But our growing insensitivity to violence, including the most recent and terrible tragedy in Pasig, is another God-sent wake-up call.
Going back to professional boxing, allow me to quote extensively from the writings of Fathers John Hardon and Richard McCormick, noted moral theologians, and supported by our own moral theologian from the Loyola School of Theology, Fr. Romeo Intengan, S. J.:
"Moral theologians converge on a single conclusion: professional boxing as it is today cannot be defended on moral grounds. Those who defend professional boxing look upon it as a science that requires skill, strength, and discipline. They argue about the opportunity for physical development, alertness, poise, confidence, sports-manship, initiative and character-building that boxing affords…. Without gainsaying the benefits of the sport, the prevailing judgment now sees it as basically brutish, as less a game than a contest which seeks to incapacitate the opponent, and therefore indefensible in the light of Christian moral principles."
This is based on three areas of ethical significance: 1) the nature of the sport as it has developed in modern times; 2) the intention of the contestants; and 3) the effects or at least circumstances under which prize-fighting takes on serious moral considerations. Let us quote their explanations briefly:
"Boxing by its very nature is said to lead to serious and unjustifiable injury to those who participate in the sport. The knock-out itself is an indefensible mutilation of the rational faculties because its purpose is to render the victim unconscious. But even more grave is the preliminary softening-up process, with deliberately inflicted external lacerations and damage to internal organs…. Medical experts declare that no head blow is taken with impunity, and each knock-out causes definite and irreparable damage.
"The second reason why boxing is being outlawed as immoral is that the direct object of the prizefighter’s intention is to cause these injuries. Only a naïve unrealism would allow us to say that the boxer merely permits but does not immediately want to hurt his opponent. Those who would apply the principle of the double effect to boxing do not understand the sport.
"Lastly and logically from the preceding, prize-fighting is condemned because it caters to the lower instincts and tends to demoralize participants and spectators. The howling approbation of a blood-thirsty mob watching a slug-fest is a spectacle that we might associate with pagan Rome and the gladiatorial combats in the coliseum; but this can hardly be squared with the demands of Christian prudence or the elevated teachings of the Gospel."
So instead of glorifying professional boxing, let us re-commit ourselves to our victory at EDSA I, whose 20th anniversary we are celebrating in less than a couple of weeks. It was a victory through active non-violence. By sheer force of numbers, political will, and trust in God, we manned the barricades. How God used the "foolish" to confound the "wise." How God used the "weak" to confound the "strong." From an astute politician to an inexperienced housewife. From a super-organized machinery to amorphous crowds. From tanks, aircraft, and arms to human barricades, armed only with smiles, humor, food, flowers, rosaries, and a converted heart. The violent assassination of Ninoy Aquino was trium-phantly redeemed by our non-violent, people-power revolution.
In summary then:
EDSA I: National victory through active non-violence.
Pacquiao-Morales Fight: National victory through active violence.
Are they morally compatible? You tell me.
(EDSAna Ngayon
20th EDSA Celebration Feb. 24, 6 pm
San Jose Seminary Covered Court
by Simbahang Lingkod Ng Bayan)