Deus J. Kahangwa
Senior Member
- Jan 7, 2013
- 189
- 122
Hayati Privatus Mutekanga Karugendo: 1956-2021
Tangu mwaka 1990 nilipokuwa kidato cha tatu katika Seminari ya Katoke (Biharamulo) hadi leo nimemfahamu Hayati Privatus Mutekanga Karugendo (65) chini ya kofia tofauti.
Nimemfahamu kama mwanateolojia, mwanafalsafa, mchambuzi wa masuala mtambuka, mtafiti, mwandishi, mume, mzazi, mwanaharakati wa haki za binadamu, menta wa vijana, na mpambanaji wa kimataifa.
Naandika tanzia hii kuonyesha mafanikio na changamoto zake ninazozifahamu ili viwe somo kwa waombolezaji tuliobaki hai.
Privatus amefariki dunia jioni ya 24 Juni 2021, katika Hospitali ya Taifa ya Muhimbili, Dar es Salaam, kutokana na changamoto ya upumuaji aliyokutana nayo ndani ya masaa 12.
Changamoto hii ilitanguliwa na homa ya siku tatu ikiambatana na kushuka ghafla kwa kiwango cha sukari mwilini. Kwa kuwa hati ya kifo bado haijatoka hatujui chanzo cha changamoto hii. Ameacha mke mmoja, Dk. Rose Katesigwa, na mtoto mmoja, Yesigwe.
Kwa mujibu wa mkewe, Dk. Rose Katesigwa, niliyeongea naye leo, mazishi ya Privatus yatafanyika Jumatatu ya 28 Juni 2021, katika Makaburi ya Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam. Kwa sasa msiba uko nyumbani kwake, eneo la Tabata, Dar es Salaam.
Kuzaliwa
Privatus alizaliwa katika Kijiji cha Ibwera, Tarafa ya Katerero, Wilaya ya Bukoba Vijijini, mkoani Kagera.
Alizaliwa 14 Januari 1956, katika Jimbo la Bukoba. Lakini maisha yake yote ya upadre yamekuwa ni Jimboni Rulenge, kwenye wilaya za Ngara, Biharamulo, Karagwe na Kyerwa.
Kwa mujibu wa maandiko yake mwenyewe, Privatus ni mmoja wa watoto wa kiume sita katika familia ya Karugendo. Wengine ni Primus, Pacificus, Pascrates, Princhipius, na Prudence. Tayari Princhipius na Prudence wametangulia katika haki.
Elimu ya juu na utumishi wa kikuhani (1975-2000)
Alianza masomo ya seminari kuu mwaka 1975, kupadirishwa, na kufanya kazi ya utumishi wa kutoa huduma za kikanisa hadi mwaka 2000. Hivyo, amekuwa sehemu ya Kanisa Katoliki kwa kipindi cha miaka ipatayo 25.
Alisoma Diploma ya Filosofia katika Seminari ya Ntungamo huko Bukoba (1975-76); na Stashahada ya Teolojia katika Seminari ya Kipalapala huko Tabora (1977-81).
Amefanya kazi kama Paroko Msaidizi katika Parokia ya Ntungamo huko Ngara (1982); na kama Mmisionari katika Parokia ya Munchen huko Ujerumani (1982-84).
Alipata Elimu ya Kilimo katika Chuo cha Kilimo Uyole huko Mbeya (1985-87); na kurudi kufanya kazi kama Paroko Msaidizi katika Parokia ya Bushangaro huko Karagwe (1987-97).
Pia amehudumu kama Paroko katika Parokia ya Bushangaro huko Karagwe (1998).
Kisha alikwenda kusoma Diploma ya Haki za Binadamu Katika Chuo cha Copenhagen huko Denmark (1999); na kurudi kufanya kazi kama Paroko Msaidizi katika Parokia ya Buziku huko Biharamulo (1999-2000).
Mgogoro wa Privatus na Askofu Niwemugizi (2000-2008)
Mwaka 2000 ulizuka mgogoro kati ya Padre Privatus na mkubwa wake wa kazi, Askofu Severine Niwemugizi.
Kutokana na mgogoro huu, Privatus alisimamishwa kutoa huduma na kuamuliwa kuondoka jimboni Rulenge na kwenda kuishi nyumbani kwa wazazi wake Bukoba alikozaliwa.
Wakati huo alikuwa ametumikia kanisa kwa miaka ipatayo 20, na wazazi wake wote walishakufa. Pia, mfumo wa utawala wa Kanisa Katoliki haitoi kiinua mgongo kwa padre au sista anayeachishwa kazi.
Aidha, hakuna utaratibu wa kuchangia mifuko ya pensheni ya Taifa kwa ajili ya padre au mtawa aliyeachishwa au kuacha kazi.
Hivyo, pamoja na kulitumikia kanisa kwa miaka ipatayo 20, ghafla Privatus alijikuta ni sawa na mwanafunzi aliyemaliza Chuo ambaye hubeba begi lake kurudi nyumbani. Alijikuta njia panda.
Alimua kumwomba rafiki yake mmoja, Askofu Benson Bagonza, wa KKKT Dayosisi ya Karagwe, ampangishie nyumba ya kuishi kwa muda.
Akawa anatafakari afanye nini kama njia ya kupata mkate wa kila siku katika mazingira haya mapya. Askofu Bagonza alikubali kumsaidia.
Lakini, baadaye, Privatus aliamua kuondoka Karagwe na kwenda kuishi nje ya Jimbo la Rulenge.
Alihamia huko wilaya ya Magu, mkoani Mwanza. Huko alipokelewa kwa ukarimu na Kaya ya Kisukuma, familia ya Mwalimu Mkina.
Siku zikasonga mbele akiwa hapo anatafakari jinsi ya kupata mkate wake wa kila siku. Yalikuwa ni majira ya majaribu makubwa kwake.
Wakati akitafakari hayo, Askofu Niwemugizi aliamua kufungua kesi dhidi yake katika mahakama ya Kanisa akimtuhumu kwa makosa kadhaa.
Kwa mujibu wa nakala ya barua ya tuhuma aliyonionyesha kulikuwepo na tuhuma kama saba hivi. Nakumbuka tuhuma tano.
- Kwanza, ni tuhuma ya kuvunja kiapo cha mapdre kuhusu maisha ya useja.
- Pili, ni tuhuma kuhusu tabia ya kuhimiza watu kutumia kondomu kama kingamimba na kingamagonjwa kinyume cha mafundisho rasmi ya Kanisa Katoliki.
- Tatu, ni tabia ya kuwakaribisha wachungaji wa madhehebu yasiyo ya Kikatoliki kwenye ibada za KIkatoliki.
- Nne, ni kutumia sadaka ya Kanisa kinyume cha mwongozo wa Kanisa Katoliki.
- Na tano, ni kuondoka katika kituo chake cha kazi, katika Parokia ya Buziku, bila idhini ya mkubwa wake wa kazi, Askofu Niwemugizi.
Niwemugizi aliamua kushauriana na mwanasheria mwenzake, Padre Charles Kitima, ambaye kwa sasa ni Katibu Mtendaji wa Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania (TEC).
Hatimaye, Askofu Niwemugizi alimtafuta Askofu Mkuu wa Metropolitani ya Kanda ya Ziwa Viktoria na wakakubaliana kuunda Mahakama ya Kanisa ya Kanda (Metropolitan Church Tribunal) iliyojumuisha Majimbo ya Rulenge, Bukoba na Mwanza, yaani hadi Magu alikukuwa anaishi Privatus.
Kwa mujibu wa Sheria za Kanisa, mara nyingi, Mahakama ya Kikanda ni mahakama ya rufaa (second instance court). Kwa mfano, inaweza kutumika kama mahakama ya mwanzo pale jimbo linapokuwa linashitakiwa.
Kwa mujibu wa maelezo ya Privatus, mahakama hii ya Kikanda ilipokea mashitaka dhidi yake kutoka kwa Askofu Niwemugizi wa Jimbo la Rulenge, bila mashtaka hayo kuanzia kwenye Mahakama ya Mwanzo (first instance court) iliyopaswa kuanzishwa jimboni Rulenge .
Hatimaye mahakama ya Kanda ilipokea utetezi wa maandishi kutoka kwa Privatus wenye mapingamizi ya awali yaliyoeleza dosari kadhaa za kisheria. "Lakini bado, mahakama hii iliamua kuendelea kusikiliza kesi dhidi yangu," alisema Privatus.
Kwa mujibu wa maelezo ya Privatus hakupewa wito wenye hadhi ya kisheria ili aweze kufika na kujitetea katika mahakama hiyo.
"Mahakama ya Jimbo la Rulenge haiwezi kutuma wito kwa mtu anayekaa Jimbo la Mwanza, au Jimbo la Bukoba, bila wito huo kupitia Mahakama ya Jimbo anakokaa," Priva alisikika akilalamika siku moja.
"Hata mahakama ya kanda iliyoundwa kwenye Metropolitani ya Kanda ya Ziwa Viktoria haikuwa na mamlaka ya kusikiliza kesi yangu kwa mara ya kwanza, kwani mahakama ya aina hiyo husikiliza kesi za rufaa," alieleza Privatus siku moja.
Ni katika mazingira haya, hatimaye, bila yeye kuwepo, mahakama hiyo ya Kanda iliamua kusiliza kesi upande mmoja na kumtia hatiani Privatus.
Hukumuhusika ilipelekwa kwa Papa. Kwa mujibu wa gazeti la Kiongozi, toleo namba moja la mwaka 2009, Papa Yohanne Paulo II alikubaliana na hukumu hiyo.
Hatimaye Papa alifanya uamuzi wa kumondoa Privatus kutoka katika daraja la upadre tarehe 14 Septemba 2008, kwa kutumia hati ya Kipapa yenye kumbukumbu namba 4182/08.
Baadaye kidogo, Katibu wa Baraza la Maaskofu Tanzania (TEC), wa wakati huo, alipeleka barua ya Papa ya kumfukuza kazi Privatus kwenye televisheni ya Taifa, ikasomwa na kuonyeshwa wazi kwa umma wote.
Mnamo 26 Aprili 2017, miaka tisa baada ya kuvuliwa upadri, Privatus alifunga ndoa na Rose Birusya.
Padre Privatus, mkewe Rose na mtoto wao Yesigwe
Ndoa hiyo ilifungwa katika Kanisa la Mtakatifu Petro, jijini Dar es Salaam, katika misa iliyoongozwa na Padri Stefano Kaombe.
Kusudi aweze kufunga ndoa hiyo ilibidi kwanza aombe kibali cha papa kwa ajili ya kupewa sakramenti ya ndoa ikiwa ni nyongeza ya sakramenti ya upadre aliyoipata hapo awali.
Kwa kawaida, mtu akipata sakramenti moja kati ya hizi sakramenti mbili, basi sakramenti hiyo inabatilisha sakramenti ya pili.
Kwa mujibu wa taratibu za Kanisa mchakato huo huanza baada ya mhusika kuandika barua kwa mkono wake na kuipeleka kwa Papa kupitia kwa Balozi wa Papa.
“Kabla sijaandika barua hiyo, niliambiwa na Paroko kwamba tayari Balozi wa Papa anayo barua ya Padre Privatus Karugendo aliyemwandikia Papa ili kuomba kibali cha kupata sakramenti ya ndoa tangu siku zile nilipoondolewa kwenye rosta ya upadre,” aliwahi kusema Privatus.
Hivyo, Privatus aliamua kuomba nakala ya barua hiyo ili kuitumia kukamilisha azima yake ya kufunga ndoa, na Balozi wa Papa alikubaliana naye.
"Nilipopewa nakala ya barua ile nikakuta ni mwandiko wa Askofu Severine Niwemugizi," alisema siku moja.
Privatus amekufa anaamini kwamba barua hiyo iliandikwa na Askofu Niwemugizi.
Mgogoro huu kati ya Padre Privatus na Askofu Niwemugizi unaweza kueleweka kama ukiwekwa ndani ya pentagoni ya kihistoria yenye kuunganisha matukio haya matano:
- Mtaguso wa II wa Laterani (1139),
- Mtaguso wa Trent (1545-63),
- Mtaguso wa II wa Vatikano (1963-65),
- Waraka wa Papa Paul VI uitwao “Tunu ya Uhai wa Binadamu (Humanae Vitae) wa mwaka 1968,” na
- Sheria za Kanisa Katoliki toleo jipya la 1983.
Mwaka 1563 Papa Pius IV, kupitia Mtaguso wa Trent, ulitunga kanuni iliyopiga marufuku walei waliofunga ndoa kupadirishwa.
Mwaka 1965 Papa Paul VI, kupitia Mtaguso wa II wa Vatikano, aliidhinisha waraka uitwao "Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests," hasa katika ibara ya 16, uliosisitiza umuhimu na ulazima wa useja kwa kila padre.
Mwaka 1968 Papa Paul VI, kupitia Waraka wa “Humanae Vitae,” hasa katika ibara ya 12, alipiga marufuku matumizi ya kingamimba zote zikiwemo kondomu, vidonge na kitanzi.
Na mwaka 1983 Papa Yohanne Paul II alitunga Sheria za Kanisa, hasa ibara za 290-293, zilisisitiza misimamo ya hapo juu na kuweka utaratibu wa kisheria wa kumwondoa mtu katika daraja la makleri na kumweka katika daraja la walei.
Hadi leo kuna ukuta unaotenganisha sakramenti ya makleri (upadirisho) na sakramenti ya walei (ndoa).
Lakini, Papa anayo mamlaka ya kutoa kibali kwa mtu aliyepokea sakramenti ya upoadirisho kupewa pia sakramenti ya ndoa, lakinikwa sharti la kukubali kuondolewa kwenye rosta ya mapadre.
Majibu ya Privatus kuhusu tuhuma dhidi yake
Privatus alihukumiwa katika mazingira haya ya kihistoria. Na alijaribu kutoa majwabu dhidi ya tuhuma zote.
Kuhusu utetezi wake dhidi ya tuhuma zilizoelekezwa kwake, Privatus alikuwa mkweli kupindukia.
Kwa mfano, Privatus aliwahi kusema na ameandika sana kwamba, ni kweli kwamba aliwahi kuteleza na hivyo kukiuka kiapo cha useja.
Lakini aliendelea kusema kwamba tayari alikwisha kutubu, tena kwa Askofu Niwemugizi. Hivyo, akasema kuwa, hilo kosa lilikwishafutika, na haliwezi kuwa sehemu ya mashtaka halali kwa mujibu wa sheria za Kanisa.
Lakini, “Askofu Niwemugizi alitumia siri zangu alizizipata kupitia zoezi la kuendesha sakramenti ya kitubio kunitia hatiani, jambo ambalo ni kinyume na sheria za kanisa,” alilalamika Privatus kupitia maandiko yake kadhaa.
Fungu la sheria za kanisa Katoliki (1983) linalokataza kuvujisha siri za kitubuo ni ibara ya 983(1).
Hata hivyo, Privatus alikanusha tuhuma kwamba, wakati huo alikuwa anajihusisha kimapenzi na msichana mmoja ambaye ndiye baadaye alifunga ndoa naye.
“Nilituhumiwa eti najihusisha na msichana mmoja kimapenzi. Ukweli ni kwamba huyo binti na wenzake, walikuwa wanasomeshwa na Jumuiya ya Mkamilishano iliyokuwa chini ya kanisa, nami nilikuwa msimamizi wake kwa mujibu wa nafasi yangu kama Mkuu wa Kitengo cha Elimu katika Jumuiya hiyo. Wakati huo sikuwa na mawazo yoyote na msichana huyo zaidi ya kumsaidia apate elimu,”aliripotiwa kusema Privatus.
Kuna utetezi alifanya kuhusu tuhuma za kutumia sadaka vibaya ya Kanisa. Anadai kwamba, siku moja baada ya misa, alifuatwa na mama mmoja mwenye mtoto yuko hoi.
Mama huyo aliomba msaada wa fedha ili akanunue dawa za mtoto wake. Ndipo Privatus alimwuliza kama ametoa sadaka. Mama akasema ametoa sadaka.
Hivyo, Privatus akagusa kwenye kikapu cha sadaka na kutoa fedha hiyo na kumrudishia kwa sababu hakuona kama ni sawa mtu kutoa sadaka Kanisani badala kununua dawa ya mgonjwa.
Kupitia kwa watoa taarifa wa siri, habari hiyo ilifikishwa kwa Askofu Niwemugiza na kuhezabiwa kosa la kinidhamu dhidi ya Privatus kwa mujibu wa sheria za Kanisa Katoliki.
Kuhusu habari ya kuwakaribisha wachungaji walutheri kwenye altare Katoliki, alkiri pia. Anasema kuwa alifanya hivyo katika dhamira njema ya kiekumene ya kujenga ujirani mwema kati ya makanisa ya Kikristo.
Tena, kupitia kwa watoa taarifa wa siri, habari hii ilifikishwa kwa Askofu Niwemugiza na kuhezabiwa kosa la kinidhamu dhidi ya Privatus kwa mujibu wa sheria za Kanisa Katoliki.
Tuhuma ya Privatus kuondoka katika kituo chake cha kazi, katika Parokia ya Buziku, bila idhini ya mkubwa wake wa kazi, Askofu Niwemugizi aliijibu pia.
“Kimsingi kosa nililotuhumiwa nalo la kukaa nje ya kituo cha kazi lilitokana na ujio wa wageni marafiki zangu kutoka nchini Holland," alisema.
“Mazingira ya Kanisa la Buziku hayakuwa rafiki, hakukuwa na vyoo na huduma nyingine mbalimbali kwa wageni, niliomba ruhusa kwa bosi wangu kuwa wageni hao nitawapeleka Bukoba na baadaye niliwasindikiza hadi Dar es Salaam wakarudi kwao," alifafanua.
Na kuhusu uamuzi wake wa kukiuka marufuku ya Papa dhidi ya matumizi ya kingamimba, alikiri kwamba alikuwa anaikosoa marufuku hiyo.
Mwaka 2002 Privatusi, alitoa mada kuhusu nafasi ya matumizi ya kondomu kama kinga ya magonjwa ya ngono. Baadaye alijitokeza hadharani kwenye luninga kutetea msimamo wake.
Mwaka 2017, akihojiwa na mwandishi mmoja kuhusu msimamo wako huo, Privatus alisema:
“Msimamo wangu ulitokana na uzoefu wa miaka 20 nikiwa padri. Najua jinsi watu wasivyokuwa waaminifu katika suala zima la mahusiano” anasema Padri Karugendo na kuongeza.
“Kwa hiyo kujificha katika kivuli cha matakwa ya dini, huku jamii ikiteketea kwangu niliona ni dhambi kubwa, niliikataa,” Privatus alisisitiza.
Kwa vile naona msimamo huu ndio sababu kubwa iliyozalisha mgogoro kati yake na Kanisa Katoliki, nitaurejea tena kwa kirefu mwisho mwa bandiko hili.
Lakini, kwa hapa napenda kusema jambo moja muhimu. Nilipata fursa ya kupitia vifungu vya sheria za Kanisa vilivyotumika kumshitaki Privatus katika makosa ya sadaka, kushirikiana na walutheri altareni, na kuhimiza matumizi ya kingamimba.
Ni ukweli kwamba alivivunja vifungu hivi, na katika maelezo yake anakiri hivyo.
"Kwa nini ulikuwa unavunja sheria hizi za Kanisa wakati ukijua kwamba zipo?" nilimwuliza siku moja.
"Sheria zipo kwa ajili yetu, lakini sisi hatupo kwa ajili ya sheria; kwa hiyo, sheria inayopingana na hulka ya ubinadamu ni sheria mbaya, na inakuwa imevunjika hata kabla haijavunjwa na binadamu yeyote, " alinijibu.
Maisha ya utafiti (2003-2018)
Kwa kipindi cha miaka 20 Privatus amekuwa anatafuta mkate wake wa kila siku kwa fanya kazi kama mtafiti asiyeajiriwa, yaani “daiwaka.”
Kupitia utafiti huu ameandika au kushiriki katika uandishi wa ripoti zaidi ya 20, zinazohusu masuala ya kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii hapa Tanzania.
Kazi za uandishi na makala
Mbali na kutafiti na kuandaa ripoti za kitafiti, Privatus alikuwa mwandishi wa vitabu na makala zaidi ya 1000 kwa lugha za Kiswahili, Kiingereza na Kijerumani.
Makala za Kijerumani zilichapishwa na gazeti liitwalo “Gemainde Heuite,” la Ujerumani. Makala za Kiswahili zilichapishwa kupitia magazeti ya Rai, Raia Mwema Tanzania Daima, na Uwazi.
Vitabu alivyoandika na kuchapisha ni pamoja na: Maisha yangu Wito wangu; Ubikira; Pambazuko gizani; Maswali 40, majibu 40 ya January Makamba; Maisha yangu Baada ya Miaka 70.
Pia kuna vitabu ambavyo ameandika lakini ameaga dunia kabla havijachapishwa.
Vitabu hivyo ni: wasifu wenye jina “Mawazo, Matendo na Matunda ya Askofu Christopher Mwoleka” pamoja na riwaya iitwayo “Sista Kobulungo Maria Mtawa wa Karonga.”
Wakati wa uhai wake, Privatus alinambia kuwa anataka wasifu wa Mwoleka uchapwe na Pius Ngeze, wakati alitaka riwaya ya Mtawa wa karonga ichapwe na Elieshi Lema.
Kazi za ustawi wa jamii
Mbali na kazi za utafiti, Privatus alifanya kazi za kustawisha jamii, akiwa kama mshauri, au mjumbe wa Bodi au mwanachama wa taasisi mbalimbali zipatazo 15.
Taasisi hizo ni pamoja na: Edmin Education Centre; PESENET; SODT; KADENVO; DAC; European Community; USAID; KDCU; TGNP; SNV; HakiElimu, GEMSAT na Jumuiya ya Mkamilishano.
Akiwa Mkamilishano, alikuwa Mkrugenzi wa Idara ya Elimu. Chni ya Idara hii alisimamia elimu ya vijana kuanzia elimu ya msingi hadi ngazi za juu.
Tulikutana Katoke mwaka 1990 akiwa anfuatilia wanafunzi waliokuwa wanatoka Mkamilishano kuja kusoma seminarini. Nawakumbuka kina Allen, Onesmo, Anatori, Aristides, na wengine wengi.
Menta na mpambanaji wa kimataifa
Nimeandika tanzia hii ili kuonyesha kwamba Privatusi alikuwa mwanateolojia, mwanafalsafa, mchambuzi wa masuala mtambuka, mtafiti, mwandishi, mume, mzazi, mwanaharakati wa haki za binadamu, menta wa vijana, na mpambanaji wa kimataifa.
Itoshe kusema kuwa kupitia majukumu haya alitengeneza marafiki wengi katika kila wilaya, kila mkoa, kila rika kuanzia vijana hadi wazee, kila wizara, kila dini, kila madhehebu ya dini, na katika kila bara lililo katika uso wa dunia hii.
Sababu za Privatus kutetea matumizi ya kondomu
Sasa turejee kwenye sababu zake za kutetea matumizi ya kondomu.
Kuhusu jambo hili, niliwahi kumwuliza Privatus hoja yake ya msingi. Alinijibu kwa maandishi kwa kunitumia makala aliyoipa jina "Prophylactics, contraceptives and the metaphysical problem of type-token significance in relation to sexual intercourse."
Naona ni andiko aliloliwasilisha kwenye kongamano la Arusha. Katika andiko hili anajenga hoja mbili kubwa. Hoja ya kwanza inapatikana katika aya zifuatazo, ambazo nataka nizinukuu neno kwa neno:
“The main natural law argument of Humanae Vitae can be summarized as follows: The biological ‘laws of conception’ regulating human reproduction show that sexual intercourse has a ‘capacity to transmit life’ (HV 13).
“For that reason, each and every act of sexual intercourse has a procreative ‘significance’ (HV 12), ‘meaning and purpose’ (HV 13), a ‘finality’ (HV 3), and an ‘intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life’ (HV 11). The above mentioned ‘laws of conception’ have been established by God.
“Therefore, it is argued, intentionally thwarting the procreative capacity, significance and finality that said laws have endowed each and every act of sexual intercourse with ‘frustrates His design […] and contradicts the will of the Author of life’ (HV 13).
“Consequently, ‘sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive [is] intrinsically wrong’ and so is ‘any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means’ (HV 14).
“From the above, Humanae Vitae draws additional moral norms: First, using ‘artificial’ contraceptives to avoid conception is absolutely banned. The reason is that they ‘obstruct the natural development of the generative process’ (HV 16).
“Secondly, using Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods with the same intention of avoiding conception is morally legitimate. The reason is that in so doing a couple stand ‘within the limits of the order of reality established by God’ and ‘use a faculty provided them by nature’ (HV 16).
“An assessment shows that, this Argument from Natural Law is not supported by the relevant scientific evidence.
“The argument is that because the biological ‘laws of conception’ reveal that sexual intercourse has a ‘capacity to transmit life’ (HV13), each and every act of sexual intercourse has a ‘procreative significance’ (HV 12), ‘finality’ (HV 3), and an ‘intrinsic relationship’ to procreation (HV 11).
“This misinterprets the available biological evidence. The causal relationship between insemination, on one hand, and on the other hand, fertilization, implantation, and ultimately procreation, is statistical, not necessary.
“The vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse do not have the biological ‘capacity’ for procreation, and therefore they cannot have procreation as their ‘finality’ or ‘significance.’ To signify a non-existent reality is to signify an illusion.
“Hence, it is incorrect to affirm that each and every act of sexual intercourse must always ‘signify’ or intend procreation, or that people engaging in sexual intercourse must always be open to procreation in order to act morally.
“Secondly, it is mistaken to derive a moral prescription directly from a factual description alone. That is, it is mistaken to make a judgment of value about what morally ought to be the case directly from a judgment of fact about what is the case.
“However, this is what Humanae Vitae does when it infers that people engaging in sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of procreation from the incorrect fact that each and every act of sexual intercourse has a procreative finality.
“For the same reason, it is also incorrect to deduce a divine command directly from the existence of a law of nature. But this is what Humanae Vitae does when asserting that the above mentioned moral prescription is God’s will.
“The affirmation that human beings may not interfere with the biological laws regulating human reproduction because they have been established by God is in contradiction with observational evidence on how human beings interact with the created order.
“As agents of reason, human beings have a unique capacity to intentionally alter the schedule of probabilities inherent in the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature. This is a reality of daily life.
“For instance, any sort of medical intervention, from something as insignificant as taking pain-killers to something as consequential as performing cardiovascular surgery, affects probabilities of healing, survival, death, etc.
“Furthermore, the decision not to intervene in natural processes also affects those probabilities, just as choosing to intervene does.
“The moral question is not whether to alter the schedule of probabilities within natural processes, but rather whether, when, and how doing so is conducive to human flourishing and the flourishing of all creation.
"Furthermore, it is contradictory to affirm, on the one hand, that as a general principle 'sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive [is] intrinsically wrong,' and on the other hand, that it is morally legitimate to practice natural fa,ily planning with the 'intention to avoid children and [the] wish to make sure that none will result” (HV 16)...' "
Kwa ufupi, Privatus anasema kuwa umbo la hoja ya Papa linakubaliana na misingi ya kusanifu hoja zenye miundo halali (valid arguments).
Lakini anadai kuwa hitimisho lake la kimaadili halijatokana, na haliwezi kutokana na madokezo yake ya kimaumbile pekee.
Maana yake ni kwamba, hoja hii inakiuka kanuni za kusanifu hoja zenye maudhui yanayoheshimu kanuni ya ukweli (sound arguments).
Kwa maoni ya Privatus, hoja iliyo katika "Humanae Vitae" inachanganya maembe na machungwa.
Yaani, inaanzia kwenye madokezo yanayotaja kanuni za kimaumbile pekee na kisha, bila kuonyesha uhalali wa kimantiki, kuibuka na hitimisho linalotaja kanuni ya kimaadili.
Wanazuoni wengi, wakiwemo wanateolojia mamboleo, wanakubaliana kuwa haiwezekani kuzalisha kanuni ya kimaadili kutokana na kanuni za kimaumbile pekee. Kufanya hivyo ni kutenda kosa la kimantiki liitwalo "naturalistic fallacy."
Kwa maneno mengine, hoja iliyotajwa hapo juu inavunja "kanuni ya NOFI," yaani “No Ought From Is Principle,” au “NOFI Principle” kwa ufupi.
Kanuni hii pia hufahamika kama "Hume's Law." Privatus amekufa akiwa ameushikilia msimamo huu kwa uthabiti.
Katika hoja ya pili ninayoiona kwenye andiko lake Privatus anakosoa hoja ya Papa inayoanzia kwenye maneno, "the unitive significance and the procreative significance."
Maneno haya yanayopatikana kwenye ibara ya 12 ya waraka wa Humanae Vitae. Kuhusu maneno haya Privatus anasema:
"The meanings of the phrases, 'unitive significance' and 'procreative significance' were not supplied by the Pope. But they appear to imply the following paraphrases: '[token-to-type] unitive significance' and '[token-to-type] procreative significance.' This interpretation immediately invokes the metaphysics of the token-to-type significances of human sexual intercourse. This metaphysics has to be articulated and understood first before the Pope's argument can make sense to the reader."
Ili kukosoa hoja hii, Privatus anajadili kwa kina dhana ya "type-token significance and metaphysics of human sexuality". Kuhusu metafizikia hii, nitamnukuu kwa kirefu:
"The terms “type” and “token” were introduced in 1906 by an American philosopher called Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) ...
"The type-token distinction is a useful model in various fields where it is necessary to describe pervasive relationships between repeatable abstract objects, such as the single word “the” and their concrete instances, such as the numerous individual occurrences of that word on a page...
"Today, the distinction between 'token' and 'type' is a division that practically all contemporary philosophers accept. As an example, the phrase 'the same' in the sentence 'Two ladies wore the same dress' means the same “type of dress,” but not the same 'token of dress...'
"In general, tokens are particulars, and types are universals. That is, there is a one-to-many relationship between types and their tokens. To see this point, let us consider the sentence, 'The world is everything that is the case.'
"There are eight words, if we are counting word-tokens; and six words, if we count word-types, since two of those word-types, “the” and “is,” occur twice each.
"In one sense, each word-token is said to represent, stand for, signify, denote a particular word-type, namely, the type whose essential formal features are shared by the token.
"In another sense, tokens are said to instantiate, exemplify, embody, manifest types.
"In either sense, tokens are treated as individuals, singles, particulars, substances, objects. They are concrete, real, material.
"Types, on the other hand, are like sorts, kinds, forms, properties, classes, sets, universals. They are said to be abstract, ideal, immaterial.
"Empirical information about tokens of a type do play a role in justifying our knowledge about the type. So there must be something about the nature of the relation types bear to their tokens which makes the move from knowledge of the concrete to knowledge of the abstract possible.
"The challenge of explaining the nature of the ontological relationship between types and tokens in an epistemically illuminating way is often called the type-token problem. There are two traditional solutions to this problem: the instantiation view and the representation view...
"According to the instantiation view, the solution to the type-token problem has the following form:
"There is a certain one-to-many relation R that a type T bears to its tokens, where a type T is instantiated by its tokens, and it is in virtue of this instantiation that empirical information about tokens of T can play a role in justifying our knowledge about T...
"According to the representation view, the solution to the type-token problem has the following form:
"There is a certain one-to-many relation R that a type T bears to its tokens, where a type T is represented by its tokens, and it is in virtue of this representation that empirical information about a token of T can play a role in justifying our knowledge about T...
"Thus, a representation is a proxy or symbol, something whose function is to stand for its representatum. Besides paintings and photographs, the class of representations includes maps, numerals, hand gestures, traffic signs, horn signals and much else...
"Thus, according to the representation view, the move from tokens to types is not a matter of straight forward inductive generalization. It is not like justifying a belief about Panthera leo class of lions by an appeal to particular lions. Instead, it is more like justifying it by an appeal to pictures in zoological books.
"Usually, in learning about an object, we can use its representations. We can justify our beliefs about the shape of a country by looking at a map, and we can justify our beliefs about the condition of the road ahead of us by looking at a traffic sign at the side of the road.
"Of course, the map or the traffic signs do not by themselves do all the justification: we must also be justified in thinking that they represent their objects correctly.
"Generally, reality is perceived through appearances that are taken as signs referring to it. When, however, appearances are incompatible, such as when a stick in water looks bent but feels straight to the touch, it must be admitted, if one is to have a coherent picture of reality, that some appearances are illusory and may lead to error regarding the real.
"Because the status of appearance is equivocal, one is forced to distinguish between those appearances that correspond with reality and those appearances that correspond with illusion. The distinction will depend on a conception of reality that can serve as a criterion for judging appearances. Whatever is conformable to this conception of the real will be given value; whatever is opposed to it will be denied value.
"The apparent, what is taken for real by common sense or unenlightened opinion, will be devalued because it does not correspond to what actually deserves the name. Every ontology, or theory about the nature of being, makes use of this philosophical process that gives value to certain aspects of reality and denies it to others according to dissociations that it justifies by developing a particular conception of reality.
"Generally, signs and reality are the two fundamental topics of ontology. Reality is whatever exists independently of how we think about it. Signs are those aspects of reality that living things use to interpret, act upon, and communicate about reality. Every signal in a neuron, every thought in a brain, every bit in a computer, and every symbol in any language, natural or artificial, is a sign..."
Ni kwa mujibu wa nadharia hii ya "token-to-type significance", Privatus anasema kwamba fundisho linalopatikana kwenye aya ifuatayo, haliwezi kusimama:
“This particular doctrine ['that each and every marital act of sexual intercourse must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life’], often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the [token-to-type] unitive significance and the [token-to-type] procreative significance which are both inherent to [every instance of] the marriage act ['of sexual intercourse'].” (Pope Paul VI, 1968: Humanae Vitae, No. 12).
Kwa kuanzia katika ibara hii, Privatus anasema kuwa, hoja ya pili na ambayo ni hoja ya msingi zaidi katika Waraka mzima, ni kama ifuatavyo:
- Semiotically speaking, each and every act of sexual intercourse has an inherent "unitive significance," meaning that it is a unitive sign which represents the reality of a coital society that entails coital unity by reason of spatial, temporal and psychological proximity between the heterosexually copulating pair; (Descriptive)
- Semiotically speaking, each and every act of sexual intercourse has an inherent "procreative significance," meaning that it is a procreative sign which represents the reality of a parental society that entails parental unity between the father and the mother by reason of their biological child; (Descriptive)
- Thus, there is a semiotic "connection ... between the unitive significance and the procreative significance " of "sexual intercourse," since it is the same sign which represents the reality of a coital society and the reality of a parental society; (Descriptive)
- There is a part-whole relationship between a coital society and a parental society, that entails mereological unity between the parts and the whole, meaning that, there is an inseparable mereological connection between the whole family and its parts; (Descriptive)
- Thus, there is an inseparable semiotic connection "between the unitive significance and the procreative significance " of "sexual intercourse" (Descriptive)
- Unless a convention or an illusory appearance applies, semiotics teaches that, significance, also known as signification, is a relationship between a referent and a reference, where the reference is an entity whose appearance signifies the reality of a referent by reason of a natural relationship between the two; (An assumption implicit in Humanae Vitae)
- Thus, positive contraception breaks the semiotic and mereological connections "between the unitive significance and the procreative significance" of "sexual intercourse,” by thwarting "unitive significance and procreative significance simultaneously, thus, falsifying the truth that would be represented by the marriage act of sexual intercourse; (Descriptive)
- Positive contraception is akin to telling a lie, which is contrary to the natural law of morality. (Descriptive)
- Thus, positive contraception violates the natural moral law; (Prescriptive)
- Violating the natural law of morality ia wrong. (Prescriptive)
- Thus, positive contraception is morally wrong . (Prescriptive)
Kuhusu dokezo la 5 anasema kuwa, ni kweli kwamba mtu akitumia kinga mimba anakuwa ameweka kando "procreative significance."
Lakini anaongeza kusema kuwa sio madai ya kweli kwamba, kwa sababu hiyo pekee, anakuwa pia ametupilia mbali "unitive significance." Anatoa ufafanuzi kupitia hoja mbili za kimetafizikia zifuatazo:
"By reason of the oxytocin hormone that accompanies orgasm, contracepted coitus is the first step toward the continuity of a heterosexual bond called a coital society (marriage), meaning that, at physiological and psychological levels, contracepted coitus is a human activity which is unitive in type.
"By reason of spatial and temporal unity between a copulating pair, each and every contracepted sexual activity , which is the antecedent of a coital society, is a human activity which is unitive in token, even if it is not procreatively unitive.
"Thus, there is a token-to-type unitive significance inherent in each and every contracepted coitus."
Anachokiongelea hapa Privatus, kinaitwa "post-sex afterglow" katika sayansi ya ujinsia wa binadamu. matumizi ya kingamimba hayafuti ukweli huu. Lakini, Privatus hakuishia hapo. Anaendelea kusema:
"By reason of inseminatory sex act that triggers the sexual reproduction cycle, uncontracepted coitus is procreative in type.
"If all goes well, by reason of fertilization and conception following uncontracepted coitus, this act of uncontracepted coitus becomes procreative in token.
"Thus, there is a token-to-type procreative significance inherent in uncontracepted coitus."
Hivyo, kwa mtazamo wa Privatus, katika ngazi ya homoni, kama wahusika wameridhiana, hakuna "coital sex" ambayo sio "physiologically unitive."
Hivyo, anaona kuwa“contraception is extrinsically evil.” Yaani, uharamu wa kitendo cha kutumia kingamimba unategemea aina ya kingamimba iliyotumika na mazingira husika.
Kwa ufupi, Privatus aliamini na kufundisha wazi wazi kwamba, kingamimba aina ya kondomu ni miongoni mwa kingamimba ambazo zinaweza, na zinapaswa, kutumika kihalali katika mazingira fulani.
Kwa ujumla, Privatus amevipiga vita mwendo ameumaliza, bado zamu yetu.
karugendo hayaa inahunishaa
