Posts Tagged ‘Adam and Eve’
Lady Gaga’s concert in the Philippines has sparked a new controversy on whether Catholic teaching on the four last things–death, heaven, hell, and purgatory–still makes sense on the modern world. It appears, however, that modern Atheistic Western Civilization cannot make its own values; it only proposes an idea opposite to what the Catholic Church teaches, as we can deduce from the ideas espoused by the Filipino Freethinkers. The Church proclaims the light of the world who is Christ. The Filipino Freethinkers proclaim the shadow of that Light. So the Filipino Freethinkers can do nothing but object to the Ten Commandments, and in doing so they form their own Ten Commandments:
- There is no God. Science has explained everything. I define what is right and wrong for me, and I don’t care what is right and wrong for you. As long as we don’t hurt each other, everything is fine.
- You can use the name of God in vain and make fun of him. He does not exist anyway. (Insert blasphemy here). The right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution.
- Sunday is just one of the days in the week. Sunday is not the time for going to mass but for shopping or playing sports or watching concerts.
- We honor our hominid ancestors via evolution and we thank Darwin for breaking our bonds with Adam and Eve. Mother and father are discriminatory labels. That should be parent 1 or parent 2, since both parents may be of the same sex. Actually, the proper term should be couples, because couples does not imply a child. Marriage is only for sexual union, and a child is an unnecessary burden which can be avoided through contraception and abortion.
- The aim of each human being is to live life to the fullest. Those who live an unsatisfactory life do not have the reason to live, so they must be killed. Thus, abortion, suicide, and euthanasia are ok, especially for the unborn, the infirm, disabled, the disfigured, and other useless members of the society.
- Marriage is not a sacrament but a contract between two parties, which can be revoked anytime. Adultery, concubinage, and fornication are natural relationships like marriage. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia should not be discriminated by bigots.
- There is no such thing as private property and fruits of personal labor. The government owns everything and I am the government.
- It is ok to lie in order to protect one’s self-interest.
- I want your wife. I want your husband.
- I want whatever you have.
I came across an article in the blog Filipino Nurses, entitled “Right to End Life (Euthanasia).“
The first argument is that for animals in serious injury or illness that couldn’t be cured, the and “humanely” thing to do is to “put them to sleep.” So, the argument goes, the same should also be true for humans.
There is no such thing as animal rights co-equal with human rights because animal rights are what humans bestow on animals. Once we lose our biblical moorings, our philosophical arguments goes adrift. When God made Adam and Eve, God gave them “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth” (Gen 1:28). After the Great Flood, God told Noah:
Fear and dread of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered. 3b Any living creature that moves about shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. 4c Only meat with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.* 5Indeed for your own lifeblood I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from a human being, each one for the blood of another, I will demand an accounting for human life.d(Gen 9:2-5)
If you are going to kill your animal to eat it, God allows you to do it. If you want to kill your animal to put an end to its suffering, the Bible does not explicitly say, but it appears you can do it. But if you are going to kill a man to end his suffering that is another story: God explicitly forbids it, because, as God told Noah, God will demand an accounting for every human life whose blood was shed by another man. Thus, mercy-killing or euthanasia of another man is wrong.
This is what the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teaches about Euthanasia:
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Filipino nurses and doctors needs to read carefully these words of the Catechism, because Church defines what are morally and not morally acceptable forms of treatment. These statements are rooted in 5th Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. As stated in the original Hippocratic Oath:
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
In this time of Lent, Jesus shows us that the path to human happiness is not by spurning the cross but embracing it. Suffering, when united to the suffering of Christ, becomes redemptive.
Hi Dr. Sugon,
I sent you further inquiries about your thoughts on the nature of homosexuality last May 18, and I was wondering if you have received it. I am very much looking forward to discuss and be enlightened about matters which I still am not aware of, and I think that this conversation wonderfully helps me in doing that. In case you haven’t received it, I’ll be copying my reply here. Again, thanks, and I hope to hear from you soon.
“Yes, I say that homosexuality is partly a biological phenomenon, however, I did not say that because it is a biological phenomenon that homosexuals do not have a choice on their lifestyle. Homosexuals have the choice to live conservatively, that is not denying their homosexuality, but living in a way which does not scream the essence of stereotypical homosexuality (i.e. cross-dressing, application of excessive make-up). They also have the choice to dress and express their ideas more through clothing and other sociocultural avenues. But, what they don’t have a choice at is their attraction orientation – just as a straight man does not have a choice to get attracted to women and vice versa, unless society affects them to act otherwise. The same thing goes with your example of a murderer. I do not claim that killing is good, but a murderer who was born with schizophrenia or other psychological disorder is not deemed morally responsible for the act of killing, because he technically did not have a choice; his body was programmed to act that way. Therefore, this murderer, instead of being sent to jail, is sent to a psychological facility in which he will serve his term. What I think then is that, generally, homosexuals must not be held responsible for their orientation, and thus be condemned for it, because they don’t have a choice on who to get attracted to. (One particular exception may be a man who was born with the probability of getting attracted to women, but chooses to engage homosexually.)
To clarify, are you suggesting that homosexuals can be “trained”? I disagree with this point, and I will provide sociocultural references that show that such a transformation to becoming a heterosexual is improbable. Although we can try putting homosexuals in psychological facilities, or perhaps have the Church assist in an action to rehabilitate them from their homosexuality, society is not designed to act upon such an action. The case is different from the psychologically impaired, because there is a probability that they hurt themselves or others when they do not get treated. It is improbable that a particular gender is more inclined to doing harm to people than other genders, so it is not necessary to “treat” them. Also, becoming stable and constant in early years, gender is part of one’s identity (Kail, 2010). Therefore, trying to manipulate one’s gender through conditioning entails tainting one’s identity. With that, society deems that a mandate or even to advocate change in gender is unethical. That is why centers for homosexual rehabilitation do not exist.*But, I do not deny that there are still people who try to convert homosexuals, however, because gender is established and constant, these most of these people fail. Stories of fathers drowning their children in a drum of water and physically abusing them seem to attest to this.
Yes, man has free will, but this free will is affected by many factors. Thus, human behavior is not governed by biological instincts alone, but rather affected by it, together with the environment. We do not just punch the person who accidentally stepped on our foot, because we think that he did not mean and know what he did, even if, by our fight-or-flight mechanism, our bodies tell us to punch him or flee the scene. Homosexuality acts in the same way. Since social mores and teachings do not give enough reason to convince homosexuals to constrain their biological instnict to get attracted to the same sex, homosexuals think that they are justified in following their biological instinct.
Moreover, the link you provided me is Vatican’s official statement on the nature of marriage and homosexual unions alone. I am still stumped on what the Church claims about the essence and nature of homosexuality: where did it come from, for example.“-
*I have looked into this matter, and I stand corrected in saying that there are homosexual rehabilitation centers. However, it is highly frowned upon by the society and by the Catholic Church herself, because, again, it’s unethical.
Yes, I received it a long time ago, but it got buried in my many emails for not responding soon enough.
The short answerto your question on the nature of homosexuality is this: I don’t know.
The long answer is: God created only male and female. And God blessed them: “Be fruitful and multiply!” If God only made male and female, how is it possible that some men are attracted to men and women to women? The answer to this question is related to the more fundamental question: If everything that God created is good (read Genesis 1), why is there evil in the world? Answer: God made the angels good, but He gave them free will to reject or accept his love. Some angels used their free will to reject God’s love, and they became demons, with all the powers of angels before their fall, but filled with malice and hatred against God. Their choice is irrevocable.
Now, if God made humans only male and female, why are there lesbians and gays? Answer: before their Fall, Adam and Eve have perfect control over their passions. This is called Original Justice. But Satan, the leader of the fallen angels, is envious of the privilege of Adam and Eve, for they and their descendants shall become children of God if Adam and Eve pass the test. But misery seeks company. So Satan tempted Eve to disobey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree, and she brought his husband Adam with him in her disobedience. Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve lost their perfect control over their passions. This is Original Sin. And this defect of Adam and Eve is passed on to their descendants, together with increase birthpangs, difficulty of tilling the ground, and ultimately, of bodily death. Thus, homosexuality is a result of Original Sin. It is very difficult to cure, but the struggle to overcome ones homosexual tendencies is itself a path to sanctity, a cross that a homosexual has to bear in order to reach heaven. God can provide us with all the graces that we need to overcome temptation. We only need but ask. As Christ said: “For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened….how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Lk 11:9-13).
Let us always pray and fast. Fasting helps us control our passions. If a homosexual can learn how to control himself from eating meat on Fridays, he will build up spiritual reserves to combat his hunger for the human flesh during sexual intercourse with a fellow man (or with a fellow woman as in the case of lesbians). Some passions are difficult to remove; they are like stubborn demons that refuse to get out of a man. The apostles, too, encountered several cases of demonic possessions that the apostles have difficulty sending out. The apostles complained to Christ, and Christ said to them: “”But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.” In the same way, homosexuality can also be cured, but it can only be done by prayer and fasting. The only way to see if this method works is to try it.
Reproductive Health Bill debate: can a good Catholic remain good amidst a thousand condoms and pills?
Pro RH Bill Argument:
“If a Catholic member has a morally-formed conscience with regards to these issues, a thousand free condoms and contraceptive pills being dangled before him WON’T tempt him to make use of them. It is as simple as that for me. An analogy has been offered by my daughter: Why did God allow the existence of the Forbidden Tree in the Garden in the first place? Why did He only command Adam and Eve: “do not eat” of its fruit yet gave them free access and freedom to exercise their free will? God could just have very well PHYSICALLY prevented both of them easy access to it or installed formidable baricades around it.
A green leaf placed near a fire, can only resist the heat up to a certain point (when most of the leaf’s water content turns to vapor). Then the green leaf catches fire. A strong rock cliff facing the sea can withstand a strong wave or two. But after years of bombardment (we call this weathering), the rock cliff gets chipped here and there, then the cracks become bigger, until the rock splits into fragments. In the same way, if you flood a well-formed Catholic with condoms, he can resist the first assaults. But when the condoms become a common sight, and he sees little boys and girls blow them as balloons, he sees demonstrations in TV how to use condoms, he finds condoms available in toilets for Php 5, and everywhere he goes he sees couples copulate in in broad daylight, will the good Catholic still resist? And what if the woman that he likes approaches him, gives him a box of condoms as Valentine’s gift, kisses him, and takes off her clothes? If you are St. Francis, you shall jump into thorns. If St. Benedict, into snow. If St. Aquinas–you’ll grab a firebrand and chase the temptation away. But what if you are just an ordinary Catholic who goes to mass only during Easter andChristmas, and whose last Confession was 10 years ago, can you still resist?
Before his Fall, Adam has perfect control over his passions. This is called Original Justice. His nakedness and Eve’s nakedness does not incite malicious thoughts on him. When God placed the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the middle of the Garden of Eden, Adam can perfectly control his desire for the fruit, so this is not a test of desire but of obedience. There is no need to put walls and barriers, because this is a test of free will to obey God, in order to merit eternal life for him, for Eve, and for us their descendants. When Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he disobeyed God and this is Original Sin. As one of the consequences, Adam lost his perfect control over his passions and desires (c.f. concupiscence). So God knows that even if He forbade Adam to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, Adam will sooner or later eat the fruit. To prevent this from happening, God banishedAdam and Eve from the Garden and placed an angel to guard the gates of paradise. From this analysis, we see that since we are descendants of Adam and Eve who lost our perfect control over our passions and desires, despite having our Original Sin washed away by the waters of Baptism, then putting a temptation before us like free condoms would have a chance that we fall to the temptation. So the best way is to follow a way similar to what God did by putting a barrier between the condom and the man, by not making condoms more available, by stopping the passage of the RH bill.