If I love my GF, why can’t I make love with her? (Part I)

Here’s an article that most “Romeos” would not want to read and most “Juliets” would ignore because it tackles some basic questions that today, most young people in love would not want to confront. “If sex is making love and if I love my girlfriend, why can’t I make love with her?” asks a seemingly fallen in love, 21-year-old guy.

Here’s the answer.

First, let me make it clear that I don’t doubt that adolescents and young adults really fall in love and that true love really occurs among young people. That is not the question here! But the first idea to clarify is: Is sex simply making love?

That is purely simplistic and superficial. Taking sex to mean love-making either misunderstands the true meaning of love or debases the dignity of sexual activity. Or both! Human sexuality is God’s gift. Hence, sex is sacred. God has only one purpose for giving it to man: one purpose with a double dimension – unitive and procreative. It means an expression of unity and love, and is intended for procreation. To separate these two dimensions is to go against the divine will. Understanding sex merely as making love separates the unitive from the procreative dimension. Besides, in the expression making love or love-making, it is not quite clear what does love means.

What is love? How should we understand the term? Pope Benedict XVI aptly observes that “Today, the term ‘love’ has become one of the most frequently used and misused of words, a word to which we attach quite different meanings” (Deus caritas est, 2). Those who understand love simply as that strong affection or emotion that draws us to the beloved have still a lot of reflection to do in order to understand better the term (or the experience of true love).

I think, the Pope’s description is easy to follow and understand. He distinguishes two dimensions of love: eros and as agape. The former, as understood by the Greeks, is described as “That love between man and woman, which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings... The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a ‘divine madness’ which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness” (Ibid.).

In our contemporary language, we call this experience “falling in love”, in which the person in love feels being engulfed by a pleasant sensation whenever he/she is with the beloved, experiences sleepless nights thinking of the beloved and reminiscing the last time they were together, desires to be always with the beloved and could not endure the thought of not seeing the beloved. To most naïve young lovers, the maximum expression and manifestation of this affection is sexual intercourse. That is why, they call it “love-making”. But in reality, it is just the first phase or dimension of true love – it is simply eros, from which comes the term erotic love.

The danger that lies in this phase is believing that all love is simply this: having a pleasant feeling, wanting the presence of the beloved, love-making to satisfy that longing for sexual union. It is dangerous because not only it degrades the true meaning of love, but also because it debases the person and prevents one from ascending to the experience of true love and human relationship. When eros is abused, the person is degraded and true human relationship is broken.

The Pope says: “An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in ‘ecstasy’ towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns”.

If we want really to express true love towards our beloved, what is required is to discipline the eros, the erotic desires and affections. Thus, we come to the first answer to the question: “If I love my GF, why can’t I make love with her?” Because making love with her is not an expression of your true love. Simply, it is a manifestation of your eros, which you need to discipline and purify. To make love with her (outside marriage) is not to respect her. The absence of respect to the person of the beloved is exactly the opposite of true love. If you “make love” with your GF, then you don’t really love her. If you insist that you do, you are simply insisting on a lie. And that makes you more than a liar, someone not worthy to be trusted.

Everything said here goes true also to the woman who consents in the act. It takes two to tango, they say. Both man and woman are mistaken – deceived – in thinking that, indulging in premarital sex, they express true love to each other. What they simply do is indulge themselves into finding satisfaction for their selfish erotic desires, using each other as instruments. What each is seeking for in premarital sex is self-satisfaction under the guise of expressing love.

Why? Because true love between man and woman is forever and exclusive. These notes – “only with this person” (exclusivity) and “being forever” – are not guaranteed in premarital sex. Only the Sacrament of Matrimony can guarantee them. Thus, only within marriage can sexual activity be truly an expression of true love between man and woman. Only in marriage God allows the use of this sacred gift, that is, sex. (to be continued)

What’s happening in Maguindanao?

Over a month of literary slumber (I have not written for a month in my column in The Davao Catholic Herald, named Cogito) is shaken and awakened by the horrors of Maguindanao carnage, of such repugnance that it could even make a mute shout.

In these last few days, everyone here in Pamplona (those who know that I am from Mindanao) is asking me, “¿Qué está pasando allí en tu tierra?” (What’s going on there in Mindanao?). Full of embarrassment, I simply answered with a deep sigh and asked them to pray hard for my land.

Everybody’s question is: how is it possible for man to plan and execute such a barbaric act? Looking at every detail of it – from the way the victims are abused (especially the women), tortured and killed up to the manner of trying to hide the crime, dumping them on shallow improvised graves – one could make an idea of the abysmal darkness that lurks in the concience of the mastermind.

How is it possible? It is only possible when God is absent in that concience. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, when God is absent in human horizon, not only does man vanish but also he turns against himself; he becomes autodestructive and turns into a beast for his fellowman.

I am one with those who explicitly condemned these brutal killings. I joined the voice of those who cry for justice in behalf of the victims, whose blood – like that of Abel – is clamoring to heaven. Filled with indignation, I also contemplate painfully this heartbreaking incident.

But with a firm grip on my Christian faith, I know “God can write straight with crooked lines” and that, if God allowed this to happened – as He could never will evil things to occur – in the words of St. Paul, “Everything works for the good of those who love the Lord”.

As faithful Christians, what are we to do aside from condemning reasonably the crime and demanding rightly justice? Let us cling to God’s mercy and grab God’s hand more firmly, knowing that all our hope is in God alone. But in saying this, I am not suggesting a certain kind of passive reaction – a mere shrugging of shoulders. Prayer is more efficient and powerful than action.

Let us not content ourselves with condemning this evil act – let us condemn all evil of this kind! I am saying this because it is very scandalizing to hear people and institutions condemning the Maguindanao massacre, yet would not even raise a voice against the rampant abortion happening around the world. I am not diverting attention here, just widening our perspective of what is evil.

Besides, let us not be contented with condemning the evils outside of us – we should not forget to condemn also the evils that we carry within us. Because the evils that we see around are mere reflections of the evils that man – by keeping himself away from God – has succumbed himself to.

We denounce rightly this evil in Maguindanao. But don’t you think we need also to denounce our own personal evils – our sins – in the Sacrament of Confession? Perhaps, in doing so, God will have pity on us and will put an end to these exterior evils. Only when man is purified from his interior evils can the evils of this world be eradicated!

And you might rightfully say, “The perpetrators, the criminals should be the first to purify themselves – confess their crime and suffer the punishment!” That may be the ideal thing. But it is not a matter of who’s to do it first! What’s important is that everyone does what corresponds to him: condemn evil – outside and inside of him.

Perhaps, it is the “straight line” or the “good” that can be gleaned from this horrifying crime. One day, Jesus asked His disciples, “Do you think those people Herod decapitated are more sinful because they have fallen into such a sad fate? Of course, not. But if you will not repent, you too will experience the same.”

Never do we think that the Maguindanao victims are more sinful than us because they suffer such fate. But yes, we agree that what occurred to them is a frightful evil, as frightful as our personal sins. The only true evil, says St. Augustine, is moral evil, that is, our sins. How I wish I could feel as dreadful towards the horror of my sins as I do towards this heinous crime!

Why this heinous crime? The answer is neither too impersonal nor too enigmatic. Heinous crimes are always possible for people who have let God slipped off their concience, who have denied God a little room in their heart, who have never felt any repulsion towards any minimal offense against God. A heart that has no room for God is never neutral – it is always filled with evil. St. Augustine says, “We are all capable of all heinous crimes in the world. But thanks to God’s grace we are preserved from them”.

“What is the Gospel for today?”

“What is the Gospel for today?” The question seems to be very simple and easy to answer. But if I tell you the context, you’d understand my bit of surprise when I was asked this question.

It came from a woman pilgrim, who came from London – with two other Irish women friends – to do the “Camino de Santiago”, the famous pilgrimage by foot to Santiago de Compostela where the tomb of St. James, the Apostle (the Older) lies. Prior to this question, I asked them who was the last person in the queue going to the camarín (an altar that contains the statue of the Apostle which pilgrims embrace upon their arrival at the Cathedral).

Perhaps, the British woman recognized that I am a priest. So she immediately dropped the question that almost caught me off-guard!

* * *

Did it happen to you that sometimes you can’t recall the Gospel of the day that you heard in the early morning mass, especially when you are asked about it at the last hour of the day? That was what almost occurred to me!

I said “almost” because – thanks to my guardian angel – I immediately recalled that the last part of that day’s Gospel (it was a Thursday) was the topic of the priest’s commentary during the Bible sharing we had at midday: Herod wanted to see Jesus out of curiosity.

Remembering the priest’s sharing has saved me from shame! So immediately, I started to narrate to the lady the Gospel passage. I carefully distinguished this Herod from the other one who – during Jesus’ infancy – wanted to see the Child to kill Him. This Herod in the day’s Gospel wanted to see Jesus because he thought Jesus was the same John the Baptist whom he had decapitated.

* * *

“Who is Herod today?” the British lady interrupted my narration. “Excuse me?” I didn’t get, at first, her question, engrossed in my narration. “Who is Herod today?”

I understand, the lady did not only ask for the Gospel reading: she was also asking for a homily! We were already in the middle of the long queue. In a few minutes, we were about to ascend to the Apostle’s camarín. (It has to be short homily, I said to myself!)

“Herod,” I began, “can be everyone of us”. I could immediately perceive how wrinkles began to form in the women’s forehead. “You and I, we also want to see Jesus. That’s why we are here in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.” The wrinkles slowly vanished.

“But our attitude, our motive of wanting to see Jesus must be different from that of Herod’s”, I continued, inspired by the effect my introduction has produced. “He wanted to see Jesus out of curiosity; we want to encounter the Lord because we believe and are convinced that only in Him can we find true happiness that we are searching for.”

Had we not reached the camarín and had not the three women started to go up, I should not have known how to end my “homily”!

* * *

What this experience taught me is this: be always prepared! I mean, we, priests, have to make good use of every opportunity presented to us to talk to people about God, about the Good News. And this requires good preparation.

I couldn’t imagine what could have been the end of that encounter had I answered “I forgot” to the question “What is the Gospel for today?” It could have been very embarrassing especially if the inquirer is someone who looks up to priests whom he or she expects to share some reflections about the Word of God.

In my experience, the Gospel for the day can easily be forgotten if it is not meditated seriously (especially before the celebration of the mass) and proclaimed attentively during the celebration. Giving a short homily helps the priest a lot in internalizing the Gospel’s message.

As a young priest, once again, I admit there are still a lot of things to learn in the priestly ministry. Experiences like this teach me lessons that even the seminary could not impart!

Elegant service

“Encomiéndeme, Padre, por favor, que estoy pasando mal” (Father, please pray for me; I am having a hard time).

With her accent, I was almost sure she is from Equator, South America. Besides, she was well-dressed, so no one could suppose that she’s one of these modern beggars, who would deliberately appear grimy so as to move generous philanthropists into pity.

But she was smiling while she shamelessly presented to me her simple petition: to pray for her. We almost bumped into each other on the street. As I was coming out from the Police Headquarters, renewing my residence ID, she made her sudden presence out of nowhere.

It called my attention for I seldom see people who are having a hard time wear such a patient smile on their face. Besides, I seldom get petitions for prayer on the street from total strangers.

* * *

How did she know I am a priest? By the black clerical suit that I was wearing. Indeed, people nowadays need to see concrete and visible symbols of Christ’s presence on the streets, especially in times when they feel the world is going upside down.

We understand well why when there is a high level of insecurity in the city – after, perhaps, a terrorist attack or a bomb explosion – police officers would immediately make their presence felt. We see military and policemen around. And we feel safe (or agitated, depending on the person’s interpretation of the scene).

In the same analogical manner, why can’t we, priests, make our presence felt in a society where there is an increasing level of spiritual uncertainty and confusion? Perhaps, through visible signs like the simple wearing of clerical shirt, people may be reminded of the presence of God in their worst moments.

* * *

“Why would a priest not wear clerical shirt as strongly recommended by the Church?”

It came to my mind a very lively discussion I had with my Peruvian priest-friend last year regarding this topic. He said, priests who refuse to wear priestly garb lose this great opportunity of evangelizing people through these visible signs. But I argued that there are also instances when not wearing clerical is preferrable.

There are persons who are too anti-clerical (especially here in Spain) that, by simply perceiving a coming clergyman, would immediately begin to bawl using foul language. Effectively, the visible symbol of God’s presence – the priest – turns out to be something that provokes their antipathy. My friend was speaking in general terms; I was focused on a particular case. But like him, I too believe that even in this smallest detail, we, priests, need to give testimony to who we are. Yet I refuse to mean to be too rigid in this aspect. Prudence still remains a better option.

* * *

“No se puede parar de trabajar cuando uno anda por la calle en ‘clergyman’” (A priest could not cease to fulfill his ministry whenever he walks on the street in priestly garb), commented one priest here in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. (I’m here for a week of priestly formation). He referred to his experience one morning, when he and another priest were trying to reach the entrance of the Cathedral. Some groups of pilgrims approached them for various motives: to ask for a blessing of religious articles, for some information, or even to ask for confession.

Indeed, our priesthood does not end at the door of our parish church nor does it cease as the parish office closes. We still remain priests even if we put on T-shirt and basketball shorts. Yet we seem to enjoy stories of convent boys, extra-ordinary ministers of communion or even a simple parishioner of another parish mistaking us for a priest’s driver simply because they see us wearing sleeveless shirts even during office hours.

I think we owe it to our parishioners and to the lay faithful in general to maintain an elegant look that is asked for by justice and by the dignity of our vocation. To them, we represent Christ. For them, we are “alter Christus” (even “ipse Christus” especially in the celebration of the sacraments). As Vatican II affirmed, our ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. I think, it is our duty to serve the lay faithful as elegantly as possible.

A life well-lived

Reading a very thought-provoking book of our professor, a Spanish philosopher Alejandro Llano, entitled “La vida lograda” (A life well-lived), I could not help but dedicate a few moments digesting his ideas. I thought I might as well provoke you, my dear readers, to think, so I decided to share these thoughts with you.

* * *

“Examinar qué es lo que me hace crecer en cuanto persona y qué es aquello con lo que yo mismo me puedo dañar y malograr mi vida” (Examine what makes me grow as a person and what is that which harms me and turns my life into a waste.)

It’s another way of expressing what Socrates declared long time ago: “An unexamined life is not worthliving”. It is part of our human nature to keep ourselves away from harm and to cling to what keeps us whole and fulfilled. Yet, the difficulty nowadays is that most harmful things present themselves under the guise of what is pleasurable and comfortable.

* * *

“Es joven toda aquella, todo aquél, para quien el futuro presenta mayor interés que el pasado” (Young is he or she to whom the future is more interesting than the past.)

The old ones say: “The problem with the youth is that they always talk about their future – their dreams, plans, ambitions, fantasies, etc”. Then, the youth replied: “The problem with old people is that they keep on remembering their past – adventures, achievements, etc.

If you think the past (especially your past) is better than the future (especially your future) and if you keep on saying that the days past are better-off than today and that tomorrow will be worse (especially when you say it with the certainty of the sun shining every morning), then, I’m sure you are already old.

* * *

“Para saber lo que debemos hacer, hemos de hacer lo que queremos saber” (In order to know what we should do, we should do what we want to know.)

It may appear like a word game. But its message is very simple: let’s put into practice what we know (or want to know). “By nature, man desires to know”, says Aristotle. And man wants to know only the good (at least, what is good for him) for, as the same philosopher says, “no man willingly does wrong.”

However, it’s useless to know anything if our knowledge does not lead us to action, if our knowledge does not tell us what to do. “In order to know what we should do, we should do what we want to know”.

* * *

“Lo decisivo no es sentir; lo decisivo es pensar” (What is decisive is not to feel but to think.)

If only the majority would base their life’s decisions on what they have thought of rather than what they felt, a lot of problems (especially emotional and relational ones) would be avoided or solved. But most people today make decisions based on feelings, not so much on rational deliberations.

Worst, the movements of one’s emotions (which are fluctuating) are interpreted as a sign of the right thing to do, the guide of one’s decision-making. “What’s important is I feel good,” said one friend of mine over the net. And I responded: “To feel good is the least; what’s important is to be good.”

* * *
“Hay que discutir las ideas y no criticar a las personas” (We should discuss and criticize ideas not persons).

People will not be motivated to correct their errors if criticisms are directed against their person (we call it “argumentum ad hominem”) rather than towards their errors or mistakes. A student is better motivated to study more if you tell him: “Your answer to this mathematical problem is wrong because the formula you used lacks one element”, rather than “Bobo ka kasi!” (You’re stupid!).

In our politics, in our movie industry, even in our neighborhood, in our workplace, we can observe a lot of “argumentum ad hominem” in our comments on one another. What is worst, we get used to it to the point that we could not distinguish anymore an argument (or a criticism) against an idea from that which is against a person. When our friend tells us that we are wrong in saying that Noynoy Aquino is running for president, at times we immediately react saying: “Ibig mong sabihin sinungaling ako?” (So you think I’m a liar?)

Take care of the Mass!

“Pambansang Buwan ng Katekesis” is September, says Word and Life’s “Patnubay sa Misa”, a mass guide in Tagalog that we are using in Tarragona Filipino Catholic Community (TFCC) for the past seven months. And taking advantage of this theme, I started giving short catechesis to the mass-goers, using Powerpoint presentations, before the Final Blessing of the Eucharistic celebrations.

(I hope liturgists – and other liturgy “experts” – would not react against this method, for I deem it opportune the time before the final blessing to give a little catechesis – in lieu of announcements – because, for the moment, it’s hard to gather an audience after the mass. As soon as I give the final blessing, everyone would disperse.)

There’s an urgent need to impart catechesis – not only the opportunity to celebrate masses in Tagalog – to OFW’s here, because without it, it would be hard for them to appreciate the liturgical celebrations. Without due appreciation and reverence towards the Holy Eucharist, the Mass would just be – in the words of Bishop Rimando (Auxilliary Bishop of Davao) – like “ordering food in a restaurant”.

* * *

“We will dedicate at least five minutes in silence before starting the mass”, I said, as I took the microphone and interrupted the growing uproar among children running to and fro in the Church alley, among mothers exchanging beso-beso and the latest craze in town, friends sharing experiences, etc.

“Whenever we have visitors at home, we always make sure that the house is orderly and we make some basic preparations. It’s the same with the Holy Eucharist: we have to prepare ourselves to receive Jesus in our heart,” I explained. Immediately, a deafening silence ensued. The same silence took place right after communion when over the microphone, I invited everyone to spend a moment of silence, thanking God for the Holy Communion that we received.

It’s amazing how we, Filipinos, still conserve a great deal of docility even in other countries! I can’t find any reason why this can’t be observed in our parishes there in the Philippines.

* * *
“Had Vilma Santos been here in front, I’m sure all of you would be vying for the nearest bench, to be seated near the actress,” I noted. They all laughed, thinking it was a joke. “But Jesus is here in front of us! Is He less important than Vilma Santos?” I saw some of those who understood transferred to the front pews.

Before the Mass started, I noticed that most mass-goers preferred the seats near the door, so that the front pews are left vacant. Perhaps, we only wanted to feel more comfortable, that’s why we prefer seats located near the door and far from the altar. But is there a place more comfortable than that which is near Jesus?

* * *

“For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2: 2-4)

As these words of the Second Reading were proclaimed, suddenly a man, wearing shorts and with no shirt, entered through the door and walked right in front of the altar, kneeled at the first pew and started to weep. “How well he understood my analogy about Vilma Santos,” I thought to myself. I made a gesture to others to take him out. They persuaded him but he refused.

After the proclamation of the Gospel and before giving the homily, I personally asked the man, who – I immediately perceived – is drunk, to leave the church out of respect to the on-going mass celebration. He resisted at first, but when he noticed that various Filipinos are surrounding him, he gave in. Reaching the door, two local police officers accompanied him to we don’t know where.

I don’t think it’s depriving him to pray in the church or making distinctions, like the Apostle James has warned us against. It’s simply a question of showing respect to the Holy Eucharist that we should wear, at least, presentable clothing during the Eucharistic celebration. In the same way that we wear our best attire when we meet an important person, why can’t we do the same in meeting Jesus in the Holy Eucharist? And of course, it’s totally disrespectful for someone drunk to meet Jesus in the Eucharist!

* * *

If we really want to celebrate September as “Pambansang Buwan ng Katekesis”, I think, we, priests, need to place more emphasis on some aspects of our faith that are already given less importance, neglected or taken for granted, like some important details in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Negligence, ignorance or simply our lack of sensitivity in these things could affect so much the solemnity of the celebration.

And who else than the priest himself could well remind the people of the importance of these things?

Fornication is a mortal sin!

“¡No hay derecho! Me siento decepcionada. Ha sido una violación de mi derecho de tener relaciones sexuales con mi novio sin tener que estar embarazada. Tengo todavía muchos planes en mi vida. Además, este niño no es deseado. Ya no puedo estudiar bien.” (It’s unfair! I feel disappointed. It was a violation of my right to have a sexual relationship with my boyfriend without getting pregnant. I still have many plans with my life. Besides, this child is unwanted. I can’t study well.)

Listening to this declaration coming from a 25-year-old lady on a morning Spanish TV program (one that deals with social complaints), I was quite stunned and – I guess – had a little of nausea. She was complaining against the doctor who gave her a prescription of contraceptive pills. She’s finishing her course but living in the house of her boyfriend and his parents.

What made me sick – besides the foolish idea of living with her boyfriend while still studying and having many plans in life – is the fact that she believes that to have a sexual relationship with her boyfriend is a basic right!

Just when is fornication considered a basic human right? Fornication is a mortal sin! See 1 Corinthians 5: 1ff.

* * *

“Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile” (Mk 7: 14-15).

When Jesus, in this Sunday’s Gospel, made this affirmation, He is trying to rectify some erroneous mentality of His time. Today, I think, we need to voice out in the open a lot of rectification of this kind. It seems that our silence on this matter is doing a havoc especially on the young minds.

Fornication is a sin NOT ONLY because the Bible says so. The Bible says it is a sin because it goes directly against God’s will and design regarding sex, love and marriage. God wills that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Besides, He ordered that they “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28).

In other words: sex (becoming one flesh) is a sacred gift from God – a gift with a double dimension, both complementary and inseparable: union in love (“unite with his wife”) and procreation (“fruitful and multiply”). And it is given within the context of marriage ONLY (“a man…and his wife”). Fornication or pre-marital sex (including sex outside marriage, meaning with non-spouse) goes directly against this divine will.

* * *

Another erroneous mentality of our time: Condoms are an effective instrument to prevent AIDS.

Pope Benedict XVI has been very clear and bold in declaring that THIS IS FALSE: “The condom does not prevent AIDS. Only responsible sexual behavior can address the pandemic," he said. But the international press was scandalized at hearing this truth.

Now, a scientist and expert on AIDS prevention, Edward Green corroborates the Pope’s affirmation. Green explained that scientific studies point out a phenomenon of human behavior called "risk compensation," whereby a person "feels protected and thus exposes himself more." When one believes condoms protect him, he would indulge himself more in irresponsible sexual activities; thus, elevating the risk of being infected.

Dr. Green asked: “Why has an attempt not been made to change people's customs?” “The world industry has taken many years to understand that measures of a technical and medical character are of no use to solve the problem,” he added.

Now it’s time for people to change their mentality: in the same way that “nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile”, nothing from the outside can protect the person from AIDS but the things from within: abstinence and fidelity.

A priest in love

“Ganyan ba talaga kayo magsalita? Quote kaagad ang Bible o di kaya isinasali kaagad ang Diyos? Di ba puwedeng magsalita ng normal tulad naming mga secular?”

Words of my lady friend as they appeared line by line on the chat box of Facebook. Although surprised by the sudden change of topic of our chat, I surmised that these words were provoked by a favorite quotation that I sent her: “God can write straight with crooked lines”. Perhaps, she didn’t expect such profound truth as a comment on a petty human experience like cooking dinner for the family.

Well, what caught my attention was the thought behind these words – a thought that represents succinctly what I would call a common secular mentality today. Besides, there’s more to it than what appears! Let me explain.

* * *

Firstly, I can sense a perplexity at the fact that priests (as I am) would immediately refer to God things (or topics) that apparently have less or no direct connection to Him. In other words, that we (priests) would “inject” a divine perspective on “secular” (as opposed to the ‘sacred’ – a sense employed by my friend) events and experiences is something that still raises eyebrows today. Some would consider it off-tangent. Others, deeming it less considerate to the listeners’ sensibilities, would even reprimand it.

As Christians, I think, it is our responsibility to infuse society and the world today with a divine perspective. No reality in the world – for very “secular” as it may seem – is immune from the capacity to be impregnated with the sense of the divine. It’s because all reality is God’s work. And baptized in the name of Jesus, we are expected to leave a Christian imprint even in the most ordinary reality of our existence.

The Gospel calls it “lifting up the Cross of Christ in the midst of the world”. Jesus said: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). I think, it is looking at the world and human existence with the eyes of God – something that is slowly forgotten today!

* * *

Secondly, I can perceive in the preceeding questions a certain role bias. It sounds that only priests are expected to talk about God, to quote the Bible, to have a ready-made, God-ridden, touching and inspiring words for any given circumstances. And this role has somehow distinguishes us from the “normal” and “secular” people.

I am glad that priests are associated with such role. What would be unfortunate (for a priest, of course) is when a lay faithful could talk about God and quote the Bible with more ease than a priest. But I am not at ease with making a biased distinction of roles: “priests normally talk about God while the ‘secular’ normally talk about earthly realities”.

What is normal for all Catholic Christians – clergy and lay faithful alike – is to talk about God even in the most ordinary (or ‘earthly’) circumstances in life. Although we usually distinguish the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’, we cannot afford to shun away the sense of the divine from any wordly reality.

* * *

“Di ba normal lang sa mga in-love o mga nagmamahal ay pag-uusapan ang kanilang minamahal?” I asked my friend. She replied, “Depende.”

Any person who has fallen in love can attest to this: not only a person in love tends to think about the beloved all day, but also, he or she tends to talk to others about the beloved, about the beloved’s great virtues, the things the beloved does, etc.

If this is true in human relationships, why can’t it be true in our relationship with God? A person who is truly in love with God and with all that God loves, would naturally and normally – without even being aware of it – talk about his or her beloved. If this is true with any person in love with God, why shouldn’t it be MORE TRUE with priests?

If “priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus” (as St. John Mary Vianney said), then all priests should be the first to be in love like crazy with Jesus – with God. Hence, it should not cause bewilderment when priests talk like crazy about their beloved every now and then. The contrary should!

Vida de Cristo en nosotros

(Homilia sobre las lecturas del XX Domingo del T.O.)

Las lecturas de hoy destacan el carácter realista de la Sagrada Eucaristía: de que no es solamente una doctrina fascinante o un dogma de fe atractivo – una idea impresionante. No! Nos encontramos con un acontecimiento real: una Persona que nos da realmente su Cuerpo y su Sangre para salvarnos, transformándonos en su misma persona. Aunque tal realismo sólo lo vislumbramos desde la fe.

Hay personas que están dispuestas a dar su vida por una ideología, aunque a veces, a pesar de ser una ideología equivocada. Otras están dispuestas a quitar la vida de otros por defender su convicción o por promoverla. La enseñanza cristiana NO ES una ideología: una ideología es un conjunto de ideas que pretenden transformar al mundo. Lo que Cristo nos enseña NO ES un mero conjunto de ideas transformadoras. Nos da su propio ser: su Cuerpo y su Sangre – no sus ideas – son los que nos dan vida y transforman el mundo.

Si es posible dar la vida por una ideología o una convicción, con mucho más razón tenemos que dar la vida, o mejor, vivirla por una Persona: Cristo, Quien nos la ha ofrecido para que vivamos en Él.

La Primera Lectura del Libro de los Proverbios resume el proyecto de Dios para nosotros al darnos su Hijo Amado. Dios, al querer salvarnos, “ha edificado una casa” – la Iglesia – y “ha labrado sus siete columnas” – los siete sacramentos a través de los cuales recibimos con abundancia la gracia salvadora. (9:1)

Con vista de darnos el verdadero pan del cielo – no como el pan que comieron los Israelitas en el desierto y murieron (Cfr. Jn 6:58) – el Padre “ha preparado el banquete”, “ha mezclado ya el vino”, y ha enviado a sus criadas a anunciar en lo alto de las colinas de la ciudad: “Venid y comed de mi pan, bebed del vino que he mezclado; dejaos de simplezas y viviréis, y dirigíos por los caminos de la inteligencia” (9:5-6).

“¡Gustad y ved que bueno es el Señor!” canta hoy el Salmo Responsorial. Y con más urgencia nos dice San Pablo en la Segunda Lectura de su Carta a los Efesios: “Por tanto, no seáis insensatos, sino comprended cuál es la voluntad de Señor” (5: 17). ¡Cuanta insensatez perder el tiempo en muchas otras cosas menos en la mesa del Señor donde Él nos proporciona el “verdadero pan de la vida”!

“Si no coméis la carne del Hijo del hombre, y no bebéis su sangre, no tenéis vida en vosotros” (Jn 6: 53). Es tan real como lo ha dicho Jesús que los judíos discutían: “¿Cómo puede éste darnos a comer su carne?” Ellos entendieron bien el realismo de las palabras de Cristo. Pero no entendieron que el Señor se refiere al gran milagro – mucho más grande que la multiplicación de los panes: hacer que el pan se convierta en su Cuerpo y el vino, en su Sangre en la Sagrada Eucaristía.

Nosotros tampoco lo entendemos del todo lo que llamamos “transubstanciación”. Pero creemos firmemente porque no hace falta entenderlo del todo para creer. (De la misma manera que no hace falta que la ideología se haga realidad primero para que los fanáticos den su vida por ella.) Creemos en la transubstanciación porque Cristo nos la revela y la aceptamos. Es más, damos nuestra vida por Cristo: o mejor dicho, vivimos la Vida de Cristo dentro de nosotros.

Es así como Cristo quiere salvarnos: transformarnos desde dentro dandonos su vida, cambiar desde dentro nuestro modo de ser, de pensar, de hablar, de actuar, de amar, para hacerlo parecer a su modo. “El que come mi carne y bebe mi sangre, permanece en mí y yo en él” (Jn 6: 56). ¿No hemos notado que cuando recibimos a Cristo fielmente en la comunión, nos duele cada día más nuestros pecados y los del mundo, pensamos más en hacer cosas buenas al prójimo, tendemos a ser más comprensibles y amables con los demás, somos más alegres, más esperanzados?

Pues, ¡ésta es la Vida de Cristo en nosotros! Pidamos ahora a la Virgen que nos ayude a vivir esta Vida de Cristo y a ayudar que los demás la vivan también.

Women, PRO-CHOICE?

To tell a woman to be PRO-CHOICE is to play the role of the serpent in Paradise, in his dialogue with Eve – the result of which is the Fall of Man!

Let’s be clear about it! “PRO-CHOICE” is a vague concept popularly understood as “I have the right to make a personal choice; no one should dictate me what to do”. Applied to the issue of women’s rights, it is translated as the woman’s right to make her own decision of what to do with her body.

Under such right, the woman can do whatever she wants to do with her body. “It’s my body,” she says. Hence, if she wants to abort her baby, nothing or no one should interfere with her rights to choose, to decide for herself.

This mentality carries with it a number of VAGUE IDEAS:

(1) Is the baby inside the woman’s body a member of her body (like an appendix, a lung, a heart, etc)? If the answer is YES, then,

(2) Are we morally justified – under the pretext of human right – to cut off whatever member of our body, just because we don’t like it, or because it hinders our well-being?

If we want to avoid another Fall from Paradise, we need to study the following CLEAR IDEAS:

(1) Women have rights to choose. Personal choice is part of human freedom.

(2) Women have rights over their own body and can do whatever they want for as long as it is within the bounds of morality (You don’t just cut your thumb because it is fashionable!)

(3) BUT THE BABY INSIDE THE WOMAN’S BODY IS NEVER A MEMBER OF HER BODY. It is another human being and it has its own rights and human freedom like the mother herself.

(4) Besides, because it is inside her body, without being her body, the woman has the responsibility to protect and to take care of it until it is born. AND THE MORAL LAW DEMANDS THAT SHE SHOULD DO SO!

(5) THEREFORE, to affirm the rights of the fetus is never a violation of the rights of the woman. Instead, it is an affirmation of her responsibilities towards her baby: the FOREMOST OF WHICH IS TO LET THE BABY LIVE!

To summarize: TO DECIDE WHETHER THE BABY SHOULD LIVE OR NOT IS NEVER PART OF THE MOTHER’S RIGHTS OF CHOICE! IF THE BABY IS ALREADY GROWING IN HER WOMB, HER RESPONSIBILITY (not her choice) IS TO LET IT LIVE!

TO LEAVE TO THE WOMAN TO DECIDE – meaning, to make her PRO-CHOICE – IS LIKE ROBBING GOD OF HIS RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR LIFE! IT IS LIKE MAKING THE WOMAN LIKE GOD…IT IS LIKE TEMPTING THE WOMAN TO DESIRE TO BE LIKE GOD…

IT IS LIKE THE DEVIL SAYING ONCE AGAIN TO EVE: “Take this fruit and eat it, and you will become like God.” To all women, before making yourself PRO-CHOICE, think again!