B. Drug Addiction® What are drugs? Generally, drugs are defined as chemicals that when taken will influence the mind and change the behavior, mood, and mental functioning of the person. In this way, we speak of psychotropic drugs.’ Drugs are classified into two, viz.: (1) therapeutic; and (2) nontherapeutic. 1. Therapeutic Drugs Therapeutic drugs are classified into three, namely: antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anti- anxiety. Generally, therapeutic drugs are meant to cure illness. 1 Antipsychotic drugs are those that provide the following effects: mood-elevating, hypnotic, and sedative or sleep inducing. Accordingly, these drugs are used to treat major mental sicknesses like paranoia, mania, and schizophrenia. They are not meant to cure these diseases but only to suppress their symptoms. Because of the manifold side effects of these drugs (hand tremors, tiredness, jerking of muscles, etc.) a doctor’s prescription is necessary. Abuse °For further readings see Milton A. Gonsalvez, Fagothey’s Right and Reason, pp. 281-276. ®The term psychotropic literally means “mind-turning,” i.e. changing or attracted to the mind. Thus, psychotropic drugs are those that have primary action to affect the psychic function, behavior, and experience ‘of the person. Not all drugs, however, are psychotropic. Drugs like antihistamines are non-psychotropics. In their own way of classifications, Alvin K. Swonger and Larry L. Constantine divide psychotropic drugs as follows: sedative-hypnotics, stimulants, psychedelics, antipsychotic analgesic, drugs used to treat headaches, and antiepileptics, rrr rae Scanned with CamScannerof these drugs may occur when they are used to pacify minor anxieties, For the sake of clarification, drug abuse means the use’ of any chemical in a way that is not sanctioned medically, socially, or culturally, The drug abuser takes drugs without medical guidance." 1.2. ‘Antidepressant drugs or stimulants are those that stimulate the central nervous system; depressed patients are required to take them. A widely known antidepressant drug is called amphetamine. On the contrary, hyperactive patients are required to take drugs that are called psychomotor stimulants. Examples of this are: Cylert, Dexedrine, Ritalin. 1.3. Antianxiety drugs are those which are used to treat epilepsy, tension, anxiety, and depression. Epileptic patients are required to take barbiturates which are considered as dangerous drugs since total withdrawal from them means death of their users. Patients who suffer from tension, anxiety, and depression are advised to take the best antianxiety drug like Valuim (diazepam), Libraum (chlorodiazepoxide), and Serax. However, when these drugs are abused it could mean addiction to their users. 2. Nontherapeutic Drugs These drugs are meant for personal enjoyment or pleasure, recreation, and self- transcendence purposes. The effects of these Ashley and O'Rourke, op. cit., p. 183. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 287 Scanned with CamScannerdrugs are elation and gladness or joy. Examples of these drugs are alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, heroine, cocaine, marijuana, and LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) and amphetamine. All these nontherapeutic drugs are non-sedatives, meaning, they are non-sleep inducing drugs. For the purpose of classification, opium, morphine, and heroine are called opiates since they produce sleep on their users. LSD and marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are called hallucinogens or psychedelics since they create distortions of the mind like hallucinations, etc. The next question that we are going to underscore is: Does a person who use drugs become immoral? Our answer is it depends. Accordingly, drugs are judged according to their effects. In this light, a drug user cannot be judged as if the drug intake is meant for curing an illness. Nobody is no drug user, anyway. However, the immorality of drugs would surface if they are used outside their purpose. Excessive and untimely use of drugs could ruin the human person. This is the reason why the law prohibits the intake of destructive drugs. Perhaps, we should pause for a while and ponder why people take drugs. Definitely, there are manifold reasons why people take drugs. The immature take destructive drugs out of curiosity; the mature ones take drugs out of serious purpose, like a security guard taking stimulants to keep him awake, The real drug addicts take drugs because of despair and frustrations in life. "See ibid., pp. 184-185. Paine cascaded rn To — Scanned with CamScannerOf course, there are many other reasons. However, we claim that most of drugs users and abusers are people who encounter the meaningfulness of life. They are the lost souls who discover the vacuum in human existence. To fill-in this vacuum, they resort to drugs. If this existential vacuum is not properly understood, or at least considered, the problem of drug addiction will never be solved. Who is to blame with drug addiction? The answer is multifarious. They can be parents, society, government, school administrators, media, and the user-abuser himself. Of all these, it is the user or the abuser himself that has to blame primarily. The existential Vacuum is part of human existence. Pain, depression, anxiety, frustration, despair, and the like are part of existing as human beings. Drugs are not the ultimate fillers of this vacuum. The best thing to do is to accept this vacuum and consider it as part of our thrownness to human existence. C. Suicide Suicide connotes total resignation from mankind. It is defines as “the direct killing of oneself on one’s own authority.” Therefore, murder, homicide, infanticide, genocide, and parricide are not suicides. Suicide is to kill oneself; the agent of death is the person himself. Thus, starving oneself to death is suicide; throwing oneself down from atop a building is suicide. In other words, all acts that cause death is suicide if the person’s own death is volitionally self- caused. 12§¢¢ Milton A. Gonsalvez, Fagothey’s Right and Reason, p. 244. ETHICS/Port Three/Chapter Four 259 Scanned with CamScannerIs suicide immoral? Yes, because it is not good for one to kill oneself. It is tantamount to cowardice. It is an immoral total cessation of a God-given life. Suicide is a negation to accept life courageously. If life is God-given then it is God alone who has the absolute right for the total cessation of human life. Therefore, suicide is immoral. Normally, however, everybody loves to live, rather than to die. This is evident in the advancement of hi-tech gadgets and sophisticated instruments or equipment in hospitals which are invented in order to safeguard and prolong life. Even a mere thought of death can immediately drive a normal human person to shrink into an incalculable fear. But when dear life is pressed towards its limit, and one loses grip with his senses, one would usually be reduced to a bitter and an abnormal accounting of life. For example, in instances when one is soaked with the black wind of despair, or so engrossed with the idea that life is no longer worth living for, once one’s healthy mode of seeing reality would just float in thin air, one would just crawl into an abnormal twist of intuition, that is to finish it all. Here, one would surely fail to size up reality in the proper perspective. And the next step is to end it all. Because of this grim picture of one who resorts to suicide, moralists are in unison in paying a sympathetic heart to those who kill themselves. This is the reason why Catholics who kill themselves can now have the blessing of a priest before burial. This implies that Catholics who kill themselves are worthy for sympathy rather than a curse. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four Scanned with CamScannerp. Murder In one of the novels of Agatha Christie, the author stumbled with the following line: “Murder is the art of killing. Geniuses murder, dunces just kill.” Murder is defined as direct killing of an innocent person. A direct killing is a direct voluntary act. An innocent person means one who has not forfeited his primordial right, i. e., right to life. Murder is an unjust killing since it is done without legitimate authority. Hence, the State does not commit murder when it punishes a criminal by capital punishment; a soldier does not commit murder if he kills an enemy in a just war; a person who kills an unlawful aggressor in self-defense does not commit murder. Murder is immoral since it violates the right of God over human life and the right of the State to preserve justice and public safety. E. Self-defense Self-defense is not a duty, but a right. It is not our duty to kill an aggressor; but we have the right to defend ourselves from any unjust and illegal attack of an aggressor. Killing an aggressor in self-defense is justifiable since killing here is not murder. There are five conditions to consider in a blameless (meaning a due exercise of a right of self- defense) self-defense. They are as follows: 1. The sole motive in self-defense should not be hatred or revenge. If the act is masked by hatred or revenge the act is evil and morally wrong. 2. Physical force should be employed only at the time of the attack. This means that the attack is actual not just an intimidation or threat. 3, Physical force should be employed only when there is no other way of repelling the attack. _—_— EIHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 261 _— Scanned with CamScannerPeaceful negotiations or recourse to peace officers should be done first. 4, No more injury should be inflicted than what is necessary to avert actual danger. Death of the aggressor should not be the direct goal of the defense. If possible, the aggressor should only be physically invalidated or knocked down unconscious; there is no need to kill the aggressor. 5. The aggression is unjust. This means that the attacked or the victim is an innocent person. Euthanasia or Painless Death Euthanasia or mercy killing is defined as the intentional killing of the life of the presumably hopeless person. J. Gay-Williams, the celebrated contemporary advocate of the wrongfulness of euthanasia, condemns euthanasia because of the following reasons®: 1. Euthanasia is a violation of the natural inclination to preserve life and, therefore, it goes against nature. Every human being, maintains Williams, has a natural inclination to preserve life or continue living inasmuch as a normal person is always scared of death. Everyone of us has that instinct to protect ourselves. Everyone has that natural goal of survival. Euthanasia violates this goal. 2. Euthanasia may work against our own interest if we practice it or allow it to be practiced on us. Williams assesses that the practice of euthanasia would endanger life preservation since it might make medical practitioners less efficient and "lain McDowall, A Study in Death. (New York: Judy Piatkus Publishers, Ltd., 2000), p. 24. Scanned with CamScanner—— 7 s. ean. ee there will be an alleviation of lawlessness. Young Filipinos should be formed properly. In this stance, it is proper to demand, for our demand for capital punishment should be coupled with proper guidance of the young and of the whole citizenry so that they will be guided properly. H. Birth Control Mention was made earlier of Pope Pius XII’s proclamation on the four ends of marriage which are } (1) procreation; (2) upbringing of offspring; (3) mutual | aid; and (4) healing of concupiscence. From this point of view, it is very clear that the primary end of marriage is the begetting and rearing of children. In other words, the essential end of marriage is responsible procreation. The concomitant responsibility which is inherently associated in marriage is responsible parenthood. Since there can be no parents without children and no children without sexual intercourse of both parents, then, it is obvious that man’s sexual faculty is created by God for reproduction in the context of marriage. Thus, sexual intercourse should be done freely and without fear in marriage. However, responsible parenthood in sexual intercourse should always be underscored. Love-making in marriage should mean responsible parenthood. It is responsible parenthood to abstain from sex in order to control the number of offspring. In fact, responsible parenthood should control all the dimensions in life that affect marriage.> te Ashley and O'Rourke, op. cit., pp. 119-120. £THICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 271 Scanned with CamScannerThe Church does not prohibit birth control as long as it is oriented towards nature. Generally, there are two kinds of birth control, namely, natural and unnatural. The Church approves only of the former. The rationale behind is obvious although it is abstruse to be translated into action. Many couples, because of various reasons, such as financial, economic, proper spacing of children, etc. resort, to unnatural birth control. In unnatural birth control, the sexual pleasures in marriage are done to avoid parental responsibility. In this light, the Church considers all forms of unnatural birth control as immoral since the Church perceives them as perversions of the natural purpose of human sexuality, What are these forms of unnatural birth control? Generically, unnatural birth control. is also called contraception. Literally, the term contraception mean “against conception.” That is why they are called unnatural birth control. They are as follows: 1. _ Those that do not require a doctor’s consultation: 1.1 Mechanical method, e.g. condom; 1.2’ Chemical: methods, e.g. creams and jellies, foams, foaming tablets, suppositories, and post-coital douche; and 1.3 Behavioral methods, e.g. abstinence, and withdrawal (coitus interruptus). 2. Those that require a doctor’s consultation: 2.1 Behavioral methods, e.g. Rhythm (sage period) and Ovulation method; 2.2 Biological method, e.g. Oval pill (oral contraceptives); See Ibid., pp. 131-135. Scanned with CamScanner2.3 Mechanical methods, e.g. Intrauterine device (IUD), Diaphragm (Cervical Cap); and 2.4 Sterilization (Surgical Method), e.g. Tubal ligation and Vasectomy. These unnatural birth control methods are condemned by the Church. Nevertheless, a point of clarification should be made here concerning those methods that are oriented towards nature, e.g. rhythm and abstinence. According to the mandates of the Church, both rhythm and abstinence are not contrary to nature and are therefore morally acceptable. The reason why these contraceptives (unnatural) are invented is nothing else but for population control. Thus, the birth of the concept of Family Planning.” In sum, the Church is not against birth control, However, it only requires methods that are oriented to the original plan of God in the context of responsible procreation. Neither is the Church against family planning. In fact, family planning is encouraged by the Church. However, family planning” should not be done on the context of unnatural contraceptives. L_ Abortion In order to soften the morbid, calamitous, and hideous effects of abortion, some abortionists have styled to euphemistically call it by light — sounding names like “removal of the consequence of conception”; “emptying or cleansing the uterus”; “scrapping the lining, of the uterus”; among others. Undeniably, abortion is one of the “hottest” issues in 27S¢e ibid., p. 120. 28in common practice there is no difference between family planning and contraception since the former is just the euphemism of the latter. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 273 Be Scanned with CamScannermorality. We have gathered at least three definitions of abortion: 1. ‘It is an expulsion of an embryo or an enviable fetus from the body of a pregnant woman with the resulting death of the embryo of the fetus.” 2. It refers to the unsought and spontaneous untimely ending of pregnancy;” and ' 3. It’refers to an intentional interference with a developing life.>! It is well-settled that human life begins at fertilization or conception. In this light, it is necessary that one must be able to know what the terms like zygote, embryo, fetus, and viability of a-fetus mean. Zygote refers to the developing human being from the time of conception until the 14" day of gestation. Embryo refers to the developing human being from the time of conception until the 8 week of gestation. Fetus refers to the developing human being from the 8t week of gestation until delivery. Viability of a fetus refers to the capacity of the fetus to survive outside the maternal womb. Medical experts claim that normally a fetus attains viability at 23 to 24 or 24 to 28 weeks gestation age. Abortion is classified into three, namely, spontaneous, indirect, and induced. 1. Spontaneous Abortion Spontaneous abortion is commonly called “miscarriage” if it occurs earlier than the child is Scanned with CamScannerexpected to be born. In medical terms, “miscarriage” means spontaneous delivery between twelve to fourteen weeks or twenty-four weeks of pregnancy. In layman’s term, “miscarriage” refers to involuntary expulsion of a nonviable fetus and therefore not abortion. In legal parlance, however, miscarriage means abortion at any state of pregnancy. Most often, spontaneous abortion is caused by vitamin deficiency or disease such as syphilis, pneumonia, and influenza. Under spontaneous abortion we can talk of three other kinds of abortion, viz.: threatened abortion, inevitable abortion, and incomplete abortion. 1.1 Threatened abortion occurs when there is bleeding resulting to a doubtful judgment whether the fetus is expelled or not. 1.2 Inevitable abortion, just like threatened abortion, occurs when there is a bleeding. However, the result of the bleeding is certainly caused by the expulsion of the fetus. 1.3 Incomplete abortion is a kind of abortion in which the parts of the products of conception are retained in the uterus. 2. Indirect Abortion Indirect abortion means the foreseen but unintended loss of the fetus following upon a medical procedure necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. In this kind of abortion, the loss of the fatal life is not directly intended. ™See Edward J. Hayes, et al. Moral Principles of Nursing, p. 118. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 275 a Scanned with CamScannerThus, indirect abortion falls under indirect voluntary act. This is the kind of abortion which is justifiable particularly in the case of a mother who takes medicine to recover from severe cough without knowing that her fetus is affected. Induced Abortion Induced abortion is also called direct abortion. It is defined as any procedure by which the normal course of the development of the child before birth is intentionally interfered with. In this case, induced abortion is a deliberate cessation of pregnancy in order to destroy the life of the fetus. There are two kinds of abortion under induced abortion. They are criminal abortion and therapeutic abortion. Criminal abortion is also called illegal abortion. It means an abortion performed to kill the unwanted child. The reason why criminal abortion is also called illegal abortion because its performance is contrary to the provisions of criminal law. Criminal abortion is punishable by law; it is murder. It is, therefore, immoral. On the other hand, therapeutic abortion means an abortion which is directly and deliberately performed to save the life of the mother from illness or death. This may happen when there is ectopic pregnancy. In this case, therapeutic abortion is called legal abortion since it is legally allowed and therefore not punishable by law. However, despite the abortion being therapeutic still it is an induced abortion and is therefore a direct attack of the life of the fetus. Just like criminal abortion, therapeutic abortion is immoral. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four Scanned with CamScannerNow, what does the church and other concerned sectors in society say about abortion? 1. The Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states the following: Persons who procure abortion, the mother not excepted, automatically incur excom- munication reserved to the Ordinary (Bishop in the Diocese) at the moment the crime takes effect > Excommunication here is applied to both criminal and therapeutic abortions. Those that cooperate, aside from the mother, are subject of this penalty. They are the interns, doctors, nurses, hospital authorities or others who are involved in its procedure. 2. Let us inquire from the Catholic Christian inkers: 2.1 Tertullian Tertullian was a lawyer who was converted to Christianity at the end of the second century. Later, however, he became a heretic. At any rate, this is what Tertullian says about abortion: For us, since homicide is forbidden, it is not even permitted while the blood is being formed into a man to dissolve the conceptus in the uterus. For to prevent its being born is an acceleration of homicide, and there is no difference whether one shuffles off a life already born or disturbs one that is in the process of being born. For he is also a man who is about to be one, pepe nected f %See Canon, pp. 23-50, ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 27 Scanned with CamScannerjust as every fruit already exists in the seed.# Clearly, Tertullian is saying that abortion is homicide. Further, he remarks: ..the fetus in the uterus is a man. For the law of Moses also judged .abortion to warrant life since already it is a case involving a man, since already it is considered alive or dead, since already it has inscribed a destiny, even though it still lives in the mother... 2.2 St. Basil the Great For this celebrated eastern Christian priest, abortion means murder. Thus, people who engage in it are murderers, says Basil the Great: Whoever purposely destroys a fetus incurs the penalty of murder. We do not ask precisely whether it is formed or not formed. For here not that which would have been born is vindicated, but also the woman herself who prepared her own destruction, since oftentimes women die in such attempts. But to this, the fetus destroyed adds another killing, atleast if the judgment of those who dare such things is correct.* “Tertullian, Apology, IX, in Germain G. Grisez, Abortion, p. 140. ‘idem. De Anima. XXXVII, in Germain G. Grisez, Abortion, p. 141. See Germain G. Grisez, Abortion, p. 142. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four Scanned with CamScanner23 St. Jerome Jerome rejects abortion. For him, abortion is a grave sin; it is parricide of the inborn. Says Jerome: Indeed, others drink _ sterility beforehand and so perform homicide on what is not yet even a man. Some, when they notice that they have illicitly conceived, take poisons of abortion. Frequently, they even kill themselves and then they are led to hell for the guilt of three crimes: for killing themselves, for infidelity to Christ, and for parricide of their child unborn...” 4. Protestant’s View Most, if not all of the leading protestant theologians like Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Helmut Thielicke are convinced that abortion is immoral. Generally, the protestants believe that the unborn child is already a human being. They are convinced that as a God-given responsibility parenthood starts with conception. Thus, their condemnation of abortion.* Mutilation : The wonder in modern science, particularly, in the field of medicine, makes this mutilation issue more inscrutable than ever. Today, wonderful inventions and wonderful theories in relation to health are progressively coming to the fore. Much impossibilities before in relation to health and bodily care are made possibly today. Before, it was impossible to change one’s face, to change one’s sexuality, to have one’s SIbid., p. 143. **For further readings, see ibid., p. 297. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Four 279 Scanned with CamScannerheart or lungs replaced, to duplicate oneself, for males to get pregnant, to have an offspring outside coitus with a marital partner, to have a child outside the mother’s uterus, and so.on and so forth. Today, one can change one’s facial image through plastic surgery by having a “face lift,” a “nose lift,” and the like. One can have a heart or lung replaced through organ transplants. Today, although it is not yet applied to human beings, one can duplicate himself through cloning. Today, it is possible for men to get pregnant: Today, through artificial insemination, a couple:can have a child outside sexual intercourse. Today, a couple can have a child who is not being developed in the wife through surrogate motherhood. Today, a devirginized woman through sexual intercourse or through child delivery can restore virginity through surgical virginity or vaginal repair. Today, the sex of the fetus can already be determined through proper dieting of the mother or through ultrasound. Today, sexual hormones (androgen and estrogen) can be imported to their unnatural beholders. This is done by some celebrities. They are believed to have imported estrogen in their bodies. True, not all in these wonderful inventions bring good to mankind, because some bring harm and distortion to the human body. This is where morality can come in mutilation. But, just a point of clarification, not all of the foregoing are included in mutilation. So, + what is mutilation? By mutilation is meant any action performed to injure or destroy some part or function of the body. This means that mutilation is intended to lessen the integrity of the human body. If this is the meaning of mutilation the question to be posited here is: Is mutilation morally allowable? The answer is yes. It is morally allowable in the context of the principle called Scanned with CamScannerprinciple of totality. According to this principle, the part is for the sake of the whole, since the whole is greater than the part and the part is just a parcel of the whole. However, the intention behind the performance of mutilation greatly affects the morality in mutilation. Obviously, it is this sphere where the morality in mutilation can be discerned. For further clarification, we will distinguish two kinds of mutilation based on the context of the functional integrity of the human body. Mutilation can be a minor or a major one. Minor mutilation means any act performed to lessen the sum total of the body | which does not include the destruction of the functional integrity of a human body. Under minor mutilation, we can cite tooth extraction, circumcision, and tonsillectomy as examples. On the other hand, major mutilation means any act performed to destroy the functional integrity of the human body. Surgery and sterilization are examples of this. Under mutilation in general, we will discuss the following topics. Surgery, organ or tissue transplant, sterilization, and plastic surgery. 1. Surgery God’s approval-can be postulated in a mutilation which is indispensable for the preservation of life or for the preservation of the health of one’s body. The preservation of life and health is sometimes impossible without operation. In this vein, surgery is in correlation with the natural law. Therefore, a removal of a diseased organ or part of the body is moral and valid like in the case of amputation of a gangrenous leg. 2. Organ Transplantation Organ transplantation is the transfer of any organized living matter. This is a broad term ETHICS/Port Three/Chapter Four 281 Scanned with CamScanneroan? HUMAN SEXUALITY AND MORALITY A. Sexual Perversions’ It is God’s plan that man shall become His co- creator. Procreation is one of the ways wherein God avails man of the capacity to become His co-creator. This is why God ordains sex as sacred and holy. Being sacred and holy sex must be done only in the context of marriage wherein the couple is called to procreate God’s children. Consequently, sex is properly called conjugal act because according to God’s plan it must be done only from the context of marriage. Outside the scope of marriage, sexual gratifications become sexual perversions. To name a few of these are homosexuality, lesbianism, masturbation, bestiality, rape, and incest among others. 1. Homosexuality In Leviticus 18:22, the Words of God against homosexuality is very clear: “Do not lie with a male as with a woman; it is detestable.” Is homosexuality one of the glaring issues of the day? It seems that homosexuals now, specifically the gays, and of-course the lesbians, are claiming for a regular, not a casual, membership in society. Thus in the Film Center of the Philippines, cultural shows hosted by “dancing women” are generally composed of gays, rather than true-blue women. In addition, ‘Sexual perversion means turning sexual powers away from their ‘natural purpose, i.e, the good of the human race, to a mere means of natural satisfaction. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 289 Scanned with CamScannerGay Pageants or Miss Gay Beauty contests are getting commonplace. So, it is good to ask: Is homosexuality talk of the globe of the day? In the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Feb. 26 issue, Cardinal Sin was quoted of reacting vehemently against a congresswoman, i.e., Rep. Bellaflor Angara- Castillo, who: proposed a bill that to the good Cardinal allows marriages between a man and another man and between a woman to another woman. But in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 28, 2002 (page A3) issue, the president of Progressive Organization of Gays (Progay), Oscar Atadero, fought back and claimed that Cardinal Sin misunderstood the bill. He said Sin is not respectful of their rights as gays. Accordingly, House Bill (HB) 2051 “claims to protect the rights of homosexuals and to prevent their being discriminated against.” In the same press release, Cong. Castillo clarified that this bill does not advocate of same-sex marriage but of domestic partnership between gays and lesbians. Whatever HB 2051 really means, we cannot deny that society today is too busy in entertaining, or hesitating to entertain, full- fledged and self-confessed gays and lesbians. Do gays and lesbians really exist? Is becoming one a matter of choice? Or is it some kind of Divine error? Or a gesture of weakness in Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection? Or can it be recognized and accepted as a way of life? Or can it be considered as sin or a sickness (If it’s a sickness, can it be cured)? Or is it as natural as heterosexuality? What have you? Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most influential existentialists, claims that whatever decision one makes for himself, one makes it for others. So, if ETHICS Past Thean Ohantar FIVe Scanned with CamScannerone has resolved his or her doubt whether he or she be a true-blooded male or a true-soft-blooded female and finally comes to term with a firm resolve to be a full-time practitioner in “gayism” or “lesbianism,” then, all of us have to admit that MALE and FEMALE sexualities are not enough to constitute a gender. To be added to the chronology should be a man (with the following f features: he actually has a woman’s life, heart, and I mind, the concept of anima of Carl Jung) and a woman (with the following credentials: she actually thinks, feels, and lives like or as a man, Jung’s concept of animus). On the contrary, lesbianism is a less organized enterprise. Lesbians are quite hard to find. In fact, when gays were outlawed in England in the 19® century, lesbianism escaped the ban because Queen Victoria refused to recognize the concept. The disadvantage of this “invisibility” is that the needs of lesbians have been oftentimes overlooked, and lesbians lacked historical role models of their lifestyles. Does this mean that males (in the spirit of the females) are still one of their breed who are more bent on openness of their being She-women rather than their female counterparts? If the gays and lesbians are new enlisted members of the human species, can we “revise” the dualistic components of gender, i.e., male and female and add the She-man (gay) and the He- woman (lesbian)? Needless to say, it is good to raise the following specific problems: (1) What causes one to become a homosexual? (2) What do philosophers (moralists) say about homosexuality? ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 21 a Scanned with CamScanner(3) Should we accommodate the gays and lesbians as forms of lifestyles or are they kinds of illnesses, or should we doubt about their existence? And for purposes of this paper, it is appropriate to ask the following questions: (a) 2) (3) (4) (5) Did God create only a male (in the person of Adam) and a female (in the person of Eve) as the Genesis Account of Creation asserts? Was it possible that other than the male and the female, God also created gays and lesbians? Is it true that society is not ready to accommodate’ them? Do gays and lesbians really go to hell? Are gays and lesbians really discriminated and ostracized by their immediate family members in particular and society in general? In the succeeding pages, we will discuss the meaning of homosexuality, its causes, cultural variations, recent social developments, and application of the Cartesian Methodic Doubt to homosexuality. 1.1 Meaning of Homosexuality Homosexuality is a sexual attraction to and physical and emotional involvement with, someone of the same gender: male with male, female with female. As first used, the term referred to women as well as men, though more recent terms such as “gay” or “lesbian,” with a:variety of national variations, have been increasingly used to describe specific identities organized around homosexual desires. ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five Scanned with CamScannerHomosexuality, like heterosexuality, is found in all cultures at all periods of history. However, it has been subject to thousands of years of prejudice, discrimination, and oppression, enshrined in religious and legal prohibitions and popular fear, and has often been met with violent opposition. Yet, there are many cultures that have managed to integrate some aspects of homosexuality into acceptable and recognized social forms. Since the 1960s, in most Western countries at least, male (gays) and female (lesbians) homosexuals have become vocal advocates of their own cause. The term “homosexuality” was not coined until the 1860s, and its emergence reflected a growing awareness of the existence of diverse sexual patterns. The term was intended to be a more neutral alternative to the traditional language of sin, degeneracy, and perversion that had dominated thinking about same- sex activities in the West, and which had their roots in biblical prohibitions, i.e. the biblical accounts on Sodom and Gomorrha. However, the word soon became part of the new language of sexology (the scientific study of sexual behavior). For many, homosexuality transcended from being a sin to being a sickness. 1.2. Causes of Homosexuality Experts claim that there are generally two causes that could help explain the occurence of homosexuality, They are as follows: (1) Medical; and (2) Psychological: 1. Medical The definition of homosexuality as medical or psychological condition led to a preoccupation with the “causes” of homosexuality. The fact that few people have undertaken inquiry into the ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 293 Po Scanned with CamScannercauses of heterosexuality indicates the dominance of the view that homosexuality was an abnormality that needed to be explained, while heterosexuality, which leads to procreation, was, and still is, seen as the unquestioned norm of human sexuality. However, after a century of debate and scientific inquiry, the question of causation remains as inconclusive as ever. There is, therefore, no diametrical claim that could ultimately explain the cause of the phenbtnena: “Gayism and Lesbianism.” The biological theory argues that homosexuality is an inherent, and probably hereditary, condition that affects some people. Negatively, it can be seen as a pathological distortion of the natural sexual drive, caused perhaps by imbalances of hormones or chromosomal (genetic) accidents, or more recently, in a surprising rebirth of biological explanations like the result of a “gay gene” or a “gay brain,” as suggested by the American scientists Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. Such explanations have led in turn to more positive views of homosexuality. If homosexuality has a biological explanation, and is a specific sexual orientation, might it not be as “natural” as heterosexuality? Many homosexual activists have in fact argued this since the 19th century. However attractive such explanations are to homosexual activists, they - like the negative views — have the misfortune if being completely unproven, and one suspects, unprovable. Psychological The second approach had concentrated or understanding the psychological reasons for homosexuality. The most famous thinker ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five Scanned with CamScannerassociated with such explanations is Sigmund Freud. For Freud, homosexuality is caused by “sexual inversion” in terms of the universal bisexuality of human beings rather than in terms of the biological make-up of a distinct group of people. According to Freud, homosexuality resulted from the specific patterns of interaction with parents and the complex and universal processes through which the naturally bisexual infant became an adult. Homosexuality, then, like heterosexuality, in fact resulted from an inhibition of the sexual drive. As a working hypothesis this | has been enormously influential, though in subsequent debates it has also led to enormous confusions. Does a child become homosexual because of a weak father and strong mother, or because of an over-dominant father and a weak mother? Both explanations have been frequently offered, and equally often fail to match the biographical facts of individual homosexuals. 1.3 Cultural Variations in Attitudes } Recent approaches have tended to try to understand homosexuality in social and historical terms, concentrating less on what causes homosexuality and more on what shapes attitudes towards it. Different cultures respond to homosexuality in different ways, and this in turn helps to determine whether it is possible to live a homosexual life or develop a distinctive homosexual identity. On a world scale, there seems to have been two social patterns that allowed a certain acceptance of some aspects of (usually male) homosexuality. The first which can be seen historically in cultures as far apart as East Asia, Melanesia, the Islamic world, and the ancient Mediterranean, more or less tolerated homosexual behavior as long as it was between an ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 295 le. Scanned with CamScanner14 adult male and a youth, usually as part of the processes by which the young male was accepted as a full man. It did not normally affect traditional family life. The second great pattern, embracing cultures from the Philippines to Madagascar, and some tribal societies in Africa and North America, accepted some forms of same-sex behavior as long as the homosexually inclined man “became” or lived.as a woman, or the woman became or lived as a man. There have been various attempts to assess the percentage of population that is predominantly or exclusively homosexual. The work of Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940s has been used to suggest that this was as many as 10 percent, although more recent research has tended to suggest a much lower figure, perhaps 1 to 2 percent in Britain, France, and the United States. However, the worldwide evidence suggests that this is a misleading way of posing the issue or assessing incidence; while Western-style identities have begun to spread throughout the world, they are by no means the dominant or only ways of living homosexuality. In many parts of the world, ranging from Turkey to large parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, homosexuality remains a taboo. Even in Western countries, prejudice remains, and legal systems are often discriminatory. Recent Social Developments Neither the Mediterranean nor the tribal cultural pattern allowed the emergence of what has become the dominant Western pattern in the 20" century: the idea that homosexuality could form the basis for a separate sexual and social identity and way of life. This idea probably first emerged in the new urban cultures that developed from the early modern period. Cities allowed groups of people who felt differently to come together in relative anonymity, and develop alternative lifestyles. At first, these subcultures, usually of what 296 ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five Scanned with CamScannerwere seen as effeminate men, and to a smaller extent masculine women, were secretive and subject to strong persecution. During the 20" century, however, they gave rise to ever more complex social networks, and to a strong sense of community among self-identified homosexuals, who were beginning to resist the hostile labeling of them as sick creatures. This was the basis for the Gay Liberation Movement which emerged powerfully in the United States in 1969, symbolically originating in the New York Stonewall Riots in June of that year, and soon rapidly becoming influential throughout North America, Australia, and Western Europe. This movement has been very influential, even for the many who never took part of it. It asserted the equal validity of homosexuality with heterosexuality; it rejected medicalizing terms, and popularized new self- descriptions, such as “gay.” It emphasized the importance of “coming out” (like the existere or “coming-out-in-the-open” of the existentialists) becoming identified — as a lesbian or a gay. Above all, it affirmed the importance of pride in being a lesbian or a gay; this, apparently, almost makes homosexuality an ideology. . The idea that lesbians and. gays are distinct groups of people has been challenged radically by “queer activists” who argue that sexuality is a matter of choice, and that the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a social and historical one, rather than one based on any fundamental, essential, or biological reality. This has returned the focus of the debate to causation. It is possible that some people develop predominantly homosexual desires as a result.of a variety of genetic, psychological, or social factors. This is still not known, however. In the end, causation is not the important ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 297 Scanned with CamScanner15 question. What ultimately matters is whether homosexuality offers the possibility of viable life choices, and a fulfilling way of living. The evidence of recent years is clearly that it can, though resistance to this evidence is still very strong. Application of Cartesian Methodic Doubt to the Issue on Homosexuality Objectively this topic does not do much good to those who are “machos.” But because we are “philosophers” ourselves, or because we are teachers of philosophy, then it is always good to treat this issue philosophically-specifically from the standpoint of Cartesian Methodic Doubt. Undeniably, gays and lesbians claim their respective membership to people in all walks of life. There are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and even priests who are gays just as there are also lesbians who are nurses, secretaries, lawyers, doctors, teachers, and even nuns. Lesbianism which means sexual attraction or emotional or physical relationships between women is derived from the Greek island of Lesbos which is the home of a Classical Greek poet Sappho who wrote love poems addressed to women. Inasmuch as we have already defined and discussed thoroughly the meaning of homosexuality and “gayism” then it is good to go back to the questions we raised in the preceding pages: “Did God create only male and female"? Was it possible that other than the male and female gender God also created gays and lesbians? Is it true that society is not as yet ready to accommodate them? Do gays and lesbians really go to hell? Are gays and lesbians really discriminated and ostracized by their immediate family members in particular and society in general? ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five Scanned with CamScannerBy using Descartes’s Methodic Doubt, it is good to doubt—for the benefit of the homosexuals, viz.: the gays and the lesbians—if indeed God created only the male and female species to constitute a gender. In his Discourse on Method and Meditation, specifically Meditation III, Descartes argues that as thinking thing, man doubts, affirms, denies, knows few things, loves, hates, wills, desires, imagines, and perceives. By using Descartes’s paradigm of doubt, it is useful to doubt and entertain a glaring possibility that the author of Genesis (Moses for the exegetes— although they are aware that somebody else wrote Genesis and was just attributed or ascribed to Moses, he being the pronounced leader of the Israelites) committed a mistake, i.e. that from among the folds of the Israelites there were already gays and lesbians. The trouble was, the author must have been so biased against them (gays and lesbians). This was why they were excluded from the official roster of the gender constituents as male and female. The foregoing claim could find justification in the phenomenon of Sodom and Gomorrha. In Genesis Chapter 19, verses 4 to 5, we see Lot, Abraham's nephew who lived in Sodom, pleading for the Sodomites not to sexually molest the two angels who visited to advise him. “But before they (the two angels) lay down, the men of the city, the Sodomites, young and old, all the people from every ‘direction, surrounded the house shouting to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you this night? Bring them out to us, 80 we may rape them!’” In this biblical passage, the Israelites were already far enough knowledgeable that men, not only women, are rapeable. This simply indicates that the Sodomites are homosexuals, and, of course, heterosexuals as well. But'to repeat, the author of Genesis hesitates to highlight, or to the least, include the gays in the gender. ee “auic$/Part Three/Chapter Five 299 Scanned with CamScannerInasmuch as the Jews never gave much value to women, that was why lesbians were never given any attention. In fact until now, as we cited in the foregoing pages, the fate of lesbians is less noticeable than their gay counterparts. Now, if the Bible can readily provide us citations of verses that feature gays, although it is silent with the lesbians because of the anti-women Jewish culture, then we must give room of acceptance on the part of gays and lesbians. This should stop concerned individuals like the immediate relatives of gays and lesbians, and the people in society in general, to be sympathetic, kind, and concerned to the plight of these homosexuals. Let us bear in mind that homosexuals are also human beings. And if all of the members of the human species bear the images and the likenesses of God, then, we should be kind enough to understand them. They, too, are God's images and likenesses. In this light, it is high time now for us to broaden our horizon relative to the gender issue. Thus, we should be kind enough to take them as regular members of society. Because of their being homosexuals, gays and lesbians are sinners inasmuch as their sexual gratifications will never lead to procreation. This is, however, strongly held by Christian thinkers. Because gays and lesbians are sexual casualties, then many believe that: “Gays and lesbians will never go to heaven but to hell.” This is obviously an unfair treatment to them. By critically employing Descartes’s Methodic Doubt, it is always uncertain if the above cruel dictum for homosexuals will hold water before the eyes of God. First of all, it is good to doubt if there is really hell or none at all. The same doubt is likewise forwarded by a famous Protestant philosopher- 300 ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five Scanned with CamScannertheologian in the person of Rudolf Karl Bultmann. To Bultmann, many Christians believe that below the earth is a place called Sheol, netherworld, or hell. And in this, like heaven and earth, there are creatures who live or occupy. But Bultmann asks: “Is this scientifically acceptable? Do heaven and hell really occupy their specific locations?” We likewise have to doubt if God would be more cruel to the homosexuals than those who are not. Didn't Christ say that He came for those who are sick and not for the healthy? To Descartes, we express our heartfelt gratitude that through his Methodic Doubt it is always POSSIBLE to doubt everything. In this perspective, there is nothing wrong if we solicit a doubt relative to the act of God's creation of the gender. So, there is nothing wrong if we doubt that God created only males and females as cited in Genesis. Although this doubt may simply lead to an apocryphal claim that can be easily drawn by established exegetes. But we insist in challenging the exegetes to once again examine the truth about gender as shown in the Genesis Account of Creation. This may give hope to gays and lesbians to believe that they are also God’s creatures. The Book of Genesis diametrically excludes them. This is why in the introductory part of this book, we conjectured that if Genesis excludes them then are they gestures of Divine error? or weaknesses in Darwin's concept of natural selection? or are they manifestations of lingering illness? In the foregoing pages, we presented the medical and psychological causes of homosexuality. But still people hesitate to admit these causes to license homosexuals as regular members of the human society. On the contrary, we propose that all members of the human species must be generous and sympathetic ETHICS/Part Three/Chapter Five 301 Scanned with CamScannerenough to respect “homosexuals as homosexuals. In fact, in some countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, same-sex marriages are allowed. If in these. countries, a gay can marry another man and a lesbian'can marry ‘another ‘woman, then, it is high time for us to’ be at least sympathetic to them — although we, as Christian Filipinos, may abhor same- sex marriages. So.in this paper, we applied the controversial Cartesian Methodic Doubt to the exclusive constituent of a gender in the province of male and female and also on the way society has unfairly treated the homosexuals, and finally on the issue of salvation. We doubted if homosexuals are bound for hell. And so weiargued: Salvation is forall, whether one is a gay, a lesbian, ‘a full-fledged male, or a full-fledged female as long as oné humbly admits his or her naked sinfulness before God specifically through the sacrament of penance or contrition. Effeminacy (being womanish) is not a requirement of homosexuality nor homosexuality a requirement of effeminacy. There are effeminates who are not homosexuals just as there are homosexuals who are not effeminates. There are men who have macho bodies but have a woman’s heart. In our dialect we say: “Samson ang katawan, Delilah ang puso.” Why is homosexuality immoral? It is immoral since it enables sex partners to have sexual gratification without the benefit of procreation. 2. Lesbianism A lesbian or a T-bird is just the opposite of a homosexual. She thinks and feels that she is a man imprisoned in a woman’s body. Psychologists and medical practitioners agree that it is possible to conceive of both homosexuality ETHICS/Part Thraa/Chanter Five Scanned with CamScannerand lesbianism as caused by hormonal deficiency. They say that a male who has a deficient supply of androgen (masculine hormones) would suffer from effemininity and eventually homosexuality; and a female who has a deficient supply of estrogen (female sex hormones) would likely become a lesbian. In principle, the hormonal deficiency in a homosexual and a lesbian should not be considered as their license to commit immoral sexual acts. 3. Masturbation Masturbation is derived from the term manus meaning “hand.” In this term manus, the following infinitives are suffixed: (1) turbare which means “to strip up” and (2) stuprare which means “to defile.” Both terms turbare and stuprare yield to the birth of the term masturbation which is defined as an act of sexual stimulation or gratification by the use of the hands. Accordingly, 1857 was marked as the ever first time when masturbation came into the » records. Before, it used to. be a grave or mortal sin since it is a willful sexual gratification outside sexual intercourse. Today, it is conceived by moral philosophers as well as theologians as less grave since procreation starts only at the contact of the egg cell and one sperm cell. Thus, the human life cells that are, so to say, wasted in masturbation are not total loss of these cells. Psychologists and doctors view masturbation as a natural part of human , existence. The Church, however, views it as wee NEE alee abe Scanned with CamScanner