Monday, April 4, 2011

The False Expertise of Bishops on Human Love

OSCAR CRUZ, Bishop Emeritus of Lingayen, derides SEX (along with Methods & Number) --
Sex divorced from the human person becomes but a piece of meat. It is then made to stand as but the carnal means to enjoy and delight on—without relevance to the dignity of the human person and to the fundamental Ethics that governs human acts. Withdrawn from its human premise, sex becomes but an instrument of instinctive satisfaction proper of irrational beings devoid of responsibility and beyond accountability.
In my opinion, only someone who has never actually experienced human sexual love and been in a loving relationship between two human beings, could possibly be this theoretical about the subject matter! But the bishop blogger is in earnest about the moral hazards inherent in an activity which however, he himself could not possibly have any experience, much less, expertise. And he continues along the same vein:
Methods on how to enjoy and delight in sexual acts without its inherent significance and import—this is the central concern and main preoccupation of the Bill. What to wear and to drink as well as what will be subjected to surgical intervention—these are the main means forwarded by the Bill in order to separate the right to copulate from the obligation appended to copulation in terms of possible conception.
It is clear from this that Oscar Cruz does not want even married couples to enjoy GUILT-FREE or WORRY-FREE sex. In his book the "Right to Copulate" must always be mentally burdened by the actual possibility of getting pregnant as a deterrent to pure enjoyment.  In other words he denies the right of couples the most basic right involved in the Civil Right of Marriage: which to decide if and when they will try to procreate a new life to which they will commit their own lives to bring forth, to nurture and to support.

I am truly offended--on behalf of my own parents whom I know loved and cherished each other body and soul whenever they could with seven children running around--that Bishop Cruz ascribes such great evil in human beings for human experiences of which he apparently knows absolutely nothing about personally.

4 comments:

promdi said...

Dear DJB,

I personally share your insights and would wish to inform you that i opted to share this link to other whom i personally known. Should you decide or believe that i might be doing something wrong, please let me know. Otherwise, as this is posted in the www, i believe that this is for public consumption and must be known to many.

Please continue writing insightful articles like this. more power!

Mon said...

Good day Dean,

The one good thing perhaps that I can see from all this debate on the RH Bill is that both sides recognize the fact (not sure if you agree on this) that sex entails responsibility. Apart from the possibility of pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases is also as real as possible, most especially for those having multiple partners.

I am not quite sure if you're ranting on: 1) the Bishop's (celibacy and all) having no business voicing his thoughts on sex and/or 2) that the RH Bill, which supposedly makes worry free and guilt free sex possible, should not even be met with resistance by certain sectors, most especially by the hierarchy and the rest of the Catholic Church.

And that opinions to the contrary and strong opposition actually "deny the right of couples the most basic right involved in the Civil Right of Marriage: which to decide if and when they will try to procreate a new life to which they will commit their own lives to bring forth, to nurture and to support."

Which leads me to this question, does it mean, Dean, that before the advent of condoms, pills and other contraceptive methods, during the times of our parents, grandparents and ancestors, the times when nothing can pretty much be done on "deciding if and when they will try to procreate a new life to which they will commit their own lives to bring forth, to nurture and to support" apart from abstinence from sex, when pregnancy is as likely as fuel price increase, that sex during those times "deny the right of couples the most basic right involved in the Civil Right of Marriage"?

Perhaps there should actually be no reason for you to feel offended, "on behalf of your own parents whom you know loved and cherished each other body and soul whenever they could with seven children running around" because they did not get deterred by being mentally burdened by the actual possibility of getting pregnant.

Come to think of it, isn't that as consistent as the Bishop's words in opposing the RH Bill because it prescribes means "to separate the right to copulate from the obligation appended to copulation in terms of possible conception"?

Perhaps sex, whether pre or post, with or without, the contraceptive means we know today, can still be as guilt free and as worry free only if couples are into it with utmost responsibility, something beyond lust and carnal urges.

It may be that the bishop is not after married couples to not enjoy GUILT-FREE or WORRY-FREE sex. That in his book, the "Right to Copulate" doesn't mean mentally burdening couples by the actual possibility of getting pregnant as a deterrent to pure enjoyment.

Rather, like any man more than of faith but of reason, he is just highlighting the need for people to realize the implications of sex. That sex can remain guilt free and worry free, notwithstanding the possibility of pregnancy, because the couple is mature and responsible enough to recognize the possibility of having as many as seven children running around.

If I may share as a parting shot, good for me, I really have no problems hearing out my mom's opinions on my driving, even if not once has she ever driven all her life.

Because not a few times, she actually made sense.

Anonymous said...

Dean Jorge Bocobo, clearly the bishop does not understand your sense of what is sex the same way you don't understand his sense of what is serving God means. Maybe what I am saying doesn't affect you because you're either an atheist, agnostic, or someone who really doesnt care a shit. Maybe you dont like his way of insisting us what is right and wrong but that also means that you don't have the right to insist that his belief is wrong. I am agnostic but I know where he's coming from. He believes in God and he believes in serving God. Sacred/Sanctity means service or dedication to God. He believes that life, marriage, and sex is sacred because they're all dependent to each other according to his belief. He believes that sex should not only be a source of pleasure but also a dedication to God and that is to follow God's intention for that matter(sex) that is to procreate. I have my own beliefs but I am seeing that you are pulling each other from each other's side of the table. I am just somebody who wants to pull one another to the center. If you really like a world of freedom, don't insist on each other's belief.

Anonymous said...

You're saying that the Filipinos are theists but the government should be non-theists. That's the same way as saying that the government should be run by the Chinese or the UNO or by Hitler or by WHO or by the Americans or by the Western Countries,etc. By looking at how the Filipinos treat the issues in our country it seems like we are really run by others. What kind of Sovereignty is when the government does not reflect the people. We are a democratic country thus the majority wins. We are a non-state religion or in a state of free religion and at the same time democratic. It means you can practice your free religion even if you're a congressman who makes laws. If you like somebody who likes to make non-religious legislations then vote a non-religious congressman. That's it. The House of Representatives is not a court but rather a house of representatives. If the Cathloic Church wins by votes then so be it. The minorities may have their own stand on how things should be run but still the majority wins and so you have to live with it. The idea of democracy is to satisfy the majority thus maximizing the no. of happy people. If you are a minority and thinks that your stand is for the betterment of everyone then you have to convince the majority. My point is, if the majority wants a society that is based on monotheistic point of view then so be with it. The Government doesn't have to be non-theistic. The Filipinos can do anything what they want with the government. That is what democracy means.