Secret miracles

(First published in the CBCP Monitor, "And that's the truth" column of Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS)

The miraculous healing of a French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, who like Pope John Paul II suffered from Parkinson’s disease, paved the way for the John Paul’s beatification, which took place in Rome on May 1, 2011.  Then, on that very day of beatification, somewhere in Costa Rica, a terminally ill, partially paralyzed woman on pain medication lay in bed, clutching a magazine with a photo of John Paul II on the cover.   She was Mrs. Floribeth Mora Diaz, a 50-year old mother of four, who had been told by the doctors that her death was “just a matter of time”.

The hopeless Mrs. Mora said that at that moment John Paul appeared to her in a vision, with his hand reaching out to her from the magazine’s cover photo.   He reportedly told her to get up and go to the kitchen to see her husband.  Startled she responded to the vision, “Yes, I feel fine now, I’m going, I’m going,” and from that day on, Mrs. Mora insisted she was completely cured.

After the proper medical examination her neurosurgeon Alejandro Vargas Roman, said,  “If I cannot explain it from a medical standpoint, something non-medical happened.  I can believe it was a miracle.”  The story of Mrs. Mora’s cure was recounted on a website linked to John Paul II’s beatification.  Soon the Holy See’s experts led by the postulator in charge of advancing John Paul II’s sainthood scrutinized Mrs. Mora’s case.

The Vatican flew Mrs. Mora to Rome to be examined in a Church-run hospital where she was registered under a false name.  She said she was to observe “maximum secrecy” and was to be known simply “as a tourist from Costa Rica who had fallen ill while on holiday in Italy.”  The “tourist from Costa Rica” was subjected to tests, all of which showed her to be completely healthy. 

That was the miracle that led to the elevation of Blessed John Paul II to sainthood.  Mrs. Mora was a guest of honor at the canonization of the two popes on Divine Mercy Sunday, 2014.

We know that miracles are a requirement prior to a candidate’s being proclaimed “Blessed” and then “Saint.” But almost always, the miracles validated are medical in nature.  While miracles involving instant cure or healing, having been subjected to scientific scrutiny, are more dramatic and therefore create a great impact on the public, we cannot deny that perhaps millions of other miracles take place in secret which offer healing and a new life to their recipients.

Take the case of Aileen, a searcher and an agnostic for the longest time.  She has kept John Paul II’s miracle on her a secret lest people think she’s crazy.  Inside the Manila Cathedral awaiting the arrival there of Pope John Paul II in February 1981, she was stunned to see a dazzling “about 2-feet wide” light around the pope as the doors opened to let him in.  She admitted she does not see auras as some people claim to do, so she blinked repeatedly and hard, thinking maybe there was something wrong with her eyes, that maybe the light was but the reflection of the pope’s white vestment, etc.  But why, she also wondered, was he the only one surrounded by that indescribable light when all others around him—priests—also wore white?  To her sight, the others registered as “normal”.  The skeptic in Aileen prevailed: it couldn’t have meant that she now had the gift to see auras, she concluded, and eventually forgot about the incident.

Until one day, during a retreat with her co-workers, in the early 80s.  Aileen was sitting quietly in the back of the chapel, when a priest emerged from the confessional box, his face looking as though lit up by a fluorescent bulb from within.  Instantaneously, the image of John Paul II dazzling white at the door of the cathedral flashed in her memory.  A question percolated in Aileen’s mind: “What happens to a priest when he hears confession?”

Aileen, a nominal Catholic, was not an ardent believer of confession, nonetheless she subconsciously linked the priest’s radiant face to it.  Thoughts unrelated and disconnected—about the sacredness of the priest’s vocation, about confession, about a hundred other things coming from nowhere—cascaded through her consciousness but Aileen wasn’t seeking explanations, nor desiring to make some sense of it.  From that day on the dazzling image of John Paul II entering the cathedral door would flash back in her mind’s screen every so often, and by association lead to the thought of confession.

Aileen had not gone to confession for about 20 years then, but a mysterious something must have touched her so that

one day she caught herself mentally conversing with John Paul II and asking him:  “Does God want me to go to confession?”  As soon as she could, she docilely prepared herself, and days after that, she did go to confession. 

That was to be the start of a deeper relationship between Aileen and the Divine.   And John Paul II, residing on the other side of the planet, became, in a way that defied reason, a convenient guide in her search for the Living God.  Of course, nobody knew that she was “conversing” with John Paul II, but that didn’t matter to her—for her it was sometimes wise to “go with the flow,” and it was like child’s play anyway.

Doors were opening for Aileen, happening too fast for her skepticism to arrest.  Without any effort from her she met Pope John Paul II again—but this time he held her head while she kissed her ring—at the Udienza Generale in Rome, the general audience where the pope greets pilgrims.  She was also given a rosary blessed by the pope himself.  In a subsequent “conversation” with John Paul II, Aileen quipped, “Now, Papa, you want me to pray the rosary?  You know it bores me.  But if that’s what God wants, ok.” 

She saw John Paul II in person on three more occasions, World Youth Day in Manila 1995, in Paris 1997, and in Toronto 2002.  Those times there was quite a distance between them, but being there would make Aileen so happy and content, and she would cry for unknown reasons the moment she would catch sight of him, even just by watching him on the big screen.  Age was overtaking her “spiritual father,” she thought, but he would not let his failing health stand in the way of his ministry.  “What a holy man!” Aileen would say, continuing with her lighthearted occasional “conversations” with the ailing pontiff, not caring whether she was heard or not.

It was only after John Paul II’s death in 2005 did Aileen realize the gift God had given her in the person of John Paul II.  Her “connection” with him was not imaginary, after all.  At Mass, against her desire, she tearfully “told” the dead pope:  “Papa, you know how I so want to attend your funeral but, I couldn’t do so without feeling guilty.  Imagine $1,400 airfare when my niece in the province couldn’t even go up the stage for her graduation because they don’t have 350 pesos to rent a toga!  I’d rather save the money for needy relatives.  Anyway, you know you’re in my heart; I’ll be there with you in spirit!”

The following day, from out of the blue, the opportunity to attend John Paul II’s funeral for free dropped in Aileen’s lap.  She was beside herself in disbelief—she would only believe her good fortune once she was there in the Vatican witnessing John Paul II’s burial.

At St. Peter’s Square, during the funeral rites, Aileen wept from both sorrow and joy, a refrain playing like background music somewhere inside her:  “I know you heard me and you did something, and that’s why I am here.  It’s a miracle.  God willed this moment…”  And as John Paul II’s coffin turned around as though to give his final blessing to the people, Aileen “saw” John Paul II, a dazzling figure at the door of the Manila Cathedral; only this time his mortal remains were actually entering St. Peter’s basilica’s door, to be entombed forever.  From one door to another, his secret message to Aileen was “Be not afraid; be faithful!”
Two dozen years, from 1981 to 2005—it had been quite a journey of faith for the agnostic searcher that was Aileen.  John Paul II died without ever knowing he had been her companion in her journey to God.  What would he have said if he knew that the agnostic had since that fateful day in 1981 returned to the fold and in fact has become a passionate defender of the Church?

The dictionary defines “miracle” as a “surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to the be the work of a divine agency.”  From “terminal cancer” to “perfect health” is a miracle.  Miracles cure not just bodily sickness; they also cure the soul.  From doubt to conviction is a miracle.  From “God is dead” to “God lives forever” is a miracle.  From “My way is best” to “Thy will be done” is a miracle.  But whatever healing they effect in a person, they always signify a new life—new eyes, new ears, new hands, new heart, new everything.  Albert Einstein once said, “There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”  The faithful are fearless—they choose to believe in miracles, thus life for them is always new.  And that’s the truth. 

Is the SC decision on RH a win-win thing?

Lest anyone think the “RH war” is over, dig deep behind the headlines for the truth that will keep us pro-lifers vigilant.

The news give the impression that pro-RH camp has won—what with purple clad advocates on a major daily’s front page already looking triumphant on the day the Supreme Court (SC) was yet to deliberate on the matter, and again advocates in Senate dressed in purple later giving victory interviews on television and congratulating the SC for its decision!  Of course, that is how the spin-doctors of the RH Machinery would have the public believe: that pro-RH has won and pro-life has lost.

But wait—prolife advocates are also saying the SC decision is a victory for prolife as well because the SC struck out provisions which in the first place we were all objecting to.  But the “red army” is hardly given as much space in mainstream media as the “purple army”, thus, people who just see the headlines or watch tv news would tend to believe RH indeed won.

Then there’s the voluble Senadora Miriam issuing a statement and appearing on tv saying the SC decision is a “triumph of reason over superstition” and unwittingly contradicting herself by insisting on a “motion for reconsideration on the eight provisions of the RH law which were struck down”. 

There is yet another cause for rejoicing by pro-lifers—the SC decision of April 8, 2014 in the consolidated cases of James Imbong et al vs. Hon. Ochoa, et al, where the Supreme Court categorically pronounces that “the moment of conception is reckoned from fertilization.”

In Decision, pp 47-48, the Supreme Court states:  “In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.

“The Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object—it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.”

To arrive at this decision, the Court relied on the long-established standard medical authority—the second edition of Human Embryology & Teratology, by Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

The Court further says, “Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.”

Now, why is this particular decision not in the news?  If Hon. Lagman and company have a strong conviction that life begins at implantation, shouldn’t they now be making noise in media about what is stated on pp. 47-48 of the Decision?  Scour the dailies, the tv channels, even Google and other search engines, and you won’t find a single news item on that war-changing matter.  It spells a huge defeat for RH advocates because then it would render illegal all contraceptives that prevent implantation, because they would be exposed for what they are: abortifacients.

Quite logically, RH supporters wouldn’t want that publicized, to keep the public (especially women and girls) ignorant, so that in the implementation of the RH law the population controllers could still do as they want.  And they intend to do that.  After all, they still have their ace card—sex education—to push their agenda; it’s their main avenue now towards poisoning the minds of the young.

Physician Dr. Miriam Grossman in her book You're Teaching My Child What? exposes today’s sex education programs as being based “not on science but on liberal lies and politically correct propaganda that promote the illusion that children can be sexually free without risk.”  A blurb about the book says: As a psychiatrist and expert on sexual education, Dr. Grossman cites example after example of schools and organizations whitewashing —or omitting altogether —crucial information that doesn't fit in with their population control agenda. Instead, sex educators only tell teens the “facts of life” that promote acceptance, sexual exploration, and experimentation. What sex educators call an education, scientists would call a scam.  Sex educators won’t tell girls their bodies are biologically and chemically more susceptible to STDs; they will only say 3 million girls have a sexually transmitted infection.  Educators say it’s natural for children to “explore” their sexuality from a young age and only they can decide when it’s right to have sex—the real truth is neurobiologists say teen brains are not developed to fully reason and weigh consequences, especially in “the heat of the moment”.  Teens are told condoms, vaccines and yearly testing provide adequate protection, without being told that studies now show condoms are no match for herpes, HPV and gonorrhea.

See, the war isn’t over.  Only the battleground has changed.  And that’s the truth.

Bible or Babel?

--> Could you please translate this for me: “Pnajuna nya shubilang nyibayo nyobang pnaeskerda nya chi ang muchos na mga sho-o.”  What about this: “Nag nyumakay na ang mga badeth sa ngungka, nag stop look and listen ang windaloo.”

The first one reads in Tagalog: “Pinauna niya sila sa kabilang ibayo, habang pinaaalis niya ang napakaraming tao.”  And the second one, “Nang makasakay na sila sa bangka, tumigil ang hangin.”

A new language?  Speaking in tongues?  That’s how the Scriptures will read if LGBT enthusiasts gain enough momentum to come up with a “Beki Bible”.  “Beki” means “gay”.  The idea is brewing in social media to have the Bible translated into “baklese” (“beki” lingo, that is) in the hope that this will “make the Filipino LGBT community understand the life of Jesus”.

I got into the loop when a (non-practising) lesbian friend forwarded to me the thread on the topic.  It seems some are that desirous to have the “Beki Bible” started; and there’s a suggestion to publish a Beki dictionary as well.

Because my friend, a member of a religious third order, is in that stage when—touched by God’s love—she is “reevaluating (her) spiritual life along the line of evangelization”, she has actually volunteered to be in the Beki Bible translating team.  She mused, “Maybe this is what God is calling me to do.”

If I didn’t believe she’s dead serious about her newfound Christianity I would have dismissed the idea with a click of the mouse.  But she is not a flighty type, she’s really looking for meaning in her life, and so I found myself typing: “No, rethink it, and most of all be silent and wait for direction from above. My knee jerk reaction to this is, a dictionary would be out of the question because gay talk changes constantly, and according to region or particular groups.  Then, too, and this is the heavier concern—for sure a Beki version will trivialize the Bible.”

Back in 1969 when I wrote a feature article on “swardspeak”—the first ever, according to a prominent editor then—homosexuals were called “swards”, and the word “gay” simply meant what it meant in Christmas carols and Broadway musicals: lighthearted and carefree.  I picked up “swardspeak” from having to collaborate with fashion designers and models for magazine pictorials.  As far as I knew, the “swards” (also called “badaf” then) invented “swardspeak” because they wanted a sign of belonging or exclusivity (like a fraternity ring), a virtual code spoken only with those they considered colleagues.  Thus, using “swardspeak” they could ridicule any unsuspecting person right under his nose with him being none the wiser about it.  Obviously, the intention behind the invention was somewhat snobbish and uncharitable, and I doubt that “swardspeak” (primarily a tool of satire) has evolved to such a degree as to be considered a medium for spreading the Word of God.

Imagine a homily done in baklese!  Instead of encouraging people to listen to God's Word they will just be entertained and amused at best. ‘Sa ngalan ni fafa, ng anakis, at ng espiritu ek-ek, achi-ching!’  It will distract from the message and make people focus on the medium, don't you think?  A huge chunk of the congregation would probably be giggling, while a handful will most likely ask the bishop to expel the priest.

Back to the Beki Bible thread:  I followed it, noticed that a certain “Reverend” is part of it.  Hmmm… I found myself typing again:  “What they want done isn’t that simple.  It’s a long process they’re facing and before they finish halfway the gay vocabulary will have changed several times over due to its faddish nature—that’s the way it is.  What I don’t want to happen is for any so-called new Church project to be divisive: any project—not just the Beki Bible—which spawns cliques in the Church.  I have no problem with LGBTs, I would root for harmony for mankind.  Whatever the color of one’s skin, one faith, or one’s bed habits, doesn’t matter.  All to introduce a novelty and to say ‘we’re doing this for God’ but do we feel it in our core?  There is such a thing as ‘purity of intention’, thus, in whatever we undertake—especially when it’s done in the name of God—we need to purify our intentions.  By doing this Beki Bible thing, can we honestly say ‘we want God to increase, and we decrease’?”

I concluded my post with “No, let’s not add to the confusion in Babel.”  And that’s the truth.