Vocation, a loving dialogue

Reflecting on the Holy Father’s message for the 46th World Day of Prayer for vocations to the priesthood and to the consecrated life held last May 3, 2010, with the theme: “Faith in the divine initiative - the human response”, I found a crystal-clear affirmation of my longtime-held conviction: that the response to God’s call to priesthood or religious life is born out of one’s firm faith. Whenever people ask me why I decided to become a priest, my usual reply is that I believe God has called me first: I did not decide it first – He did. I am simply trying to respond in faith.

This Vocation Month’s theme: “Vocation: a gift and a commitment” emphasizes, first of all, the truth that “vocation to the priesthood and to the consecrated life constitutes a special gift of God which becomes part of the great plan of love and salvation that God has for every man and woman and for the whole of humanity” (POPE BENEDICT XVI, Message for the World Day of Prayer for Vocations). The call is God’s initiative, not man’s. To become a priest is not a life’s project that we can simply put below our picture in a high school yearbook, or a reply to an inquiry in a slum book: “Ambition? To become a nun”.

It is God’s initiative. Therefore, whenever we hear a young lad saying, “I want to become a priest”, or a young lady saying, “I want to enter the convent”, our first thought would be that God must have stirred something in these persons. In a sense, the desire to become a priest or a nun is already the first sign – but not the only or even the most decisive one – of vocation. The candidate should go deeper in the discernment and purification of such desire through prayer and reflection. “What is asked of those who are called, for their part, is careful listening and prudent discernment, a generous and willing adherence to the divine plan, and a serious study of the reality that is proper to the priestly and religious vocations, so as to be able to respond responsibly and with conviction” (Ibid.).

It belongs to the Church the responsibility to discern whether or not such sign is authentic. Yet such responsibility is just one side of the coin. The other side is what the Pope highlights: “Our first duty, therefore, is to keep alive in families and in parishes, in movements and in apostolic associations, in religious communities and in all the sectors of diocesan life this appeal to the divine initiative with unceasing prayer. We must pray that the whole Christian people grows in its trust in God, convinced that the "Lord of the harvest" does not cease to ask some to place their entire existence freely at his service so as to work with him more closely in the mission of salvation” (Ibid.).

God may sow in the hearts of young people the seed of vocation if the “ground” is fertile. A Christian family that tries to live coherently its faith, with parents and children praying together, going to Mass on Sundays together, and inculcating the values of generosity and loving sacrifice, would likely favor the flourishing of a priestly or religious vocation. On the contrary, a family that hardly has time to be together at home, even in praying before meals, with parents and children, brothers or sisters always thinking of one’s own comfort and benefit, unwilling even to lend one’s new T-shirt or any belonging to another family member, could hardly encourage self-sacrifice which is essential in any response to God’s call.

Citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Cfr. n. 2062), the Pope says “God’s free initiative requires a free response on the part of men and women; a positive response which always presupposes acceptance of and identification with the plan that God has for everyone; a response which welcomes the Lord’s loving initiative and becomes, for the one who is called, a binding moral imperative, an offering of thanksgiving to God and a total cooperation with the plan which God carries out in history” (Ibid.). In a word, vocation is simply a loving dialogue between God Who calls and the one being called.

God always calls men and women to priesthood and religious life. No doubt about that for Jesus even promised to perpetuate His Church until the end of time. And for the Church to continue, priests are necessary. For without the priests, there would be no Eucharist. And without the Eucharist, there would be no Church. But what is not so certain is man’s response. That is why, it is on this aspect that our celebration of vocation month should particularly focus (though the term “vocation” here may also refer to marriage). What could we do as a Church, in this case, the local Church of Davao, to foment free human response to a divine initiative? Putting it simply, what can we – the people of God in Davao – do in order to promote, stir up and sustain priestly and religious vocations?

The Pope’s message calls for more prayer and deeper trust: “The exhortation of Jesus to his disciples: ‘Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest’ (Mt 9:38) has a constant resonance in the Church. Pray! The urgent call of the Lord stresses that prayer for vocations should be continuous and trusting. The Christian community can only really ‘have ever greater faith and hope in God's providence’ (Sacramentum Caritatis, 26) if it is enlivened by prayer”.

But our prayer should be coupled with sacrifices and should be put into action if we want it to be efficient. As St. Josemaría says: “Action is worth nothing without prayer: prayer grows in value with sacrifice”. Let us pray for more priestly and religious vocations in Davao. But then, let us learn to take care and sustain these vocations in our archdiocese. For in every vocation, we find man’s loving dialogue with God.

Jornada de Familias de Filipinas en Torreciudad

ANC’s half-Truths

ANC’s edition of Truths last Monday left me preoccupied. Aside from the fact that clearly the mentality behind is a latent support for the legalization of abortion in the Philippines (as can be deduced from its arguments), I am deeply troubled by the misunderstanding it feeds on our people regarding the Church-backed Natural Family Planning. As the Church ordained minister and the people’s conscience formator, I feel the obligation to clarify some points here.

In the program, the narrator presents an interview of a Catholic priest who explained how the two dimensions of sexual activity – the unitive and the procreative – should not be separated. Immediately, the reporter notes that the Church’s teaching here involves a contradiction since the Church also promotes Natural Family Planning which entails doing sexual activity during infertile periods; hence, separating the procreative from the unitive dimension. The reporter could have asked the interviewed priest how to explain this. But she did not. She simply jumped into her conclusion. This gave me reason to assume that the Truths’ edition last Monday is grossly biased in favor of the anti-life mentality.

* * *

In the Natural Family Planning, the couple is engaged in sexual activity during infertile periods. Naturally, no life could come out; hence, the sexual activity does not yield the creation of new life. But this does not mean that the unitive and procreative dimensions of the sexual activity are separated. Why? Simply because it does not involve an anti-life mentality. Let me explain.

The procreative dimension refers to openness in the transmission of life or fecundity. In God’s design of creation, fecundity is a cycle. And there are periods wherein transmission of life is not possible. Sexual activities done within these periods are still open to life; it’s just that no life yet is possible. Hence, it cannot involve an anti-life mentality. And the couple’s desire not to have a baby is only secondary to God’s will. They simply cooperate in God’s procreative design, so to speak.

On the contrary, in the use of artificial methods or contraceptives, the anti-life mentality is clearly manifest. Regardless of whether the woman is fertile or not, the couple’s intention in sexual activities is to block the transmission of life. Hence, it intentionally separates the procreative from the unitive dimension. In the natural way, the couple’s desire not to have a baby seconds God’s will as manifested in nature. In the artificial way, the couple simply rejects God’s will to transmit life. That is why, it is rightly called contraception (“contra” = against; “conception” = life).

The Church’s teaching on this aspect is quite clear. It is a total irresponsibility on the part of the reporter not to have researched on this and to simply brush aside the Church’s teaching as contradictory. To fill-in that gap left by ANC’s Truths’ half-truths, here is the full truth.

* * *

“Never is it permitted to separate these different aspects [unitive and procreative] to the point of excluding positively either the intention of procreation or the conjugal relation”. (Pius XII, Allocution to the Members of the II World Congress of Fertility and Sterility, May 19, 1956)

“The husband and wife do no wrong in seeking out and enjoying this pleasure [cooperating with God in propagating the human race]. They are accepting what the Creator intended for them. Still, here too, the husband and wife ought to know how to keep within the bounds of moderation. As in eating and drinking, they ought not to give themselves over completely to the promptings of their senses, so neither ought they to subject themselves unrestrainedly to their sensual appetite. This, therefore, is the rule to be followed: the use of the natural, generative instinct and function is lawful in the married state only, and in the service of the purposes for which marriage exists”. (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951)

“The moral lawfulness of such conduct [limiting the use of the marital act to times of natural sterility] would be affirmed or denied according as to whether or not the intention to keep constantly to these periods is based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds. The sole fact that the couple do not offend against the nature of the act and that they are willing to accept and bring up the child that is born notwithstanding the precautions they have taken, would not of itself alone be sufficient guarantee of a right intention and of the unquestionable morality of the motives themselves”. (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951)

* * *

Watching ANC’s Truths left me preoccupied but with another important lesson learned: not everything that the media feed us is the truth, even though they would call it Truths. Hence, we need to be very careful and critical. Knowing better our faith and the Church’s teachings is our effective shield against the obvious ideological indoctrination that is going on around us. There’s no deadliest danger than being misinformed.

Fallacies of legalizing abortion

(A response to an article entitled “Filipino women need safe and legal abortion in RP” by EnGendeRights, August 2, 2010, posted in ABS-CBNews.com. See http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/08/06/10/filipino-women-need-safe-and-legal-abortion-rp).

One needs not study Logic or Philosophy to see how this article is replete with lots of fallacious arguments. I am not exaggerating when I say that the bottom line of what it tries to convey is this: that we should save our women from numerous maternal deaths brought about by unsafe abortion methods by legally killing our children! In what follows, I shall unmask each of these fallacies and argue that abortion is immoral because it an act of murder. Legalizing abortion does not change its immorality, for what is legal may not necessarily be morally right.

The article opens with this affirmation: “‘Filipinos should address the issue of access to safe and legal abortion in the country. The impact of lack of access to safe and legal abortion is a grave public health issue as shown in the report of New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights entitled, “Forsaken Lives: The Harmful Impact of the Philippine Criminal Abortion Ban”, which was released today at Annabel’s restaurant. In the Philippines, over half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Due to the illegality of abortion, Filipino women induce abortion clandestinely through unsafe methods. The report cites recent statistics showing about half a million Filipino women yearly who, because of various reasons including rape and dire socio-economic reasons, induce abortion with about 1000 women dying and 90,000 being hospitalized due to complications from unsafe abortion. This means that the illegality of abortion does not stop abortion but only makes it dangerous for the health and lives of Filipino women,’ said Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights, and former Visiting International Legal Fellow at Center for Reproductive Rights”.

The basic structure of the argument is this: because abortion is illegal in the Philippines, women clandestinely abort their babies through unsafe methods and many die due to complications. Therefore, to avoid numerous maternal deaths, abortion should be legalized to provide safer abortion methods.

The first fallacy committed in this argument is confusing cause and effect. The banning of abortion is not the direct cause of the numerous deaths of women who abort their children. Hence, the conclusion on the legalization of abortion to curb these deaths is fallacious. The illegality of abortion is simply a contributing or circumstantial factor that drives women to clandestine abortion employing unsafe methods, but never its cause. Abortion is harmful (may cause numerous maternal deaths) not because it is illegal. It is illegal – not legally allowed – because it is harmful: it causes the death of children and – as Padilla has cited – possibly that of the mother.

But what directly causes these numerous deaths of women is the women’s decision to abort. Had they not decided to abort their child, they would never have died of unsafe abortion methods. Now, legalizing abortion does not guarantee that these deaths would not occur. Instead, if abortion is legalized, more women would be encouraged to abort. The legalization of abortion would only raise to the highest level the risk of numerous maternal deaths.

A corollary fallacy in Padilla’s argument is this: legalizing abortion brings about safer abortion methods. This is absolutely false! Abortion, whether legal or illegal, is never safe because it always puts the mother’s life in great danger, while it kills mercilessly the child. That which kills is never safe!

So that women should not die due to complications from unsafe abortion, the best solution is not the legalization of abortion. The first most efficient solution is for the mother to decide NOT TO ABORT. This is the safest means to avoid numerous maternal deaths. Second, we need to persecute legally those who are doing abortion illegally in this country. If women would not abort and the law is implemented well, I am sure the problem will be solved.

The second fallacy is the appeal to authority. The report of New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) claims to be an authority on this subject because it has conducted a statistical study on abortion in the Philippines. Padilla’s argument appeals to this authority and argues that we should consider its findings in addressing “the issue of access to safe and legal abortion in the country”. The basic structure of Padilla’s argument is this: CRR is an authority on this subject. CRR conducted this study and says that the impact of the illegality of abortion in the Philippines is harmful. Hence, CRR’s finding and conclusion is true.

Any law student who studies Logic could demonstrate well how illogical this argument is. CRR’s finding cannot be true simply because it claims authority on this subject. It can be true only if it follows logical reasoning, which I doubt it does. Hence, to argue that CRR’s conclusion is true because it is an authority on this subject is a fallacy.

I don’t doubt the professional authority of CRR in conducting statistical studies. But given the fallacious reasoning of its conclusion (namely, that illegal abortion causes numerous maternal deaths), what I doubt is its moral authority. When an argument does not follow reason, it cannot have moral authority because as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “The moral law is that part of the eternal law that applies to human choices and can be known by our natural reason”. Hence, what does not follow logical reasoning cannot claim moral authority. The CRR cannot have the moral authority on this subject simply because it lacks logical reasoning. Then, why should we appeal to it?

The most notorious of Padilla’s fallacies is a double fallacy of the appeal to common practice and the appeal to popularity. Here’s how she formulates it: “Spain has liberalized its laws to allow abortion on broad grounds and yet we are left to contend with our old colonial laws. Other predominantly Catholic countries that allow abortion are Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, and Hungary (whose constitution protects life from conception but permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation). Recent abortion liberalizations occurred in Colombia, Mexico City (legalized abortion in the first trimester without restriction in April 2007) and Portugal (allows abortion up to 10 weeks of pregnancy).”

While it may true that the Philippine legal restriction on abortion is “one of the vestiges of Spanish colonization”, it does not logically follow that once Spain has lifted up its restriction, the Philippines should also follow. That abortion is a common practice in other countries is not a logical argument in favor of its legalization in the Philippines. The mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

Besides, Padilla mentioned that these countries are Catholic countries, insinuating that even Catholics accept abortion, which is another gross fallacy. In Spain, where I am based at the writing of this article, the law on abortion has been passed despite the strong opposition by thousands of Catholics. With similar fallacious arguments and Machiavellian political tactics now being employed in the Philippines, pro-abortion advocates here had succeeded in pushing anti-life measures like the Spanish abortion law. (Another is the law on same-sex marriage which is also anti-family. I cannot understand why Padilla mentioned this in her article.)

Padilla is right: the abortion law is part of President Zapatero’s “bold social reforms” – bold, because it violates the human person’s basic right to live and the parents’ basic right to take care of their underage pregnant daughters who, thanks to this law, may now abort freely even without parental knowledge and consent. Is this the way we should protect our women from numerous maternal deaths? By eliminating the right of parents to form the conscience and to take care of their pregnant daughters, are we really protecting these women from maternal deaths?

One last fallacious argument. Padilla noted that “The Philippine law on abortion does not even allow express exceptions based on rape, risks to the life and health of the woman and fetal impairment… Our constitution provides equal protection of life from conception and the life of the woman. This constitutional provision does not prohibit abortion as exemplified in the case of Hungary which has the same constitutional provision at the same (time) permits abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation. In the case of Colombia, the Constitutional Court declared the Colombian abortion law unconstitutional and permitted abortion on the following circumstances: when the woman’s life or health is in danger; when the pregnancy is the result of rape; and when the fetus has malformation incompatible with life outside the uterus”.

Very intriguingly, Padilla considered logical the fact that Hungary and Colombia permit abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation while providing in their respective constitution equal protection of life from conception and the life of the woman. But she seemed to find it illogical that the Philippines prohibit abortion, adhering completely to its constitutional vow of protecting life from conception. Obviously, the Philippines is more consistent with its constitutional commitment than the other two abovementioned countries. I cannot understand why those who are inconsistent in their words and actions are admired and commended, while those who are consistent and faithful are disapproved and criticized.

An immoral act can hardly be defended by any rational argument. No sufficient appeal to authority or to statistics can change the immorality of abortion, whether legal or illegal. Its basic logical structure is simple: Murder is a heinous immoral crime. Any action that kills a living human being is murder. Abortion takes the life of a living human fetus inside the womb of the mother. Abortion is a heinous immoral crime.

Abortion advocates would usually argue that the fetus is not yet a human being, or if it already is, it is not yet considered a human person. But if it is not a human being, what is it? If it is not yet a human person, when will it become? What these abortion advocates could not deny is that abortion, besides possibly killing the mother, surely kills a living being, the child. And killing is murder. The most logical question they cannot answer logically is this: Why not let our children live?

Life is a game

Here's a thought that makes one think...short but substantial...

God never wastes time!

God does not waste time. This was the conclusion I arrived at upon reflecting on this experience.

One Sunday afternoon, while waiting for Luis, a friend of mine in his 50’s and a native of Zaragoza, who volunteered to take me in his car to Salou (a 20-minute drive from Tarragona) where I had a Mass at 8:00 P.M., I started the first glorious mystery of the Holy Rosary in front of the house where I was staying.

“¿Tú eres un cura?” (Are you a priest?), out of the blue, a middle-aged half-Romanian, half-Italian (I learned it later from him) man addressed me. As soon as I said yes, thinking that again my black clergyman has effectively revealed my identity, he immediately enumerated his grave sins.

“Yo he sido un drogadicto, alcohólico y he frecuentado los lugares malos como los de prostitución, etc.” (I have been a drug-addict, an alcoholic and I have frequently been in prostitution houses, etc.), he started to say. I wonder why the sight of a priest would always evoke in us the sensation of repentance and self-accusation. It happens to me oftentimes. Upon knowing that I am a priest, a newly-met person would say, “So, you’re a priest. It has been a long time since I had my last confession”.

Even in cases of jeers from people who are anti-Church and anti-clerics, this is the main topic for ridicule: that priests are ministers of confession, and therefore, seeing a priest is like reminding one’s self of his sinfulness. But even if reminding others (and especially myself) of our sinfulness were the only significance of my being a priest, it would be very worthwhile to be a priest.

* * *

“Tienes todavía esperanza”, (You still have hope), I sounded firm as I responded. And I saw a look of bewilderment on his face. May bukas pa is not just an understatement, although here in Spain it appears to be so, considering the economic and moral crisis that the society is suffering.

But a priest should be a living sign of that hope. And he can only be that sign if he lives with it concretely everyday of his life. Every after confession, after receiving the absolution, we can feel that sense of hope slowly transforming our lives for the better. It is a “performative”, not just an “informative” hope, as Pope Benedict XVI distinguishes (Cfr. Encyclical Letter Spe salvi, 4).

Despite our sinfulness, I think we have to cling to this hope. Of the three theological virtues, charity may be the greatest. But it is hope which is (and should be) the last to lose. By sinning, we may lack faith, we may go against charity; but we should never lose hope.

* * *

“Tienes todavía esperanza porque el Hijo del Dios vino para buscar a los…” (You still have hope because the Son of God came to rescue the …), I held my tongue, reluctant to mention “pecadores” (sinners) for it may hurt his sensibilities. But quickly he completed my sentence with “…enfermos” (the sick). I conceded.

To consider ourselves sick in front of God is the beginning of wisdom, of healing and of salvation. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” the Psalmist says. But why we fear the Lord? Because we know we have offended Him. And we know the consequences of offending Him, that’s why we fear offending Him again. But this refers to a filial fear, the fear of a son of God.

We can only be healed of our spiritual malady if we learn to recognize it in the first place. To refuse to see ourselves sick in front of God is pure pride. Besides, such refusal carries with it the logical consequence of not needing Christ and His salvation anymore. If I don’t need healing, I don’t need Christ. But if I am sick, “Lord, heal me!”

* * *

“Ya te encomendaré en mi misa” (I will pray for you in my Mass), I bade him farewell as he started to walk away. “Ya me voy, tengo que rezar mucho todavía”(I have to go; I need to pray more), was his reply. Both of us were refreshed by such a short but very substantial conversation. With the hope of being healed, both of us came out revitalized.

Indeed, God never wastes time! I was just waiting for a ride but He came to remind me of His love and to refresh me with His hope.

Should a seminarian have a girlfriend?

At the outset, the question is mistakenly formulated. And the mistake is in the “should”, for if we insist on this formula, my immediate answer is a big NO! Clarifying some ideas on this topic would explain my point. Our aim? Clear ideas.

The choice of this topic is occasioned by an email sent to me by a certain confused young girl (she calls herself the “Confused One”) two months ago. Her commentaries and questions were provoked by an article (which she attributed to me) supposedly published in DCHerald, about this question: “Should a seminarian have a girlfriend?”

* * *

Ideas to be clarified: The seminary is a place where vocations to the priesthood are discerned, discovered, nurtured and fortified (in this order). This is the aim of both the college (philosophical studies) as well as the theological seminaries (theological studies), although we may think that in the former, more emphasis is placed on the first two, while in the latter, on the last two, but without separating all of them.

Effectively, young men (most of whom have just finished high school) feel an inclination or a certain attraction to the priesthood or religious life, which usually is a first sign of priestly vocation, though not an exclusive one. (I know of some vocation history of priests who, at first, felt repulsion at the idea of entering the seminary, but ended up being ordained). Moved by such attraction, they decide to enter the seminary with the aim of discerning more clearly what the Lord wants of them. In the seminary, they receive a formation apt to this objective: to discern and nurture their vocations to the priesthood.

I always understand this experience as something comparable to that phase in romantic relationships that we call physical attraction and courtship. Young men who are inclined more to married life (in contrast to the example above) find gorgeous girls and propose plans to court them, with an analogous objective: to discern (if this is real love) and to nurture it (if it is true love) in order to bring it to completion in marriage.

* * *

In a word, seminary formation and romantic relationships are both preparations to two different but correlated life vocations: priesthood and married life. Correlated, I said, because thanks to the parents, we have priests. And thanks to priests, we have sacramentally married couple. If seminarians inclined to priesthood prepare themselves in the seminary for their future priestly ministry, young men inclined to married life prepare themselves through courtship and romantic relationships, for their future married life.

In both preparations, two requirements are essential in order to achieve the goal of each: commitment and sincerity. Those who decide to enter the seminary to discern and nurture their priestly vocations commit themselves to such a goal and responsibility by being sincere to themselves (to their decision), to God (Who they believe calls them) and to others (their bishops, formators, parents, benefactors and friends). The same commitment and sincerity are required in a romantic relationship. Once the girl perceives that the guy is insincere and is not committed to the relationship, a break-up would surely ensue (unless both are only up to a mere fling).

Now the questions: What if the young lad who is inclined to the priestly vocation is the same young man who is courting a girl? In other words, is it admissible for a seminarian to court a girl and, consequently, maintain a romantic relationship with her? Is it possible to be committed genuinely to the attainment of the goals of priestly formation and, at the same time, be committed honestly to the goals of courtship and romantic relationships?

* * *

If you are keen enough, you’d notice that in the first question, I employ the term admissible while in the second, possible. The answers to both are obvious. It is NOT ADMISSIBLE that a seminarian should court and maintain a romantic relationship with a girl simply because it is NOT POSSIBLE to be committed and sincere to both goals – those of the priesthood and those of the romantic relationships. In other words, a seminarian could not be committed and sincere to both his priestly formation and his girlfriend. As simple as that!

Partly, this explains my answer to the question at the outset. Not without reason the seminary prohibits that seminarians should have a girlfriend. It is not merely an arbitrary prohibition. It is something that is based on the order of things, on clear ideas and principles.

My letter sender mentioned some objections like: “Bawal bang magmahal ang isang seminarista?”, “Having a girlfriend is also formative for a seminarian” or “When a seminarian says ‘I love you’ to a girl, is he courting her?” I’m afraid we need to wait for other occasions to reflect on these questions.

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

In the first part, we have said that only in marriage can sexual activity be truly an expression of true love between man and woman because the institution of marriage assures two characteristics of true love: exclusivity and being forever. Hence, our thesis is that if one truly loves his/her GF/BF, he/she should wait until marriage before indulging in sexual activities.

-- But scarcely anyone is convinced about this truth today, you may object. Almost everybody believes that there’s nothing wrong with indulging in premarital sex for as long as it is safe (By safe sex, many understand it to mean safe from sexually transmitted diseases and safe from unwanted pregnancies). It is the “in-thing” today among adolescents. Besides, as you, Father, have said (in the first part), “adolescents and young adults really fall in love and that true love really occurs among young people”. You seem to contradict yourself. If true love can really occur in young people, why can’t they indulge into pre-marital sex? Again the question: “If I truly love my girlfriend, why can’t I make love with her?”

This objection seems to fall into a fallacy called “appeal to common practice”. The mere fact that most young people believe that premarital sex is morally acceptable (and are into it) does not make it morally justified. And there’s no necessity that you, young adult, should indulge into premarital sex to be accepted in your circle of friends. Neither is it necessary for you to do it to prove that your love to your GF or BF is true.

I said that true love can really occur to young people. But I did not say that true love should always be expressed in sexual activity. Instead, my position is that only within marriage can sexual activity be a true expression of love – authentic love. But what is true love? Again, we need to appeal to Pope Benedict XVI’s concept of true love as eros and agape.

We have noted previously that love, in the first place, is eros, that dimension which involves “intoxication” or “overpowering of reason by divine madness” through which man rises to the experience of the divine (the Greeks call it “ecstasy”). We commonly understand it as “falling in love”. This dimension requires ascent and purification so as not to reduce it to “pure sex”. The Pope says: “True, eros tends to rise ‘in ecstasy’ towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing” (DCE, 5).

What does this purification of the eros consist of? “How might love be experienced so that it can fully realize its human and divine promise?” the Pope asks.

The Pope appeals to the biblical expression of love as ahabà, (Cfr. Song of Songs), the Hebrew word for the Greek term agape, which connotes “the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier (in the eros). Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice” (DCE, 6).

To purify and to discipline the eros, one needs renunciation and sacrifice. For the good of the beloved, one must renounce his/her self-seeking desire for sexual satisfaction. True love seeks the good of the beloved, says St. Thomas Aquinas. It consists not only in the self-seeking eros, but also in the self-giving agape. True love is eros turned agape.

“It is part of love's growth towards higher levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive, and it does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being ‘forever’,” the Pope noted. What he is saying is that love becomes true when it is definite (meaning, exclusive and forever). As we have noted earlier, these characteristics are guaranteed only in marriage. Hence, when one abstains from premarital sex and waits until marriage, one is truly in love.

One last point, the transformation of eros to agape involves not only a continuous seeking for the good of the beloved but also a “real discovery of the other”. When young lovers indulge themselves into premarital sex, the effort to really discover the person of the other becomes obscured because the attention now is focused on the seeking of pleasure. The other person becomes interesting for the other not anymore as the person that she or he is, but as a sexual partner. One would seek the company of the other not so much to discover the other’s personality – character, ideals, thoughts, etc. – as to experience once again the erotic pleasure that was experienced the other day.

If you really love your GF (or BF), you would really want to know her/him more. And knowing him/her more, you will love him/her more. That’s a continuous cycle until you decide to spend your lifetime with him/her in marriage. Premarital sex could endanger this “knowing-loving” dynamism.

Do you realize now why you mustn’t “make love” (I hate to use this term) to your GF even if you claim you are truly in love with her?

Miracles in Torreciudad

Conversion and interior peace for many souls: these are mainly the spiritual graces that St. Josemaría Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, wished every pilgrim would receive upon venerating Our Lady of Torreciudad in Aragon, Spain. “Graces that the Lord will give to whoever venerates His Blessed Mother in Her sanctuary. These are the miracles I desire: conversion and peace for many souls”, he once said.

For the 235 OFW’s from Tarragona and Barcelona, who made a romería (pilgrimage) to this Marian sanctuary last Sunday, July 18, 2010, St. Josemaría’s wish came true. Everybody was captivated by the serenity and the prayerful atmosphere of this secular Marian dedication in Altoaragón, where an 11th—century Romanesque image of Mary with the Child Jesus on Her lap (an image also known as Mary, Seat of Wisdom), is venerated. This Marian temple, promoted by the Founder of Opus Dei, was opened for the cult since 1975 and has drawn thousands of pilgrims each year.

As the five buses that transported some 85 OFW’s from Tarragona and 150 from Barcelona started to escalate the winding road that leads to the sanctuary, almost everyone sighed at the sight of the bright blue-colored water of a deep pantano (a reservoir or lake for the purpose of irrigation) that serves as the perfect background of the temple that appears light-reddish under the rays of a noontime summer sun.

From the road, ruins of a medieval tower which stands over the Cinca river could be appreciated near an ermita or an old chapel where for more than nine centuries, pilgrims venerate the Marian icon. According to a medieval document, “Civitas” is the name Muslim invaders gave to the bulwark (a solid wall-like structure raised for defense) that they had which they used to defend themselves from Christians who wanted to recover their territories. In 1084, the Christians, once recuperated the Aragón area, enthroned the image of the Virgin Mary in the Ermita, beside what was then called “Turris Civitas” (tower city); hence, the name Torreciudad (in Spanish).

“Vale la pena venir aquí, eh” (It’s worth coming here!), said one mother, who came with her husband and two children. Getting down the bus, everyone could contemplate the picturesque view of a reddish temple against a bluish background, with a complement of some cumulus clouds above it. A refreshing breeze of a 20º Celsius temperature reminds everyone that they are 3-4 hours away from home. What was irresistible was the strong temptation of settling down in one place for sometime and contemplate the precious scenery. But the insistent voice of the pilgrimage guide prompted everyone to take their seats in the audiovisual room as a 20-minute video orients them about the place.

Somehow, the video orientation contributed a lot to the prayerful mood that the pilgrims maintained as they solemnly entered in procession to the sanctuary’s temple. Four men carried on their shoulders the statue of Our Lady of Antipolo, also known as Our Lady of Good Voyage. In front goes the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patron saint of Tarragona Filipino Catholic Community, organized barely more than a year ago. Fr. Javier de Mora-Figueroa, the sanctuary’s rector, led the procession, accompanied by four Filipino priests, namely, Fr. Russell Bantiles (Davao), Fr. Allan Rodriguez (Davao), Fr. Elizar Cielo (Ipil) and Fr. Emil Larano (San Pablo).

Entering the temple, the pilgrims were mesmerized by a magnificent alabaster Retablo (reredos or altarpiece), designed by a famous Catalan sculptor, Juan Mayné, in the Plateresque-Renaissance style of Damián Forment. The 9.5 meters wide and 14.5 meters tall Retablo took three years to finish (1972-1975). It has eight groups of sculptures, following the classical iconographical criteria and some explicit indications of St. Josemaría and representing episodes from the life of the Virgin Mary, namely: the Betrothal of Mary with Joseph, the Annunciation of Gabriel, the Visitation of Mary to Her cousin Elizabeth, the Adoration of the Shepherds, the Flight to Egypt, the Workshop in Nazareth, the Crucifixion of the Lord and the Coronation of Mary.

At the center just above the Crucifixion scene is the Blessed Sacrament adored by four angels. Below it is the Camarín of Our Lady, a little cubicle where the statue of the Virgin with the Child is venerated. The spiritual awe that the Retablo inspires was accompanied by the warm welcome of the rector.

At twelve noon, all the pilgrims went down to the Confession chapels located just below the temple for the administration of the sacrament. A total of 40 confesonarios (or confessional cubicles) are distributed in three chapels dedicated to various Marian advocacies like Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Loreto and Our Lady of Pillar. For an hour, various pilgrims received the Sacrament of Reconciliation administered by the five priests, in English, Tagalog and Spanish.

With Fr. Allan and Fr. Elizar – who just arrived from the Philippines a week ago to start their intensive Spanish language course – concelebrating, Fr. Russell presided the Holy Eucharist in Tagalog, which ended with the symbolic offering of children by their parents. This custom dates back to the famous episode in the life of St. Josemaría Escrivá.

In 1904, Josemaría was two years old when a deadly sickness struck him to the point that the doctors diagnosed he would not survive the next morning. His mother, Dolores, pleaded the Blessed Virgin and promise to offer the child in a pilgrimage to Our Lady if She would cure him.

The next day, when the doctors asked: “At what time the child died?”, they were very surprised upon discovering that he recuperated. Josemaría’s parents, then, brought him to the Ermita and offered him to Our Lady. In 1956, the founder of Opus Dei wanted to express his gratitude to this great favor and wished to spread the devotion to Our Lady of Torreciudad by constructing a sanctuary.

After the sumptuous lunch, the Tarragona pilgrims presented various folk dances and Filipino songs. After which, a video on the visit of Monsignor Javier Echevarría, the actual Prelate of Opus Dei, to the Philippines in 1998, gave the pilgrims some ideas on the apostolate that the personal prelature is doing in the archipelago.

The romería or pilgrimage ended at 6:00 PM with the meditation of one of the three parts of the Holy Rosary (two parts were prayed during the round trip) and the benediction with the Blessed Sacrament. A quick visit to the Ermita while enjoying the beautiful scenery along the way was worth the sweat. Everybody ended up dog-tired but with a smile on the face.

“We must do it again next year”, said one couple who live in Tarragona. “Ay, sayang, hindi ako nakasama”, (What a regret having missed the occasion!) said one lady, to which a cheerful señora retorted: “You don’t know what you’ve missed!”

FR. RUSSELL BANTILES is helping the OFW’s of Tarragona organize and form a Catholic community where all members could lead good Christian lives. Twice in a month, the community celebrates the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confession in Tagalog, and receives catechism in the parish church of St. John, the Baptist. For a virtual tour to the Sanctuary, click this link: http://www.torreciudad.org .

It’s worth being a priest!

The sight of long, disorderly queues and of the slow flow of people passing through four metal detectors with its corresponding X-ray machines was frustrating. It was almost 8:00 AM and the possibility of entering quickly and finding a seat near the altar was practically null. We thought that arriving two hours before the Mass would begin was more than enough to get our objective. Obviously, hundreds thought that arriving three hours earlier was better.

Being smaller in stature (of course, with respect to towering Europeans) provided us a considerable edge. Quickly we were able to get near one of those detectors without being reprimanded for overtaking. The queues could not be defined and, in the midst of disarray, everybody would get nearer the entrance as one could muster. And successfully, we did it in just 30 minutes.

After passing through the metal detectors, there was another long line approaching a couple of security personnel. This time the flow was faster. Making good use of the time, we hurriedly put on our albs and stoles as we got nearer two guards inspecting our ID’s.

The security was quite tight. But they had more than enough reason to be so. They’re simply protecting their country, its head and its less than a thousand population from possible aggressors. Besides, that day was quite significant. An estimated 15,000 visitors were set to fill the 0.17 square mile area of the world’s smallest city-state. The host country wanted to treat its visitors with utmost hospitality.

At last, we were able to enter the main plaza. The sight of thousands of men gleaming in their white albs and stoles under the scorching early summer morning sun reminds one of John’s spectacular vision in the Book of Revelation. But there was little time to contemplate the scene as we headed immediately to find available seats near the altar. With gratitude we grabbed the first bottles of mineral water offered by some personnel along the way.

“Russell!” echoed a distinctly recognizable voice in the midst of a “babelic” noise. As I turned around, I caught sight of familiar faces: a total of 13 priests from the Diocese of Digos and one from my own Archdiocese of Davao, Fr. Bong Dublan. With Fr. John Paul Pedrera, my companion from Spain, I joined the group as they had the ideal location in the first block right in front the grand altar of St. Peter’s Square.

“How did you get to this place?” I asked. “We arrived here at seven o’clock!”.

When the choir intoned the Litany of Saints, their voice was drowned by a thunderous applause as the Head of the State approached the altar, preceded by a group of altar servers, deacons and cardinals. Since 1929, through a Lateran Treaty, Vatican is recognized as an Independent City State and the Pope as its Head.

Clad in his white cassock and magnificently embroidered chasuble and miter, and mounted on his usual papal jeep, Pope Benedict XVI waved and blessed the thousands of priests gathered around the Successor of St. Peter for the Eucharistic celebration that culminates the Year for Priests. Although the estimated number of 15,000 is just a fraction of the 409,000 priests who serve around the world, it sets a historical record. By all accounts, the event was heartwarming as many priests would testify.

As a 43-year-old priest from Lenzburg, Switzerland said: “We wanted to feel part of the community of all the priests. In Switzerland there are not many of us, so it is good to know we are not alone”. Definitely, the experience left an indelible mark in my priesthood.

* * *

“God makes use of us poor men in order to be, through us, present to all men and women, and to act on their behalf. This audacity of God who entrusts himself to human beings – who, conscious of our weaknesses, nonetheless considers men capable of acting and being present in his stead – this audacity of God is the true grandeur concealed in the word ‘priesthood’”.

These words with which the Pope Benedict XVI begun his homily set the hearts the priests on fire. Reflecting on what he calls the “audacity of God”, any priest would shiver at the thought that God has called him despite who and what he is. The Pope adds:

“That God thinks that we are capable of this; that in this way he calls men to his service and thus from within binds himself to them: this is what we wanted to reflect upon and appreciate anew over the course of the past year”.

True enough, the Year for Priests had also been an occasion maliciously exploited by those who wanted to destroy the Church and the gift of priesthood. While the Church, by declaring the Year for Priests, pays tribute to the grandeur of priesthood, there are those who wanted to dishonor the priests.

“It was to be expected” – the Pope continued – “that this new radiance of the priesthood would not be pleasing to the ‘enemy’; he would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven out of the world. And so it happened that, in this very year of joy for the sacrament of the priesthood, the sins of priests came to light – particularly the abuse of the little ones, in which the priesthood, whose task is to manifest God’s concern for our good, turns into its very opposite”.

But as one can notice rightly, the central element during the Year for Priests was not the individual priests themselves. Those who magnified the weaknesses and sins of a very small number of particular priests wanted to distort the significance of this event. The Year for Priests was not to give tribute to the majority of well-performing priests and to discredit the problematic few. The central element was priesthood itself, the epitome of which is Jesus Christ, the High Priest, the Only Priest.

The Pope emphasized it clearly: “Had the Year for Priests been a glorification of our individual human performance, it would have been ruined by these events. But for us what happened was precisely the opposite: we grew in gratitude for God’s gift, a gift concealed in ‘earthen vessels’ which ever anew, even amid human weakness, makes his love concretely present in this world”.

If the Year for Priests had left an indelible mark in my priesthood, it is because it taught me how to appreciate more my being a priest, an appreciation that grew intensely thanks to that experience in St. Peter’s Square together with my more or less 15,000 brother-priests. Such intense appreciation and profound gratitude to God for this gift of priesthood grow distinctly every day in God’s grace and especially amid the awareness of my human weaknesses.

At the outset, I said that the sight of long, disorderly queues is frustrating. But upon thinking that within these long rowdy lines are men dressed in black clergyman, the impression takes a 360-degree turn: it is worth being counted among these “earthen vessels” that contain God’s precious gift to man – PRIESTHOOD, the love of the heart of Jesus!