for everyone |
Blessed are the pure of heart … they need not be celibate – Despite all related rules to the contrary, sex, celibacy and girls were a constant preoccupation or fascination when I was a high school kid in the seminary. To masturbate, or not to, was always a question either to be grappled with or taken resolutely by the hand, in a manner of speaking. To be honest, sometimes one even had to confront an occasional, inexplicable attraction to boys. Am I gay? The euphemism, now the politically acceptable term, had as yet not been invented then. One was either a fairy, a “homo,” a homosexual, a “queen,” a fag, “bakla,” “binabae,” “bading,” “silahis,” lesbian, emotionally imbalanced, or some such uncomplimentary, derogatory if not downright vulgar terms frequently tending to ridicule, humiliate or to cause dishonor. The subject was hardly ever discussed except in whispers, intriguing or gossipy undertones, as if the person concerned were suffering from some dreaded or infectious disease, such as, leprosy, tuberculosis, typhus; which incidentally are now easily treatable or containable with some simple antibiotics and proper medical care.
Since we had no formal sex education to speak of then, there was never any forum or occasion to take up the matter seriously, if it deserved to be given any attention at all. In short, it was simply a subject not to be discussed in polite company. But one of the first rules I was taught in the seminary was:“noli me tangere,” Latin for “don’t touch me,” words oddly enough which were spoken by Jesus to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn. 20:17). Being an innocent 13-year old then, it did not occur to me at the time to inquire much less to question the rationale for the rule. We were simply told that we were not supposed to “touch” one another in any way, shape or form. As a corollary, the first and second-year boys were not allowed to mingle or run around with the juniors and seniors. Furthermore, there was also a “particular- friendship” rule which prohibited us from spending inordinately too much time with one particular schoolmate. Only much later as an adult did I come to realize that these rules had some sexual undertones or underpinnings.
Did the recently resurrected Jesus have sex in mind when he spoke those words to Mary Magdalene – “NOLI ME TANGERE?” I find it rather sacrilegious if not downright offensive to think so. If so, why should the seminary authorities feel as if they were at liberty to take those words out of context and use them for such purposes? And to think that these were some of the very first words uttered by the resurrected Lord. Who came up with the idea anyway that every time we touch there must be some malice aforethought to be presumed? Was it perhaps because of Honest Abe and his immortal Gettysburg address? It did not help of course that as a kid growing up in Baguio, my playmates and I would innocently tease any young lovers we see strolling around Burnham Park by chanting: “Ooy, kibing-kibing, paggappuan ti ubing; kuyog-kuyog, pagguppuan ti sikog!”Again, I don’t believe that as kids we had any real malice aforethought as we chanted those words. Nasty or naughty, maybe, but no malice.
As a result, I believe I grew up with all sorts of rather unhealthy feelings and attitudes about sex in general. For instance, up to now I still am not yet quite comfortable with this business of adults “huggin and kissin” one another every time they meet in polite company, or “beso-beso” as some of our “peninsulares” like to call it. I thought only meztisos were entitled or allowed to do it with impunity. It will be recalled that agape and hugging and holding hands at Mass did not become fashionable until after Vatican II. Recently, however, I have heard that some bishops discourage holding hands when singing the “Ama Namin.” Again, somehow I cannot help but feel that some celibate prudes must have had something to say about that and it had nothing to do with preventing the spread of some communicable disease. Is it not possible to genuinely wish “PEACE” upon each other like the angels did in the hills of Bethlehem without thinking sex as we hug in fraternal spirit?
It is also interesting to note that Jesus himself felt rather at home in the presence or company of women. He apparently dealt with them on equal footing with the men, something unheard of and unacceptable in many cultures to this day. He seemed blithely unconcerned about being seen publicly in the company of women or developing “particular friendships” with them. (Lk. 2-3). The very first time that he acknowledged or revealed publicly that he was The Christ, The Messiah, was to a Samaritan woman, a brazen double social no-no at the time. Jn. 4:26.
What do we mean by “sex” anyway? Is it perhaps our efforts to avoid being explicit when talking about sex that is adding to the confusion? Whatever happened to the terms “sexual intercourse,” “carnal knowledge,” fornication, adultery? Is sleeping with someone necessarily the same as “knowing” someone? Are sex and sexuality the same? Are sensuality and sexuality any different? The Bible says this much about Jesus’ intimate relationship with his disciples: he ate with them, slept with them, and “taught them everything he knew …” (Mt. 10: 1). Must we always ascribe and assign some sexual undertones to everything and then deny there was any sex involved in an explicitly sexual situation or relation?
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Famous last words that will go down in infamy. What is covered under the term “sexual relations?” Who was talking about sex anyway? How did it creep into our discussion? But that is exactly what this post wants to avoid. This blog is not about sex at all. Believe it or not.
Was Jesus Christ talking about sex at all when he uttered those immortal lines - “BLESSED ARE THE PURE OF HEART, FOR THEY SHALL SEE GOD” (Mt. 5:8) as part of the so-called “The Beatitudes?” Or, was he merely waxing poetic, philosophical, or sophistic? More specifically, did he mean avoiding or abstaining from “sex” when he said “pure of heart” or “pure in heart?”
Personally, I don’t believe so. Just as I don’t believe that pure of heart must necessarily mean being or remaining celibate. If anything, the sad experience with centuries of experimentation with celibacy has demonstrated that it leaves much to be desired (no pun intended). Some dioceses in Boston and LA, USA almost went bankrupt, financially and morally, on account of the predilection of some of their priests for certain sexual flavors. It must have something to do with our fascination for anything “verboten,” or the forbidden fruit.
I also find it hard to believe that pure of heart necessarily has to do with abstaining from sex or remaining unmarried. The Sermon of the Mount or The Beatitudes have to stand out as some of the main teachings of Jesus. They define his basic doctrines free from ad hominems and anecdotal arguments or parables. If and when Jesus wanted to advert to the topic of sex, he was not coy or embarrassed about it. He was not uncomfortable or evasive when he needed to talk about marriage, divorce, concupiscence, prostitution, promiscuity. He called a spade a spade. He confronted adultery but did not condemn the adulteress. He was not shy nor secretive nor apologetic about his reputed relationships (liaisons) with women, nay, prostitutes. But these subjects were clearly not his main concern nor preoccupation. Jesus never bothered to discuss, much less condemn, homosexuality. Nor celibacy. Nor gay marriages. The Sermon on the Mount was too auspicious an occasion to be discussing an essentially private bodily function or predilection. In short, if he really wanted to, there would have been no stopping Jesus from explicitly declaring: “Blessed are thecelibates …”
The conclusion is inescapable. I believe that “pure of heart” or “pure in heart” does not pertain to nor necessarily involve bodily functions below the waistline. Pure of heart is located between the mind and heart, i.e., in a mystical zone somewhere above the waistline, which has to do with willing, loving, feeling, desiring, trusting, hoping, and believing. It is what makes us human. This is what mattered to Jesus Christ. Mt. 15: 17-20. Functions or faculties below the waistline make us resemble our animal cousins.
In other words, Jesus chose his words well. He knew exactly what he was talking about. There is no need to interpret, to annotate or to elaborate. No one has ever seen God. Jn. 1:18. No one could ever possibly see God. But Jesus, if you believe him to be the Son of God, promised in no uncertain terms, the pure of heart will not only inherit the kingdom, will not only be called children of God, the pure of heart will see God. It is as simple and as clear as that. To explain or to subject the quotation to various interpretations is to distort the message. A basic rule in statutory construction is that where the law is quite clear, where there is no intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the language used, there can be no room for interpretation.
Jesus could tell that much. He warned against a servant trying to be greater than the master. Jn. 13:16. All too often, we like to think that we know better, that we are better informed and well-educated; that we are gifted with the eloquence of St. Paul, hence, at liberty to re-phrase, paraphrase, to embellish or even to second-guess Christ at his word.
Sadly lacking in any solid biblical basis or mandate for their life choice, many religious celibates have evidently found solace and refuge in this particular evangelical passage. Such a posture however would imply that only celibates are entitled to that particular privilege of “seeing God” as promised by Jesus. Again, Mt. 5:8 is not about one’s sexual inclinations or preferences.
One such famous character who is said to found similar refuge in Mt. 5:8 to curb his admittedly strong sexual urges was the famous French Catholic writer Francois Mauriac. As an old man, Mauriac surprisingly devoted considerable space writing about his own lust. He explained, “Old age risks being a period of redoubled testing because the imagination in an old man is substituted in a horrible way for what nature refuses him.” Mauriac, after a lifetime of doing battle with his faculties, concluded that self-discipline, repression, and rational argument are inadequate weapons to use in fighting the impulse toward impurity. “In the end, he could find only one reason to be pure, and that is what Jesus presented in the Beatitudes: ‘Blessed are the pure in heart …’” “Impurity separates us from God. The spiritual life obeys laws as verifiable as those of the physical world… Purity is the condition for a higher love – for a possession superior to all possessions: that of God. Yes, this is what is at stake, and nothing less.”
With all due respect, we may allow Mauriac and all celibates, if they choose to, to look to Mt. 5:8 as a guiding principle to maintain their purity; to argue that celibacy and “pure of heart” are synonymous. Much greater crimes have been committed invoking many other passages in the Holy Book. Many so-called Holy Wars have been waged and fought for the sake, in the name of and upon some compelling belief on some vague biblical passages or erroneous, self-serving interpretation thereof.
In fairness, however, I can only conclude that “purity of heart” is not about sex. It is infinitely nobler and loftier. It’s more about the condition of one’s mind, and heart… and soul. For lack of a better term, it must have something to do with good faith and good motives. It is about honesty of purpose and intention, the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or, heaven forbid,hypocrisy in whatever form. If there is one sin that Jesus abhorred and condemned it was hypocrisy, the antithesis of “pure of heart.” Most of all, it is about goodwill. Or, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right …” Yes, that’s it – on reflection, “pure of heart” is about men of goodwill. Which reminds me …
At the risk of sounding pedestrian, since this is “Angeland,” I would respectfully suggest that “pure of heart” is the condition of the angels. It was after all the song of the angels … “and on earth peace to men of goodwill…” Have you ever wondered why “no one has ever seen God?” You have to be an angel to be able to see Him. You have to be “pure of heart.” You must be a person of goodwill, good faith, pure intentions, whether married, single or celibate. JAMES L.
AMA ET FUC QUAM VIS! - Don Vicenzo*
percilopez wrote on Aug 27, '08
hello koyang,
when we were in high school at CKMS, freshmen and sophomores hanging out with juniors or seniors was a great honor for the former but quite very rare to the point of being unheard of. EXCEPTION No. 1: if your basketball skills were "exceptional," then you were invited to play with them. My basketball skills then were below par, but because of my "so-called" music skills, i got to hang out with the seniors (omon dominggo, raffy limbo, louie casanas et al.) Excepton No.2: It happens that some "highschool elders" picks out from the younger batches a companion, or an apprentice if you will, or a younger brother to be appropriate. So during free time, they get to hang out with each other. There's nothing wrong with this scenario except that "some" took this a little too far to the point of having "sexual encounters" I know of at least 2 confirmed instances. well, I think its bound to happen one way or another. Imagine putting teens with raging hormones in a confined place for months at a time. which is probably why our formators then were so paranoid when ever they see seminarians who are "too close" with each other. Hence, the dictum, "Do not touch one another in any shape or form" |
percilopez wrote on Aug 29, '08
hmmmm...Habang pinipigil, lalong nanggigigil Doctrine? just a thought hehehe...
|
No comments:
Post a Comment