I would like to share a thought-provoking letter by Mr. Poch Suzara, author of the atheist-oriented blog Thoughts To Provoke Your Thoughts
, addressing the absurdities of CBCP and the gullibility of Filipinos when comes to religion.
———————————————————————————-
Open Letter to the CBCP
My Dear Catholic Bishops,
I should wish to share with you words from a psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of THE ROAD LESS TRAVEL. It is a bit about psychiatry at its best on top of Christianity at its worst:
“The learning of something new requires a giving up of the old self and a death of outworn knowledge. To develop a broader vision we must be willing to forsake, to kill, our narrower vision. In the short run it is more comfortable not to do this – to stay where we are, to keep using the same microcosmic map, to avoid suffering the death of cherished notions. The road to spiritual growth, however, lies in the opposite direction. We begin by distrusting what we already believe, by actively seeking the threatening and the unfamiliar, by deliberately challenging the validity of what we have previously been taught and hold dear. The path to holiness lies through questioning EVERYTHING.”
Well, in our sick society today, if we question the evils of corruption, we find that corruption is not a political or a legal or a medical issue. Corruption is a moral issue. During these past centuries under Christian authority, hasn’t it been your sole responsibility to shepherd the flock, to be in charge of the teachings of moral values? Especially to establish self-respect and human dignity as the foundation of a healthy and a sane society? Why is it that after 400 years of Christianity solidly established in this country, tens of millions of Filipinos in this 21st century continue to experience interior emptiness, still thirsting for some form of spirituality? No doubt, we still have deep faith in the holy Trinity known as the “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” but in our race to achieve a higher standard of living as a people, and to accomplish a higher standard of thinking as a nation – where is the Holy Trinity on our side as our “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and the “Sustainer?”
For my part, as a humanist, I embrace morality as one of the greatest of human values. Not, however, superstitious morality. I do not do good because there is a greater power out there who will reward me for my goodness after death. On the contrary, I do good precisely because of what’s higher and greater than me, namely, – my family, my country, and indeed, this planet earth as the home of humanity.
I duly recognize that there is little difference between the goals of the Christians and the humanists. We both value helping others. But as a humanist I am drawn to this goal out of unselfish love and empathy – which arises from education in rationality. As a humanist my goal in life is to try and spread the virtues of felicity via intellectual growth and maturity. Indeed, to keep ignited the torch of enlightenment. To see things now as they will seem forever, – “in the light of eternity.”
The Christian, however, is driven to it out of fear for his own eternal welfare. For the Christian, helping others is not an end in itself, but only a means of saving himself from damnation.
As a humanist I realize that I could be mistaken about what is best for my fellow-Filipinos; so I am willing to listen to criticism. I am willing to have my ideas torn apart and will listen to the power of reason.
The Christian, however, cannot admit that his ideas of right and wrong might be mistaken, because to doubt would imperil his immortal soul. He must have faith in Christian doctrines – out of fear of eternal torture if he does not. He must be anti-intellectual in order to maintain his faith – out of fear of torture if he does not. And he must never doubt that his action is correct – again out of fear of torture if he does not.
What is happening to us, I ask? Why is it that we Filipinos do not, and cannot as yet enjoy social unity, moral sanity, and political maturity in our own country? We only continue to be a people of childish followers; hardly a nation of intelligent thinkers as leaders. Why is it that in this day and age, under your moral guidance and inspiration, we Filipinos only continue to believe that human life is but a defect, and that we must only live our lives seeking not reconstruction, but only obliteration!
My dear bishops, as citizens of our country, isn’t it time for you to take a deeper look at our spiritually poor and morally bankrupt nation – the Philippines – the only Christian country in Asia since 400 years ago? No doubt, Christianity has been a great success. But what has been a greater success, however, is the Filipino way of life. We are still faithful to a higher power out there, but paying for it at a expensive price down here: the horrors of spiritual corruption, moral degradation, economic stagnation, political delusion, educational deception, not to mention the lack of national health, hygiene, and sanitation in our country everywhere!
In the final analysis, I say it again: it is time for us Filipinos to stop fooling around with our silly “free will” for the sake of heavenly salvation. We should, instead, begin to believe and have faith in our intelligent “good will,” especially for one another for the sake of Philippine civilization?
Yours sincerely,
Poch Suzara, Phsdo
For my part, as a humanist, I embrace morality as one of the greatest of human values. Not, however, superstitious morality. I do not do good because there is a greater power out there who will reward me for my goodness after death. On the contrary, I do good precisely because of what’s higher and greater than me, namely, – my family, my country, and indeed, this planet earth as the home of humanity.
I really likes this part. To be taught to attain salvation by doing good things is like being manipulated or blackmailed into doing something. We do good things because we are basically good human beings. There are no bad people in this world, only people who have made bad choices. I finished reading the Bible when I was in 6th grade and that was quite a long time ago. I read it for both intellectual purposes and my heart burst with emotion in some parts of it but I still cannot fathom how such mere men took advantage of the times to start a theologic revolution. Christianity in itself is not a genuine and unique religion. It only came to be by borrowing through the ages certain beliefs from other religions. I think with my mind because it is my greatest asset.
Bless Poch's heart, I agree with some of his points especially the path to holiness is questioning everything. I have, and continue to question, and I hope I stumble upon the Truth one day.
I can't take being tagged gullible though for being a Christian. Nor has anyone actually, or attempted to, inflict torture or any physical means of suffering on me to instill or change my beliefs. (I'd like to see anyone try.) Neither can I take my intentions for doing good as a strong aversion from going to hell. Sure hell is a less desirable place to be, but I have always been taught, and believe, that I must do good because I love my neighbor just as myself and because I love God with my whole soul, heart, and mind. I was also taught, and believe, that God is in the least of my brethren, and should I kick somebody in the ass, it would be kicking God in the ass too. And while God is a forgiving God, He is likewise a just God who can out of justice, punish the ass kicker in me for as long as He chooses, if I am not sorry.
I don't think that being a Humanist or Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Atheist is the source of the evil we see in this world. Man is intrinsically good, I agree, but at the same time he is flawed. Flawed men make manifest any good that all philosophers throughout the ages are striving to understand and explain, when he does good. Flawed men and their bad choices are at the root of evil in this world no matter what they claim to believe in. Sadly us flawed people happen to be Humanist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, etc., too. Should being a person making bad choices diminish from the tenets of beliefs, or non-beliefs of what we choose to believe in? It would be absurd to think that it should. Would it be wise to attribute a bad man's action to his beliefs, when his actions are so apparently against them? No it wouldn't. Evil men are so because they like to do bad things.
It is somewhat ironic that the Humanist in Poch still chooses to acknowledge the authority of the CBCP. He puts too much power into the CBCP. As a humanist believing in the primacy of man above all else, shouldn't Poch be addressing this to each of us? Or to Christ? because Christians, like the CBCP, follow Christ.
In conclusion, read the Bible. Sure it is written in plain language and its being often quoted may sometimes make it too puerile and corny to read, but on its own, not even acknowledging that it comes from God as all Christians tend to do, it is a great piece of work. It has been around for thousands of years and has been a target of praise or derision from many great thinkers, like Poch, through the ages.
@ GabbyD: I see. I got your point. It's like Poch is saying that it is a 'general characteristic' of Christians to be driven to help others out of fear for their own eternal welfare – that those who call themselves 'Christians' are 'supposed to be' like this, that this is the standard for Christianity.
If that is indeed what Poch meant, then I agree with you that he is wrong. But if he only meant that "some Christians" are like this, then I agree with him.
I wonder why ur interested in this distinction (or why thouless is)…
what i mean (i presume poch too) is that these are qualities a xtian/catholic is defined as. its what xtians are supposed to be about. we are talking, after all, about what a catholic is, and that is basically a discussion about beliefs/motivation. specifically, beliefs about salvation.
i think what you are asking is statistical: if i poll xtians today and ask "do you feel so and so", what is the percentage that says yes. is it 100%? (all) or 50% (some)? 0% (none).
thats not what poch and i are talking about. also, i dont know the answer to that, unless i myself go out and do the poll myself.
perhaps an example might help. i'd say, a sheep have wool. sheep is a common noun. further, i'd say this is a general characteristic of sheep that we can and should accept.
but i'm NOT saying: count all the sheep in the world, and tell me how many have wool. its possible that some sheep are naked, diseased, etc.who knows? its unlikely that 100% of sheep have wool 100% of the time.
but its still correct to say that sheep have the characteristic of having wool.
@ GabbyD:
This reminds me of Robert Thouless' 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' where he said that a lot of statements are misleading because they imply "all" when they actually mean "some".
Let's take Poch's statement:
"The Christian, however, is driven to it out of fear for his own eternal welfare. For the Christian, helping others is not an end in itself, but only a means of saving himself from damnation."
Here Poch did not say "ALL Christians" or "SOME Christians", but simply "Christian", and I think this is the cause of our disagreement. Because if Poch said "ALL Christians", the statement would definitely be untrue. But if he was merely implying "SOME Christians", then his statement is correct.
You said: "my point is just that because salvation is part of that collection of beliefs does not mean/imply that fear is the motivator."
Now I ask you, did you mean that fear is not the motivator for ALL Christians, or were you just saying that fear is not the motivator for SOME/MOST Christians?
@ innerminds
my interpretation of poch's sentence (quoted above) is that his conclusions about "the christian" or "the catholic"'s motivation(s) is driven by fear is wrong.
i think he deduced this from the fact that xtianity has "salvation" as a key concept.
my point is just that because salvation is part of that collection of beliefs does not mean/imply that fear is the motivator.
he and i both use collective nouns (christian/catholic), because ALL catholics/xtians have this belief/faith in salvation.
thats what i mean, and i think thats what he (poch) means also.
is this a point on which we can agree? that poch was mistaken?
Okay, okay, let's try this one more time. You said:
"i was responding to poch’s belief (mistaken) that “the Christian, however, is driven to it out of fear for his own eternal welfare. For the Christian, helping others is not an end in itself, but only a means of saving himself from damnation”
this is NOT true."
My question: Are you saying that this is not true for ALL Christians, or do you mean this is not true for SOME/MOST Christians?
@innerminds
i dont get your point.
i was responding to poch's belief (mistaken) that "the Christian, however, is driven to it out of fear for his own eternal welfare. For the Christian, helping others is not an end in itself, but only a means of saving himself from damnation"
this is NOT true.
@ GabbyD: let's look at your comment again:
"just because there is catholic teaching about salvation, that doesn’t mean catholics’ attitude toward others is motivated by fear of punishment."
This can be rephrased as "Catholics' attitude toward others is motivated by love and respect." But the question is, does it mean this is the attitude or 'all' Catholics, or just 'some' or 'most' of them?
Now let's see what happens if we add "all" to your original comment:
"just because there is catholic teaching about salvation, that doesn’t mean ALL catholics’ attitude toward others is motivated by fear of punishment."
If we rephrase this, it will be: "MOST (or SOME) Catholics' attitude toward others is motivated by love and respect."
@innerminds
it should be fine. the 'all' is superfluous. catholic(s) is a common noun, and operates as such unless specified otherwise (i.e. a catholic).
On a serious note, I disagree that corruption is a solely moral issue. Firstly, it is a crime – there is definitely a legal aspect there. Secondly, it is widely believed that there are three elements to crimes such as corruption – character, opportunity, and motivation. Character may be under the guidance of the church, sure. But being inherently honest is not enough to curb corruption. The government and the business community should make it difficult for corruption to occur through legal means (better crime detection and effective punishment) as well as through establishing an environment of fair play (addressing Opportunity to be corrupt). In addition, there should be enough market opportunities and viable honest modes of achieving financial goals without having to bribe people (addressing Motivation to be corrupt) Without addressing these three elements, corruption will exist. The Church alone could not prevent it as much as they try.
So you guys post Poch's articles here to mock, right? Because Poch had me at THE ROAD LESS TRAVEL.
morality as a value?
hmmm…
@Gabby: I mean, you should have written it like this:
just because there is catholic teaching about salvation, that doesn't mean ALL catholics’ attitude toward others is motivated by fear of punishment. c’mon man. seriously.
poch/geri, please. just because there is catholic teaching about salvation, that doesnt mean catholics’ attitude toward others is motivated by fear of punishment. c’mon man. seriously.
@inner, thanks for the headsup
I was a little surprised that Poch Suzara did not put his usual rant here about how the Philippines, being the only Christian nation in Asia, has become the Sick Man of Asia because its people, instead of taking responsibility for the betterment of their lives, keep on expecting their Sky Daddy to do it for them. Oops, this is supposed to be an open letter to the CBCP so I guess that explains it.
@ GabbyD: The only way for your comment to make sense is to put "all" before the second "catholic".
poch/geri, please. just because there is catholic teaching about salvation, that doesnt mean catholics' toward others is motivated by fear of punishment. c'mon man. seriously.