s country.”

But, really, we can’t really blame people for indulging in madness if even our presidents, senators and congressmen, or even tourist guides, act like lunatics themselves.