A Response to an Academic on Reproductive H ealth Bill 5403

Dear Dean Pangalangan,

Contrary to your opening sentence in your most recent article of September 26, 2008 in your PDI column, “The clergy’s all-out war on contraceptives,” the Catholic Church makes a whole lot of sense in its condemnation of contraception. Let us go straight into the crux of the matter, the red meat, if you would permit, because all else is just gravy.

Why is the Church against contraception?

We can draw our answer from Pope Paul VI’s prophetic 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. I quote verbatim from an article from the American TFP website: Humanae Vitae: the encyclical that condemned the sexual revolution. (Emphases in bold throughout this letter are mine.)

“The encyclical clearly explains why it reaffirms the Church’s perennial doctrine: The Church cannot change God’s Law expressed in nature. The document states:

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

The encyclical is based on natural law and on Revelation, both of which manifest the will of God. The Magisterium of the Church was given the mission not only to interpret Revelation but also natural law, and it therefore addresses morals in all its aspects:

Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation.”

In a pastoral letter, In Obedience To Christ, written in 1991 by the late Bishop Glennon Flavin of Lincoln Nebraska, he affirms the Church’s immutable and universal teaching on contraception,

“The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder. Contraception is wrong, not because the Church says it is wrong (it was wrong before Christ established the Church); it is wrong because God Himself, through the revelation of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, has declared it to be wrong. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason, no matter how good and urgent. A good end never justifies the use of an evil means.”

Condoms fall under the category of barrier methods of artificial contraception like the IUD. It is not the same as natural methods you referred to in your article. To make my point clear, I quote from this article, Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning,

“Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”

In natural family planning, the couple takes advantage of the natural fertility/infertility cycle of the woman without artificially intervening through barrier (IUD, condoms), surgical (tubal ligation, vasectomy, abortion) and chemical (contraceptives) methods. Therefore, NFP is perfectly in conformity with natural law.

The above cited article continues,

“To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands — just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do — and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).”

Therefore aside from the above, may I add that polls or survey results have no bearing on the Church’s position. The Catholic Church’s staunch stand on moral issues is based on sound doctrine and principles and not on the prevailing whims of the misinformed public or misguided journalists. Now, my question is: Can the proponents of RH 5043 make an intrinsic evil right? I say good luck. They can rant and rave till kingdom come but I doubt if the Church would change its position on an immutable Truth. Perhaps, pagputi ng uwak, pagitim ng tagak.

You foisted on your readers the claim of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that conception begins at implantation. As a physician, I take that statement with TONS of salt. Quite to the contrary, I concur with the views of Drs. Fritz Baumgartner in his article, When Does Life Begin, and that of Richard Sosnowski of the ACOG,

“But why? Why on earth would the ACOG change its definition of conception from fertilization to implantation? The chilling answer was suggested by Dr. Richard Sosnowski of ACOG, who in his 1984 presidential address stated:

‘I do not deem it excellent to play semantic gymnastics in a profession … It is equally troublesome to me that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as the successful spermatic penetration of an ovum was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient.’ "

Regarding the PDI report on the decline of abortions in the US, its source, Agence France Presses, craftily gave the impression that the decline was solely due to contraceptive use. Let us go to the more accurate report: Guttmacher Reports Documents 30-year low in Abortion rates:

“According to the report, the decline in teen pregnancies began before the emphasis on abstinence-only education and largely is a result of more effective and widespread use of contraception. However, the report also said the decrease in the abortion rate among teens has been accompanied by an increase in teen births in part because of a greater societal acceptance of unwed mothers, increased difficulty in obtaining abortions in some parts of the country and changing attitudes toward abortion (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). Jones said, "We've made the most important progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rate, [rather] than reducing unintended pregnancy in older women."

Too bad for the advocates of the RH bill, the internet has made it more accessible for the public to glean and study documents on how the perpetrators of the contraceptive and abortion mentality suckered the American public and the rest of the world into accepting their deceptive ploy. No sir. Vigilant pro-life Filipinos will not commit the same folly.

You took Cebu Rep. Raul del Mar to task on his position against the RH bill and reminded him of his oath to uphold the Constitution that provides the separation of Church and State. The trouble is, Dean Pangalangan, the issue of artificial contraceptives and sex education is a matter of faith and morals whereby the Church and its faithful followers have a legitimate right to take a moral and principled stand. Besides, what does the Constitution say related to this issue?

The following articles and sections from the 1987 Philippine Constitution give testimony to the duty of the State to defend the family, the youth and the unborn:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and

duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” (Art. II, Sec. 12)

“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promotes its total development.” (Art. XV, Sec. 1)

“The State shall defend (1) the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.” (Art. XV, Sec. 3)

So now I ask, why is the State promoting artificial contraceptives and sex education which is against the religious convictions of Catholics faithful to Church teachings? Isn’t this unconstitutional?

I wish to discuss more but this rejoinder has gone beyond its intended length. I close with some points to ponder from this article by Fr. William Swift, On The 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae,

“Mary Eberstadt, in her brilliant article, “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae,” in the current issue of First Things, averred: “When Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, it quickly became the punch line to endless jokes, the occasion for endless mockery and disdain. Forty years later, it’s clear the joke is on us. Humanae Vitae has proved to be one of the most prophetic documents ever written.”

”Why does she reason in such a manner? In the encyclical Paul VI did affirm and confirm the ever-constant stand of the Church that artificial birth control is sinful, illicit and immoral.

“What did he say? If we become a society immersed in a birth control mentality there will come about:

1. A general lowering of moral standards throughout society, amongst old and young.
2. A rise in infidelity among married couples.
3. A lessening of respect for women by men.
4. A coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments”.

It is precisely this contraceptive mentality that the RH bill wants to promote among Filipinos – something I reject with all my heart, mind and soul.

Very truly yours,

Jose Maria P. Alcasid, MD

Is Sodomy No Longer A Sin?

The following article was sent via email as a letter-to-the-editor to The Philippine Daily Inquirer but did not see print. Perhaps the Inquirer's editorial staff couldn't handle its "disturbing presence."

________________________________________________________________

I commend Isagani Cruz for his insightful Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) article of August 12, 2006, “Don we now our gay apparel”[1] which hits the nail right smack on the head by underscoring the alarming advances of the homosexual revolution in recent years. Aided by Hollywood’s liberal fringe, mainstream media[2], local movie and entertainment industry as well as some legislators in Congress, the homosexual movement strives to impose changes in laws, customs, morals, mentalities and ways of being, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Is it any wonder why homosexual themed movies have been reaping local and international film awards?

Equally alarming is the deplorable arrogance with which homosexual militants claim alleged “rights’ in direct opposition to the laws of God and of nature. Hence, movement activists pressure society to promote or legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as gay pride parades and beauty pageants, same-sex “marriage” and the passage of anti-discrimination laws, while relentlessly assailing and marginalizing those who defend traditional morals.

This attitude is echoed by the vitriolic and rather short-sighted rejoinder spewed out by Manuel Quezon III in his Long View column in the PDI of August 14, 2006 entitled, “The Grand Inquisitor.”[3] The piece is a not-so-subtle attempt to demonize anti-homosexuals as bigots, intolerant and uncharitable – oft-repeated and worn-out “talismatic” words bandied about in liberal and “open-minded” yet doctrinally challenged circles - and a glaring example of the ominously cynical collaboration and cunning omissions of deceptive journalism in spreading Christophobia and anti-Christian values that corrode the very soul of Christian Civilization.

Deep down, the bottom line issue is not about discrimination, tolerance, hate crimes or domestic partnership, but the morality of homosexuality. In this highly charged debate, an important distinction must also be made between people with same-sex attraction who resist it and are chaste against those who engage in homosexual acts. Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church’s Magisterium - the teachers of virtue, fountains of graces and the irreconcilable enemies of error and sin - have never been wanting in counseling the faithful on the evils of homosexuality.

True charity and compassion towards homosexuals consist in making them realize the profound unnatural vice they have embraced, aiding them see the horror of the sin in which they find themselves, and assisting them in every way to desert and renounce their deplorable state. Loving the sinner is not tantamount to tolerating and accepting his or her sin but rather exhorting him or her towards repentance and conversion. Let us recall to mind what Our Lord said to the adulterous woman condemned to death by stoning by the Jewish mob, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and now SIN NO MORE.” John 8:11.

_____________________________________________________________
[1] http://news.inq7.net/archive_article/index.php?ver=1&index=1&story_id=14837
[2] http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/aug/18/yehey/opinion/20060818opi1.html
[3]http://news.inq7.net/archive_article/index.php?ver=1&index=1&story_id=15080

I'm A Catholic, Should I Boycott The Da Vinci Code Movie?

Amid the impassioned and heated debate about The Da Vinci Code movie, the most elementary and basic of questions that concern most Filipino Catholics regarding this controversial issue seem to have fallen by the wayside.

Surely, plenty of printer’s ink and some TV airtime have been spent to parrot a motley mix of opinions in the news media lately over the merit or lack thereof of the said movie. And in a raging controversy with grave moral implications such as this one, the same old justifications rear their ugly heads time and time again.

“Why so much fuss? It’s only fiction,” remarks one fellow. “Keep an open mind while you watch the film,” admonishes another. “Why boycott the movie when you haven’t even read the book?” queries an apparently conscientious soul. “Don’t protest. You’ll only give it more publicity,” urges another.

But really, how doctrinally sound are these comments in light of the nature and plot of the movie?

It is no secret that one of the central themes of The Da Vinci Code revolves around author Dan Brown’s dubious and absurd claims that Our Lord Jesus Christ married St. Mary Magdalene and that the alleged union produced an offspring from which a divine lineage sprouted. Hence according to this distorted depiction that run contrary to historical truth, St. Mary Magdalene became figuratively the Holy Grail that carried the divine seed.

And insidiously interspersed within this sinister and anfractuous scheme, the wily author craftily weaves in pagan and Gnostic heresies, sexual distortions and perversions and the whole shebang of other spurious claims.

To add insult to injury, the revisionist Dan Brown concocts an equally ludicrous accusation that the Catholic Church has perpetrated “the greatest cover-up in human history” and that “almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” (The Da Vinci Code, p.249)

He insinuates that “The Bible is the product of man…Not of God…Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible which omitted those gospel which spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him god-like…[T]he modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who had a political agenda – to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ…” (The Da Vinci Code, p.231-234)

Now, to a serious and discerning Catholic I ask, wouldn’t these prevarications constitute blasphemy? And by the way, how would one define blasphemy in the first place?

According to the Merriam-Webster College dictionary, blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; or irreverence towards something considered sacred or inviolable.

Without batting an eyelash The Da Vinci Code fits the bill to a tee. It attacks and reviles the sacred person of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the very core beliefs of our holy religion. It denigrates He Whom we, Catholics, hold as holy and inviolable.[1]

It’s only fiction you say? Well, read my lips. It’s B-L-A-S-P-H-E-M-O-U-S fiction littered with egregious historical errors and doctrinal flaws. So if you value your Catholic Faith, steer clear off it and don’t even dare touch it with a ten-foot pole!

Keep an open mind? Be careful lest your brains fall out! But honestly, can Catholics sit out this movie in theaters and come out with a clear conscience knowing they’ve aided and abetted the consummation of a blasphemy?

Oh, you mean I didn’t read the book yet? I don’t have to take cyanide to know it’s poison. Besides, as the old adage goes many a curious cat ended up kicking the bucket, right? One can certainly form an intelligent and viable opinion on the The Da Vinci Code book or movie without ever reading or seeing it by sifting through a plethora of reliable information and resources gleaned from the Internet, news media and several excellent books published to refute its many lies.

Don’t protest because it only gives it more publicity? Yes… the kind of negative publicity that scares the living daylights out of the movie’s promoters! Why else do you think Sony Entertainment hired the services of Sitrick and Company, one of Hollywood’s foremost public relations and damage-control experts - if not to try to stave off the brewing storm spurred by the movie?[2]

And there’s more. The promoters of The Da Vinci Code movie are keeping their fingers crossed hoping that the relatively harmless exercise of watching a film doesn’t turn into a thorny moral issue that would give moviegoers a problem of conscience once they set foot on the theater’s lobby. They want to exorcise the “B” word out of the controversy and hope dissenters keep those protest placards safely stowed away in their respective homes.

But seriously above everything else, a Catholic’s attitude in face of this contentious movie should be that of outright REJECTION! None of this politically correct “I’m personally opposed but…” hogwash! Once you’re faced with blasphemy you just can’t wink at it, cross your arms and squirm your way out of it.

As Our Lord Himself warned, “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” – Matthew 12:30

Yes, a Catholic must reject as offensive the assertion that the Catholic Church “is guilty of the greatest cover-up in history.”

Yes, a Catholic must reject as blasphemous the core premise of the plot that Christ was not God and was married to St. Mary Magdalene and had offspring.

Yes, a Catholic must reject the resurrected Gnostic heresies embedded in the text which were so ably refuted by the Early Church Fathers.

And yes, a Catholic ought to PROTEST and BOYCOTT The Da Vinci Code movie!

To do so would be to uphold the First and Second Commandments and to make a precious and loving ACT OF REPARATION to satisfy the grievous affront made against the honor and dignity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ.

"Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." - MATTHEW 10:32-33

[1] Cardinal About Da Vinci Code: “Simply blasphemous!” http://www.tfp.org/davincicode/medina_simply_blasphemous.htm
[2] Why Does Sony Fear Free Publicity? http://www.tfp.org/davincicode/why_does_sony_fear_publicity.htm

The Harmony Between Body And Spirit

When one scours the newspaper these days, one can’t help but notice how much contemporary man progressively alienates himself from God and His Laws.

One reads of constant wars and unrests, bold kidnappings and robberies, grisly murders and assassinations, blatant graft and corruption, gross immorality and licentiousness, etc., just to name a few.

And in all likelihood, as one reads further along, he encounters a mishmash of false and erroneous ideologies, the most outlandish fads and fashions, ridiculous laws, grotesque humor and the most banal customs and mentalities; the whole shebang, so to speak, of absurdities that plagues the world today. Thus, one veritably faces a world increasingly steeped in a ludicrous frenzy of vice and error.

In Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira aptly points out that ‘the many crises shaking the world today – those of the State, family, economy, culture, and so on – are but multiple aspects of a single fundamental crisis whose field of action is man himself. In other words, these crises have their root in the most profound problems of the soul, from whence they spread to the whole personality of present day man and all his activities.”[1]

With the clouding of the light of reason, modern man inevitably loses the notion of a very significant principle - that he comprises body and soul. Consequently, he ignores the truth that the soul is worth incomparably more than the body. He tends to invert the hierarchy of values to such an extent that he relegates the soul to a lesser almost insignificant plane. Hence, by neglecting the soul he ends up adoring the body and giving undue emphasis to worldly pursuits and material things.

A Catholic learns in his basic catechism that, like the angels, his ultimate purpose is God alone. Be it on this earth or up in Heaven above, his proper end is to know, love, praise and serve God. Therefore, his very nature is to direct his mental and physical activities towards this end through the knowledge of truth and the practice of good.

As a creature of God, man must give himself in a total manner to the laws established by his Creator. Through his intelligence and reason, he discerns what is in accordance with natural law or not and what is orderly or disorderly to man.

However, due to the effects of Original Sin, man lives his earthly life in a trial. Though God endows him with natural and supernatural gifts, he needs to preserve, develop, and perfect them. And unfortunately, because of his fallen nature, he conducts his life on this earth tainted with imperfections.

While true morality is logical, coherent and knowledgeable to man per se, Original Sin impedes him to know it entirely. Proof of this is Plato, one of the greatest philosophers of ancient times.

Plato rightfully concluded the existence of God, the soul’s spirituality, the after life, and many other fundamental truths known to man. However, having been a pagan and no recourse to Divine Revelation and the Catholic Church’s infallible Magisterium, he erred gravely by affirming the social equality of the sexes, the suppression of the family, and the eradication of private property. In other words, he espoused revolutionary concepts that smacks of communism. Therefore, human reason alone, without the aid of Divine Revelation, grace and the Church, cannot grasp the fullness of natural morals.

“For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” (John 3:16).

Henceforth, the fruits of Christ’s Redemption and the establishment of His Church opened the avenues for man’s elevation to supernatural life and sanctity. And subsequently through the Church’s Sacraments, man practices virtue and finds nourishment to sustain his interior life.

Thus, like the body, the soul requires sustenance for she too can deteriorate or be subject to corruption. Temptations and tepidity weaken her. Evil passions and bad tendencies pose as constant dangers to her. In order to subsist and thrive in the supernatural life, the soul must also be nourished. She achieves this end through the partaking of the Blessed Sacrament, the sacred fountain of abundant graces.

The interior life is the soul of the apostolate, as Dom Chautard points out in his book[2]. He further explains that like a cup filled to the brim, good works should be nothing but an overflow from the inner life. Man achieves this through a life of prayer and contemplation, but above all, by replenishing his cup with the spirit of Jesus Christ drawn from the Eucharist. Therefore, the apostle acts like a reservoir from which water overflows to the benefit of others.

Can one imagine the immensity and power of the internal life in sanctifying others?

Dom Chautard gives a cogent and powerful argument:

“If the priest is a saint (the saying goes), the people will be fervent; if the priest is fervent, the people will be pious; if the priest is pious, the people will at least be decent. But if the priest is only decent, the people will be godless. The spiritual generation is always one degree less intense in its life than those who beget Christ.”[3]

The above passage only reinforces the notion that God desires that the salvation of men be worked through the ministry of other men, and in this case, the institution of the priesthood. But what a grave responsibility - how one’s heart bleeds when he finds a whole parish entrusted in the custody of a mundane and lukewarm pastor!

On the other hand, laymen also participate in this demanding yet lofty task of sanctifying souls as the following excerpt reveals:

“ With his deep understanding of the needs of the Church, Pius X often saw things with a most remarkable clarity. An interesting conversation of the Holy Pontiff with a group of Cardinals was reported in the French clerical publication, “L’Ami du Clerge.” The Pope asked them:

“What is the thing we need most, today, to save society?”
“Build Catholic schools,” said one.
“No.”
“More churches,” said another.
“Still no.”
“Speed up the recruiting of priests,” said a third.
“No, No, “ Said the Pope, “ the MOST necessary thing of all, at this time, is for every parish to possess a group of laymen who will be at the same time virtuous, enlightened, resolute, and truly apostolic.”[4]

Hence, one sees a very important principle being established here - that both spiritual and temporal spheres cultivate and elevate man’s generous spirit towards seeking first the Kingdom of God and His justice.

And in the light of this profound interpenetration and interdependence of spheres, one would be hard-pressed not to conclude – save for the most squalid and cynical of spirits - that Providence desires this harmonious cooperation between temporal society and the Church.

The osmosis that occurs between these two spheres results in the growth of one that serves as a boon towards the vitality of the other. For example, virtuous priests form holy families, which in turn produce saintly priests. Therefore, a virtuous cycle is established.

But there is something more; these holy families also become veritable fountains of virtuous public leaders and figures, doctors, lawyers, professionals, soldiers etc. thus giving fruit to a truly Catholic temporal order.

However, one must also qualify that temporal society’s contribution is merely natural since only the Church is a supernatural and eternal society. Like the body, it is perishable and transient. Nonetheless, it exerts a tremendous and penetrating influence over families, laws, institutions, customs, style, culture and civilization.

Once temporal society establishes a sacral and dynamic Catholic atmosphere, the Church’s action, in turn, habitually becomes successful and effective. The sacred splendor of the ministers of God, through the Sacraments and preaching of Holy Scriptures, then move the Catholic faithful to piety and virtue.

In discussing the affairs of temporal and spiritual societies, it would be inevitable to broach the subject of Church and State. In modern and secularist minds, there exists a prevailing erroneous and distorted perspective regarding the role of the State. The deep effects of liberalism and laicism in our days contribute immensely to perpetrating religious indifferentism from which sprout all sorts of errors.[5]

The State also participates in the salvation of souls since man, who is made up of body and soul, lives within temporal society. In the Divine plan of God, the State’s highest purpose consists precisely in recognizing the Catholic Church, in defending Her, in applying Her laws and serving Her. Hence, the essential end of the State is to serve the Church.

In his encyclical Cum multa, dated Dec. 8, 1882 (PE 88; 8-9), Pope Leo XIII writes[6]:

"The spiritual and temporal orders being, therefore, distinct in their origin and in their nature, should be conceived and judged of as such. For matters of the temporary order - however lawful, however important they be - do not extend, when considered in themselves, beyond the limits of that life which we live on this our earth. But religion, born of God, and referring all things to God, takes a higher flight and touches heaven. For its will, its wish, is to penetrate the soul, man's best part, with the knowledge and the love of God and to lead in safety the whole human race to that City of the Future for which we seek.

"It is then right to look on religion, and whatever is connected by any particular bond with it, as belonging to a higher order. Hence, in the vicissitudes of human affairs, and even in the very revolutions in States, religion, which is the supreme good, should remain intact; for it embraces all times and all places. Men of opposite parties, though differing in all else, should be agreed unanimously in this: that in the State the Catholic religion should be preserved in all its integrity. To this noble and indispensable aim, all who love the Catholic religion ought, as if bound by a compact, to direct all their efforts; they should be somewhat silent about their various political opinions, which they are, however, at perfect liberty to ventilate in their proper place: for the Church is far from condemning such matters, when they are not opposed to religion or justice; apart and removed from all the turmoil of strife, she carries on her work of fostering the common weal, and of cherishing all men with the love of a mother, those particularly whose faith and piety are greatest."

Therefore, on the one hand, it is clear that the spiritual sphere takes precedence over the temporal. On the other hand, however, temporal society, as desired and ordered by God, plays a vital role in man’s journey towards Heaven.

If one seriously analyzes the state of human affairs these days, he will eventually arrive to the sad conclusion that the modern world has digressed from such lofty yet logical concepts and doctrines. The plethora of Papal teachings giving light to the proper relation between Church and State lamentably fall into deaf ears.[7]

What then is the result when man ignores the primacy of the spirit over the body? Behold, ignorance, indifference, selfishness and egoism, abominations, confusion and chaos!
This way of being unravels a series of dynamic degradation of values and priorities from the general to the particular, from the abstract to the concrete, from the metaphysical to the physical and from the supernatural to the natural.

What is detrimental to the individual person then becomes a disaster when applied to the collective whole as a society. One must therefore reestablish the primacy of the spiritual over the material, the religious over the temporal and the supernatural over the natural, if one desires to rehabilitate an ailing and decadent society.

“This vision of the whole, the harmony of the beauty of God which one draws from, is that harmony and that supreme sanctity which man was made to love. And when he does not love it, he hates it. From whence it follows necessarily that all men, whether they wish it or not, live in the love or hatred of this grand twofold reality: The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and Christian temporal order, which ought to live around the Church, like the great halo which forms about the moon on moonlit nights.”[8]


Footnotes:

[1] Plinio Corrêa de Oliveirra, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, (The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property [TFP], York, PA, 1993), p.9.
[2] Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, O.C.S.O., The Soul of the Apostolate, (Abbey of Gethsemani, Inc., Trappist, Kentucky, 1946,) p. 45.
[3] Op .cit, p. 39.
[4] Op. cit., p.165.
[5] "Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognise any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honour Him…. This thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and duties of men." " Pius X: Encyclical: Vehementer nos, Feb. 11, 1906. (PE 169; 3)
[6] Taken from The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen IHM, The Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1990. (Our emphasis.Ed)
[7] Gregory XVI: Encyclical: Mirari vos, Aug. 15, 1832. (PE 33; 20).
Pius IX: Allocution to the Consistory: Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. Encyclical: Quanta cura, Dec. 8, 1864. (PE 63), Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1864: prop 55. Leo XIII: Encyclical: Cum multa, Dec. 8, 1882. (PE 88), Encyclical: Humanum genus, April 20, 1884. (PE 91; 13 ff), Encyclical: Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885. (PE 93; 27 ff), Encyclical: Libertas, June 20, 1888.(PE 103; 18 ff), Encyclical: Au milieu des sollicitudes, Feb. 16, 1892. (PE 119; 28 ff), Letter Longinqua, Jan. 6, 1895. (PE 134; 3 ff) Saint Pius X: Allocution to the Secret Consistory, Amplissimum coetum, March 27, 1905. Encyclical: Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906. (PE 169; 1 ff), Allocution to the Consistory: Gravissimum apostolici, Feb. 21, 1906. Encyclical: Gravissimo officii, Aug. 10, 1906. (PE 172; 1 ff), Letter: Le moment, May 17, 1908. Encyclical: Jamdudum, May 24, 1911. (PE 177; 2 ff)Pius XI: Encyclical Maximam Gravissimamque, Jan. 18, 1924. (PE 196; 2 ff), Allocution: Jam annus, to the Secret Consistory, Dec. 14, 1925. Encyclical: Iniquis afflictisque, Nov. 18, 1926. (PE 200; 8 ff) Encyclical: Dilectissima Nobis, June 3, 1933. (PE 215; 6 ff)Pius XII: Allocution to some Italian Catholic Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953
All of the above cited from The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen IHM, The Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1990
[8]Taken from “The Principles of Catholic Society” a lecture given by Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.

Is It Morally Licit For A Catholic Politician To Vote For A Law Favoring Artificial Contraception?

The burning question that Catholic legislators need to answer in face of HB 3773


House Bill 3773, also known as The Population Management and Responsible Parenthood Act of 2005 introduced in the 13th Philippine Congress by the Honorable Edcel Lagman of Albay province, has spurred much debate in the news media recently. Concerned Filipinos, both in public and private sectors, have voiced out their apprehensions regarding the proposed controversial legislation. Like an apple of discord lobbed in the arena of public opinion, the issue has now galvanized an erstwhile apathetic Filipino audience.

As one sifts through the gobbledygook of the various provisions contained in the said bill, one cannot fail but notice the broad spectrum of sweeping yet dubious revolutionary reforms detailed within. The distribution of artificial contraceptives; the call for mandatory safe sex education; the advocacy for reproductive rights that smacks of radical feminism; the promotion of a discriminatory two-child policy; the implementation of Draconian measures to punish “errant” health workers and the creation of a superfluous Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Council are just some of the provisions crammed into a single onerous and all-encompassing bill. One can only wonder how such a complex and ambitious project would be funded given the financial crisis the Philippine government has had to grapple with nowadays.

However, while manifold moral issues are involved, the controversy primarily revolves around the principal question of artificial contraception – the main thrust of the population management and responsible parenthood offensive.

And true to their mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying the Church, Catholic bishops have come out with solicitous concern to remind their flock of their Christian duty to follow the Church’s crystal clear teaching over this raging issue.[1]


The Church’s Condemnation of Contraception Is Unchangeable and Infallible [2]
The Catholic Church’s perennial moral teaching regarding artificial contraception is that it is intrinsically evil. Hence, the Church has always condemned contraception even for prophylactic or therapeutic purposes. Through the Church’s traditional Magisterium, the most recent popes, from Pius XI (1922-1939) to John Paul II, have invariably taught this doctrine despite growing opposition from dissident and liberal Catholics.

Basing themselves on natural law established by God when He created man and woman, these popes teach that the primary purpose of the sexual act is procreation. Hence, any attempt to separate the sexual act from its natural effect – procreation – violates nature itself and comprises a grave sin. The unitive aspect of the conjugal act – love between the spouses – and its procreative nature constitute a coherent whole that should never be separated.

The popes have always denounced contraceptive use – both chemical (e.g. oral contraceptives) and mechanical (e.g. the condom) – as gravely illicit whether the intention is specifically to avoid offspring or to avoid the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

In his pastoral letter In Obedience to Christ: A Pastoral Letter to Catholic Couples and Physicians on the Issue of Contraception, Bishop Glennon P. Flavin, then bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska in the United States, shed light on the matter,

The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder…. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason[3]
This Church teaching condemning contraception is infallible through the ordinary pontifical Magisterium of the Church, that is to say, the common and constant teaching of the Popes.[4]

Had the Church been remiss in Her duty to teach the Truth in all its integrity, She would not be infallible. Neither would She be an adequate instrument for salvation, since She would have led the faithful to sin, to the non-observance of the natural and revealed moral law.[5]

As for the condemnation of contraception by Pope Paul VI in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968), some theologians state that it is infallible not only by the continuity of the ordinary Magisterium but also by papal infallibility itself.[6]

Catholics Must Affirm Their Faith In Their Public Lives

In face of this truth, Catholic legislators can no longer feign ignorance and give short shrift to these consistent and limpid pronouncements of the Vicars of Christ. As public figures, they have a moral obligation to uphold good morals and serve as role models for their constituents to emulate.

Filipino lawmakers should wisely follow the lead of American Catholic senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who made the following revealing statement in an interview,

In order for Catholic politicians to be faithful to moral teachings, they must be held accountable. Their elite status in society should not let others be dissuaded from criticizing them if they behave in an unprincipled way. The only way that immoral politicians will change is if the public has the courage to confront them. Only then, will these politicians be forced to act morally….

In addition to being leaders in society, politicians are a reflection of society. Politicians have a duty to hold fast to moral principles in order to govern effectively.[7]

Thus, we must take our Catholic politicians to task by cautioning and reminding them to act responsibly and morally in their capacity as duly elected legislators in face of proposed HB 3773.


The Plague of Secularism and Turo-Turo Catholicism Among Our Legislators

However, imbued by the secularist spirit of our times, one finds certain Catholics who subscribe to a cafeteria Catholicism wherein they pick and choose from what they see as a dogmatic smorgasbord whatsoever doctrines and precepts that suit their personal beliefs and lifestyle. I dare adopt this description and incorporate it into local parlance as turo-turo Catholicism.

We often hear secularists argue that the Church must refrain from moral declarations that have repercussions in public life. Like a broken record, they parrot the oft-repeated yet already stale accusation of the Church meddling in public affairs and exerting undue pressure on voters during elections. This is nothing short of outrageous. Since to say that the Church may not make moral pronouncements that have political consequences is to say that the Church cannot promote morality or have jurisdiction over faith and morals. To a greater or lesser degree, every law has a moral dimension and no moral principle fails to somehow influence law.


Following The Dictates Of Conscience

Those who choose to go against the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception find a false sense of security in rationalizing that they only follow the dictates of their conscience. The philosophical premise that fuels this pseudo-morality purports that objective moral norms do not exist and the individual choice should determine human behavior.

Truly, man must follow his conscience. Nevertheless, this does not imply that each and every individual may freely choose whatever he well pleases. Conscience is not the source of morality. The objective norm of morality is God’s law known to us through our rational nature and by divine revelation. Therefore, though our conscience perceives the natural moral law and makes it present to us in order to guide us in our action, it does not create this law.[8]

In January 2003, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a statement addressed directly to politicians concerning the issue of abortion. Since artificial contraceptives have an abortifacient effect one can rightly apply this pronouncement accordingly to the case in point.[9] [10]

In part, it stated: Catholic politicians “have the right and duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals….

“…By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible.”[11]


Opening The Floodgates To A Moral Tsunami

Much is at stake should the proponents of HB 3773 succeed in legislating this bill into law. Above all, a grave responsibility rests upon the shoulders of our Catholic lawmakers. While the Filipino people have given them the mandate to rule, our legislators, in turn, must act judiciously and responsibly. It would be a defining moment wherein their true mettle would be made manifest.

Many foresee the passage of this bill as a groundbreaking step towards opening the floodgates to a virtual moral tsunami of abortion, sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexual rights and same sex marriage. Those concerned cannot cross their arms complacently and simply watch our nation go to ruin.

Some argue that Catholic nations like Spain and Italy have now legalized contraception, abortion and divorce and that the Philippines should follow suit. However, the folly of these nations is not the standard of Christian morality.

Such faulty reasoning is not a valid reason for the Philippines to climb into the bandwagon of impiety and moral depravity. If our nation must swim against the tide of worldwide consensus for God’s sake, then so be it! It will to the Filipino nation’s glory to stand up for its Catholic Faith.[12]


To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected

Let us call upon our lawmakers to make a serious examination of conscience before they cast their vote in favor of House Bill 3773 because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of millions of Filipinos. We, as faithful Catholics, have the obligation and duty to resist them to their faces if they tread obstinately along the ruinous path of error especially in face of the crystalline and immutable teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

Their destiny is in their hands. They are free to choose. But once they cast their vote, it will be etched forever in the Book of Life. And when they face the Supreme Legislator on Judgment Day, there will be no room for debate or excuses. For then and there, the whole Filipino nation shall be called to the witness stand.

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) and inspirer of various other autonomous TFP’s across the globe, described the gravity of our earthly life with candid simplicity,

Whether we like it or not, we are all writing our biography. And on the Day of Judgment, the book will be opened and read.[13]

As we celebrate the feast of the Solemnity of the Annunciation (Monday, April 04, 2005) - the joyous occasion when the Word became Flesh in the sacred cloister of Mary Most Holy’s virginal womb - let us beseech her maternal and solicitous counsel to enlighten our most honorable legislators in their crucial task of deciding the fate of HB 3773. May she appease the Divine Wrath and call upon His Divine Mercy to have compassion on the Filipino nation whom He blessed with the light of the True Faith. May she strengthen her devoted sons and daughters in their unremitting resolve to uphold the Laws of her Divine Son and thus attract a plenitude of graces for the entire suffering Filipino nation.


Footnotes:


[1] On February 18, 2005, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) came out with a pastoral letter against HB 3773 and the Department of Health’s (DOH) Ligtas Buntis program.
[2] This section adopts and quotes almost verbatim (including footnotes) from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property’s (TFP) statement, Can the Church’s Infallible Doctrine Change? authored by Luis S. Solimeo and Raymond E. Drake. Please log on to www.tfp.org to access the whole document.
[3]Bishop Glennon P. Flavin, In Obedience to Christ: A Pastoral Letter to Catholic Couples and Physicians on the Issue of Contraception, at www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/FLAVIN.HTM.
[4]In his study on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Fr. M. R. Gagnebet, O.P., summarizes the continuity of the supreme Magisterium of the Church on this matter: “Obviously the Pope intended to resolve a controversy which questions the time-honoured teaching of theologians approved by the Magisterium. On the same topic, Pius XII specifically stated, in the Encyclical Humani Generis (D. Sch. 3885), ‘this question is no longer open to the free discussion of theologians.’ Furthermore, Paul VI is not innovating in this matter. Without wishing to go further back into history, from the time of Pius VI, the teaching of the Holy See has never varied in this matter. In a particularly solemn manner, Pius XI propounded it in the Encyclical Casti Connubii; Pius XII, as well as John XXIII, taught it consistently. The council [Vatican II] did not touch this question set aside for the Sovereign Pontiff, but affirmed its underlying principle: ‘...sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51). Finally, the document in which the Pope expounds his teaching is an Encyclical; it is an authentic interpretation of the natural law which declares the use of marriage which is conformable to the law and that which is not.” “The Authority of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae,” at www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM.
[5]Cf. Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “Contraception: Fatal to the Faith,” at www.catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp.
[6] Cf. Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., book review of: Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II, by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, l986), at www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html; Fr. Joseph H. Ryder, S.J., “Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae as an Infallible Definition of Doctrine,” Social Justice Review, at www.socialjusticereview.org/articles/humanae_vitae.php.
[7]Taken from ZENIT’s interview of Senator Rick Santorum, Catholic senator from Pennsylvania. “Senator Santorum On Being Catholic And A Politician” -Zenit.org 2003
[8] “Catholics Must Affirm Their Faith In Their Public Lives”, Crusade Magazine, Sept. - Oct. 2004, p.10-11.
[9]Colliton WF. Birth control pill: abortifacient and contraceptive. Linacre Quarterly. November 1999:26-36.
[10] Alcorn R. Does the birth control pill cause abortions? (5th Edition) Eternal Perspective Ministries. 2000.
[11] “Doctinal note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in the Political Life,” Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. January 13, 2003.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (last accessed March 30, 2005.)
[12] “Whosoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father, Who is in heaven” (Matt 10:33). “For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me, and of My words; of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in His majesty, and that of His Father, and of the holy Angels” (Luke 9:26).
[13] Roberto de Mattei, Crusader of the Twentieth Century: Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, (Gracewing Fowler Wright Books, Leominster, Herefordshire, 1998), p. x.

The Destruction of Manila - A Scourge or Blessing?

“Thank God it’s done”, I sighed in relief as I put down the book[1] that told a gripping and poignant story of the month-long battle for Manila by American and Japanese forces in 1945 during World War II.

I was born more than a decade after that momentous and tragic episode in the annals of Philippine history. Though I had heard or read war-time stories before never did I come to grips with the grim and somber reality of war in all of its lurid details - until I came across this book’s soul-stirring pages.

Really, it is a far-cry from the sketchy tales I heard as a child from kin and friends alike. My immediate family fled to the mountains of Bicol province down in the southern part of Luzon Island, away from the ire of the retreating Japanese forces.

My doctor uncle survived the brutal Death March from Bataan to Capas, Tarlac at the war’s inception, yet he never quite got around to telling me the whole story of his horrifying ordeal. Perhaps it was just too painful for him to relive the hard privations and depredations of war. Besides, he had swallowed another bitter pill as he watched in anguish how his younger brother died of malaria and dysentery within the loathsome environs of the brutal Japanese prison camp.

Pre-war Manila with all its charm and grace teemed with a pulsating and vigorous social and commercial life even under the humidity of the warm tropical sun. Elegant houses and fine edifices dotted its calm and serene avenues. Both Filipino and Spanish elites called it their home. The national government had its executive, legislative and judicial offices there while various religious and secular educational institutions shaped it to be the prime center of higher learning in the islands. Its ports and harbors, some of the finest in the Orient, maintained a thriving commerce with the rest of the world. Rightfully, the Spanish conquistador Miguel Lopez de Legaspi bestowed upon it the title, “Distinguished and Ever Loyal City”.

One cannot separate Manila’s colorful history from the evangelizing and civilizing influence of the Spanish friars who laid the foundation that helped shape it into the only Christian city in Asia – a fact proud Manilenos like to remind us. Indeed, this also holds true for the entire Philippine archipelago. The institutions that those friars established played a decisive role in the formation and progress of the country in the cultural, socio-political and religious realms. Knowing this, it appalled me to see recently a Filipino-American newspaper columnist describe them with venomous intent as Taliban-like. Surely, I expect more historical knowledge and objectivity from someone who holds the title of “dean”.

With the advent of American rule, Manila benefited from the technology that built America into a great nation. Infrastructure and communication facilities were upgraded. Public education and a free press that molded public opinion were introduced. And consequently, the Philippines were ushered into the era of American democracy. At the outbreak of hostilities in 1941, the nation was caught in the transition period to self-rule known as, The Commonwealth of the Philippines, with Manuel M. Quezon as its first president.

“The twenties brought a new medium – the movies. Now Hollywood would impose its will on a populace quite literally mesmerized. Probably no other medium would succeed in molding taste and opinion in this country, for better or for worse, than American movies……Some wag would thereafter characterize the Filipino of the time as the product of 300 years in a convent and 40 years in Hollywood.”[2]

The American observer Gleeck writes, “American culture had triumphed almost to the point of embarrassment to its own citizens. Originally promoted by government through the schools, by the end of the First World War, it was American technology, primarily the automobile and the media industry – first the newspapers and next films – which it seemed had almost liquidated Spanish-Malay culture.”[3]

Commonwealth President Manuel Quezon initiated a system of national defense upon the approval of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. The American president sent no other than the then-retired U.S. Army General Douglas McArthur with junior officers Col. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Col. James B. Ord as his aides to help organize Quezon’s defense plan.

On the eve of the war in the Pacific, General McArthur was recalled to active duty and commissioned as the commanding general of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) into which all U.S. military forces in the Philippines were incorporated. War plans hastened the building of military installations. Thus, fortifications were set up in Bataan and the island of Corregidor, the last bastion of Filipino-American resistance until the fateful ninth day of April, 1942.

Manila was declared an open city but that did not spare its treasured landmarks from destruction by indiscriminate Japanese bombing sorties.

Under insistent orders from Washington, McArthur left Corregidor to General Wainwright, while he proceeded to Australia in order to organize the defense of the country. When he arrived in Australia he made his famous, “I shall return” declaration. With the fall of Bataan and Corregidor, the Philippines was left to Japanese rule.

The Japanese had their hands full. The Catholic population never quite submitted to their pagan overlords. Though both oriental peoples, a great religious and cultural chasm separated them into two distinct worlds and “never the twain did meet.” Under these circumstances, the Filipino guerrilla movement succeeded far more than those in any other Japanese-dominated country during the war.

Upon McArthur’s return in October, 1944, the American forces immediately began their campaign to re-conquer the Philippines. On February 3, 1945 they were knocking on the doors of Japanese-controlled Manila.

From there on unfolded deeply moving stories of hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire between the advancing Americans and the defiant and deeply-entrenched Japanese. Heavy and incessant shelling from a wide array of American cannons and howitzers coupled with the systematic barbarity of the Japanese forces took an atrocious toll on Manila’s civilian population. Survivors lived to tell their horrifying stories.

Families were summarily executed, houses and buildings routinely torched and razed to the ground and grenades lobbed into locked rooms or prison cells filled with humans. Men including religious were gathered and lined up for execution by firing squad or decapitation by sword. Hundreds of women, both Filipino and Caucasian, were billeted in hotels only to be forcefully subjected to the lust of drunken soldiers.

People boarded up their homes but were forced to abandon by American shell fire or Japanese torches. And once they headed for the streets, they were either mowed down by machine gun fire or targeted by indiscriminate sniper shots. Many succumbed to further shelling. Others were bayoneted to death. The Japanese simply treated both civilians and combatants as their enemy. They worked themselves into a satanic frenzy reminiscent of the reign of terror during the French Revolution. Like a cornered rat with no chance of escape the Japanese fought to the last man.

Many people lost their bearings when they were forced out into the streets since landmarks and edifices were obliterated. The carnage and ruin went on agonizingly for a month until March 3, 1945. And in the end, charming Manila, the Distinguished and Ever Loyal City; of fine and elegant buildings; home of the elites; and the center of culture and higher learning, was reduced to humiliating rubble.

The wanton destruction was utterly stupefying to observe. In fact, it ran neck-and-neck with Warsaw, Poland for the unflattering title of “most destroyed city of World War II.” Coincidentally, the devastation of these Catholic cities was rivaled in the Orient only by that wrought in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the homes of the two largest concentrations of Catholics in Japan.

Mac Arthur described Manila at this point, thus: “As I passed through the streets with burned-out piles of rubble, the air filled with the stench of decaying unburied dead, the tall and stately trees that had been the mark of a gracious city were nothing but ugly scrubs pointing broken fingers in the sky. Once-famous buildings were now shells. The street and familiar landmarks were gone. One moved by sense of direction rather than by sight.”[4]

In a speech that McArthur gave on February, 27, 1945 while turning over the Philippine government to Sergio Osmena, the second president of the Philippine Commonwealth, his voiced cracked and faltered. He covered his face with his hands and wept[5].

In Reminiscences he later recalls, “My voice broke. I could not go on. To others it might have seemed my moment of victory and monumental personal acclaim, but to me it seemed only the culmination of a physical and spiritual disaster.”[6]

All told, the death toll included 1,010 Americans dead, an estimated 100,000 Filipino civilians and 16,000 Japanese killed. Second only to the government in terms of property losses, the Catholic Church suffered an estimated $125 million (1945 values).

At the book’s end the author poses several interesting questions that I quote here verbatim:

“Why did Sanji Iwabuchi[7] defy the orders of Yamashita and Yokoyama? Why were the outrages against the civilian population perpetrated? Were there orders from higher authority to this purpose?

“Why did the Americans resort to the destruction of Manila as a means to their ends? Was it any one man’s, or any single group of men’s decision? What value did America place on a victory that destroyed 100,000 non-combatants?”

The author offers plausible and logical answers to these haunting questions but it goes well beyond the confines of this article for me to devote time and space to them. Rather, I recommend this book for our readers to peruse and judge for themselves the merit of the author’s hypotheses and answers.

But I, too, have pressing questions to pose. St. Augustine taught that wars are God’s means of punishing nations here on earth since nations as such do not exist in the afterlife. It is also well-worth recalling here what Our Lady of Fatima said in the second part of the Fatima secret, “ Behold, a night illuminated by an unknown light will be the great sign that God shall give you that He is going to punish the world by means of war, hunger and persecutions of the Church and the Holy Father.”[8]

On the night of 25 January 1938 (from 8:45 p.m. to 1:15. a.m. with brief interruptions) an extra-ordinary light illuminated the skies of Europe which Sister Lucy took to be the sign that Our Lady prophesied.[9] Since the Filipino nation also suffered immensely during World War II, wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that God punished it for its sins?

Did God punish the Filipino nation because of a particular sin? Then, what sin was it? Is it because it took on the Hollywood spirit and declined in the love of sacrifice and devotion to the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it because it forgot that it is a most beloved nation endowed with the True Faith and neglected its duty of spreading it throughout all of Asia?

I search for answers. Perhaps those Filipinos of the past were remiss in their Christian duties. But what I can say with certainty is that in the span of my lifetime Filipino Christian values, morals, customs and mentalities have deteriorated considerably.

Look and see. The disastrous consequences are before us: neuroses, psychoses, monstrous sexual perversions, progressivism, liberalism, communism, evolutionism, feminism and various other “isms’: the cacophony of the great confusions and errors of our days. If this trend continues, I fear that a catastrophe far worse than the evils of the Second World War awaits the Filipino nation.

Behold Japan, a nation of Oriental traditions and culture, the land of so many Catholic martyrs yet it rejected the Faith! Behold China, a land of ancient civilization which the great St. Francis Xavier longed to evangelize, it also rejected the Faith!

Then consider that the Philippines, groups and clusters of islands, inhabited by primitive warring tribes of divers ethnic groups and dialects and yet it united into a single nation under the banner of the True Faith! Yes, the same Catholic Faith that gave and preserved the Filipino his national identity, his character and his culture. Such was the work of the ‘Taliban-like Spanish friars’ as our learned “dean” called them with scorn.

The Filipino people ought to thank God for their undeserved privilege. Further, they must learn from the bitter lessons of World War II. As Sacred Scriptures say, God chastises those whom He loves.[10] There is a World Revolution that is relentlessly attacking what is left of Christian Civilization today, both here and the rest of the world. The tyranny of the media, the chaos in government, the Muslim and Communist insurrections, the surge of criminality, the crisis in the Church, all warn of impending disaster.

On December 28, 1958 John XXIII addressed the following words to the population of the city of Messina in Italy:

We tell you furthermore that in this terrible hour, when the spirit of evil seeks every means to destroy the kingdom of God, we must exert ourselves to the utmost to defend it, if you do not wish to see your city lying in immensely greater ruins than those left by the earthquake of fifty years ago. How much more difficult it would be then to raise up the souls, once they had been separated from the Church or enslaved to the false ideologies of our times![11]

To overcome the overwhelming tide of sin and vice, we must recognize the primacy of the spiritual over the physical so as to put order and harmony back into our lives and society. The message of Our Lady Fatima is more urgent than ever. Filipinos must heed Her now if they are to avert a terrible chastisement much worst than that of World War II.

Footnotes:

[1] Alfonso J. Aluit, By Sword and Fire, The Destruction of Manila in World War II, 3 February- 3 March, 1945. Makati, Metro Manila: Bookmark, c1995.
[2] Quoted in work cited, p.127
[3] Ibid
[4] Aluit, p.367
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid, p.368
[7] Japanese Naval officer left with the charge to defend Manila who later defied orders to evacuate it.
[8] Antonio A. Borelli, Our Lady of Fatima, Prophecies of Tragedy and Hope? The Philippine Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, Inc. Makati, Metro Manila. 2002, pp. 48-51.
[9] Ibid. p. 51
[10] Hebrews 12:6
[11] John XXII, radio message to the population of Messina, on the fiftieth anniversary of the earthquake which destroyed that city, L’Osservatore Romano (weekly French edition), January 23, 1959.
Apud. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution (York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1993) p. 43.

A Merciful God Also Chastises

It wasn’t supposed to happen. The recent south Asian tsunami disaster is the kind of stuff you read in fictional books as incredulous smart alecks and practical atheists will tell you. But there’s no denying it. The cold hard facts are there for them to see.

Headlines bannered the grim news in the front pages of every major daily across the globe and news networks flashed real gripping footages of the disaster on their TV screens. The unthinkable inevitably happened.

The reality of the catastrophe’s nightmarish aftermath put these skeptics’ (un)beliefs on shaky ground. Literally. Almost two weeks after the 9.0-point earthquake that rocked Banda Aceh, Indonesia, repeated aftershocks continue to terrorize shell-shocked survivors who now begin to sift through the rubble as they turn over a new leaf in their lives.

The sheer scale of the destruction boggles the mind like a bee buzzing in one’s bonnet. Eleven countries suffered the brunt of the tsunami’s wrath yet over forty nationalities figured among the dead.

Mother Nature proved indiscriminate in her fury. She didn’t play favorites. Not even tree- hugging ecofreaks could have escaped the carnage. Whether one’s Caucasian or Asian, adult or child, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian, simply didn’t matter.

The cold and stiff corpses of well-heeled tourists and out of pocket beach hands and cleaning ladies on shoestring budgets ended up cheek-by-jowl in hastily dug mass graves; the poor and obscure literally brushed elbows with the rich and famous.

How does one make sense out of all this? Is this the handiwork of a vengeful God?

Dyed in the wool sentimental apologists readily give short shrift and take umbrage at those who insist that the greatest debacle in recent memory is God’s wake up call to repentance for mankind. They are at loggerheads over how God could have sown so much destruction and killed countless numbers of innocent children.

How convenient. Their selective and namby-pamby memories don’t seem to give a tinker’s damn to the Deluge, Sodom and Gomorrah, Herod’s slaughter of innocent infants, the fall and ruin of Jerusalem and much closer to home, the wanton destruction of Manila in 1945 or the more recent Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 - all of which transpired under the watchful eyes of an omniscient and all-merciful God.

It doesn’t take much brain to figure out how much man has strayed from God in the last 100 years. The proverbial writing is already on the wall. As one modern scribe aptly reminds us, C.S. Lewis once wrote, "pain is God's megaphone to a deaf world."

It is not for us little creatures of God to question His infinite and unfathomable Wisdom. He always acts with due proportion and utmost perfection. Not a single strand of hair falls from a man’s head without Him ever knowing it. Everything is weighed, counted and measured.

It behooves us to mark, learn and inwardly digest the hard and telling lessons of this Asian tsunami disaster. Perhaps, that’s just the ticket to save mankind from paying the devil and biting the dust.

The real and lasting solution, however, lies not in high-tech tsunami warning and earthquake monitoring devices but rather in sincere repentance, true conversion and amendment of life as the Mother of God had asked the world in Fatima 88 years ago. Lest we forget, the God of Mercy is ALSO the God of Justice!