Doctor Mama Amon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,161
- 2,928
I. Utangulizi
Askofu Severine NiweMugizi ni miongoni mwa Maaskofu wa Kanisa Katoliki machachari sana.
Huwa hataki kulala na dukuduku moyoni mwake hata siku moja.
Pia historia yake kama Askofu inaonyesha kwamba ni mtu asiyependa wala kuvumilia ukaidi dhidi ya mamlaka halali.
Hata hivyo, salamu zake za Krismas ya 2023 ziliambatana na maoni yake binafsi kuhusu tamko liitwalo "Fiducia Supplicans" lililotolewa na Papa Francis, hapo 18 Desemba 2023, akiwa anaonyesha ukaidi wa wazi dhidi ya Papa, ambaye ni mamlaka yake ya kinidhamu.
Askofu NiweMugizi ametoa maoni yake wakati ambapo tayari makuhani kadhaa, wakiwemo Askofu Ruwaichi wa Dar es Salaam, Flavian Cassala wa Geita, na Padre Titus Amigu wa Songea, wametoa maoni yao dhidi ya agizo la bosi wao Papa Francis.
Kuna maoni mseto ndani na nje ya Afrika, wanaompinga Papa wakidai kuwa tamko la Papa linapingana na "hazina ya imani," yaani "deposit of faith," tuliyorithishwa na Yesu. Wanaomuunga mkono Papa wanasema "hazina ya imani" husika haijaguswa kabisa na tamko la Papa.
Lakini pia, kuna baadhi ya maoni yaliyotolewa yanawaweka makuhani husika katika kundi moja na dikteta maarufu Adolf Hitler wa Ujerumani aliyefundisha kwamba mashoga, wayahudi, gypsies, wazee na walemavu ni "uchafu" unaopaswa kuondolewa kwenye jamii ili kutengeneza kizazi bora cha Watu.
Mpaka leo dunia inampinga Hitler kwa sababu ya kuwaita wanadamu hawa "uchafu," na kisha kuwateketeza kwenye chemba za gesi, na hivyo kusigina utu wao.
Kwa sababu hizi, hapa chini nitafupisha salamu za Askofu NiweMugizi na kisha kufanya udadisi juu ya baadhi ya mawazo yake dhidi ya tamko liitwalo "Fiducia Supplicans."
Lengo ni kuhuisha fikra za Kikatoliki kuhusu ujinsia wa binadamu kama unavyofahamika leo katika milenia ya tatu.
II. Muhtasari wa salamu za Askofu NiweMugizi
Sehemu ya hotuba ya Askofu NiweMugizi inasikika kama ifuatavyo:
Naitwa Severine NiweMugizi, kwa neema ya Mungu tu, Askofu wa Jimbo Katoliki la Rulenge Ngara. Naomba nikuletee salam na ujumbe wa Krismasi ya 2023....
Mpendwa msikilizaji tunaalikwa kumkubali mtoto Yesu azaliwe mioyoni mwetu. Aiguse mioyo yetu ibadilike kuwa mioyo safi. Atuguse tuwajibike inavyopasa....
Tumuombe atuguse tuache dhambi, uhasama, visasi, uvivu, uzembe, utapeli wa aina mbalimbali...
Tunaadhimisha Krismas hii pia baada ya Baba Mtakatifu, Fransis, kuridhia waraka uitwao "Fiducia Supplicans" yaani "Supplicating Trust."
Hili ni tamko kuhusu fundisho la Kikatoliki lililochapishwa mwezi huu, Desemba, na Dikasteri au Idara inayohusika na mafundisho ya imani ya Kikatoliki. Ujumbe wa Waraka umezua taharuki ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki.
Sababu ni maagizo ya Papa yasemayo kwamba maaskofu na mapadre wanalo jukumu la kubariki watu walio katika miungano isiyo ndoa halali ikiwa ni pamoja na miungano ya wale watu wa jinsia moja, yaani mashoga na wasagaji.
Hasa dhamira za watu zimejeruhika kwa sababu ya tamko hilo na kumekuwepo na mlipuko wa mijadala kuhusu hilo...
Msimamo wa Kanisa katika mafundisho ya msingi ya imani na maadili hauwezi kubadilishwa na mtu mmoja. Papa peke yake hana mamlaka ya kubadilisha mafundisho hayo, kama hayuko katika ushirika kamili na maaskofu wenzake.
Ufunuo wa maandiko matakatifu unaweka wazi kwamba ndoa ni muungano kati ya mwanamume na mwanamke. Na Yesu amesema wazi hasa ukisoma enjili ya Mathayo sura ya kumi na tisa... Nanukuu:
"Basi Mafarisayo wakamwendea, wakamjaribu, wakimwambia, Je! Ni halali mtu kumwacha mkewe kwa sababu yoyote? Akajibu, akawaambia, Hamkusoma ya kwamba yeye aliyewaumba mwanzo, aliwaumba mwanamume na mwanamke akasema, Kwa sababu hiyo, mtu atamwacha babaye na mamaye, ataambatana na mkewe; na hao wawili watakuwa mwili mmoja?... Kwa maana wengine ni matowashi kwa sababu wamezaliwa hivyo; wengine wamefanywa matowashi na wanadamu; na wengine wamejifanya matowashi kwa ajili ya Ufalme wa Mbinguni." (Mathayo 19:3-6, 12).
Hapa ieleweke kuwa mtu yule anayetajwa hapa ni mwanaume... Mwanamke na mwanamke au mwanamume na mwanamume hawawezi kufunga ndoa iliyo halali....
Nitaje hapa, kama mchungaji wa Kanisa, Jimbo Katoliki la Rulenge Ngara, baraka ziombwazo na watu wa jinsia moja wanaokuja pamoja na wanafahamika kuwa mashoga au wasagaji ni marufuku kwa mapadre kuzitoa jimboni Rulenge Ngara.
Amri hii inatolewa kwa sababu kwa sura ya nje baraka hiyo inaweza kutafsirika kuwa ni kuwathibitisha na kuwaombea waendelee na wastawi katika muungano huo ambao ni dhambi.
Hali hii itakuwa kinyume na Kristo na kikwazo kwa jamii ya waamini na hasa ukifanyika hadharani.
Nirudie tena kusema, kama waraka ulivyotambua wale watu wa jinsia moja wanaokuja kanisani hawawezi kufukuzwa. Ni wana wa Mungu kwa vyovyote. Na hao wakija kuomba kufanya kitubio watabarikiwa ili waungame na kuacha muungano ulio dhambi. Huo ndio msimamo halisi.
Baadhi ya maelezo yaliyo katika waraka yanaonekana yana mtego fulani, kwa sababu baada ya kutolewa kwa huo waraka tayari watu walianza kufurika kwa mapadre kwenda kuomba baraka na wakiwa wameshikana mikono. Hali hii inaleta kikwazo fulani.
Hivyo, tutulie na Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki Tanzania muda si mrefu litatoa pia tamko au msimamo kuhusiana na waraka huu....
III. Maswali yanayoibuliwa na salamu za Askofu NiweMugizi
Kwa sehemu kubwa salamu za NiweMugizi hazina tatizo. Anasisitiza kuwa Tamko la Papa halijatengua mafundisho rasmi ya Kanisa Katoliki kuhusu ndoa ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani. Sawa.
Tatizo liko kwenye sehemu moja tu ambapo anakaidi agizo la Papa Francis ambaye ametoa agizo kwamba maaskofu na mapadre wanalo jukumu la kubariki watu walio katika miungano isiyo ndoa halali ikiwa ni pamoja na miungano ya wale watu wa jinsia moja, yaani mashoga na wasagaji, pale Watu hawa watakapoomba baraka hizo.
Askofu NiweMugizi amekaidi hadharani agizo la Papa kwa kutumia hoja kwamba ni agizo haramu kwa mujibu wa maandiko matakatifu. Ukaidi huu unaambatana na changamoto kadhaa kama zinavyojadiliwa hapa chini.
Tatizo la dua za viongozi wa dini kwenye mikutano ya serikali "kubaraki" mashoga na walawiti
Awali ya yote naona kwamba, Askofu NiweMugizi hakutafakari vema juu ya kile anachokisema. Dua za kidini zinazotolewa na viongozi wa dini ni baraka anazoziongelea Askofu NiweMugizi. Dua katika mikutano ya serikali ni baraka kwa watumishi wa serikali na wananchi kwa ujumla. Baadhi ya wahudhuriaji ni walawiti na walawitiwa, ama kwa sababu ya ushoga au vinginevyo.
Mfano, kuna wanajeshi wanaolawiti watu kama adhabu na kusambaza video mitandaoni. Kuna ma-DC, ma-RC na ma-DEC wanaowalawiti wanawake kwa kutumia ushawishi wa zawadi kubwa kubwa kama vile simu za i-phone, kuwanunulia magari na kuwajengea nyumba.
Hivyo, kupitia dua zile za viongozi wa dini, watu wote hawa wanabarikiwa bila kuwatofautisha. Na tena kwake yeye Askofu Mkatoliki anayeendesha sakrament ya kitubio anaujua vizuri ukweli huu kuliko watu baki.
Kwa hiyo, naona kwamba Askofu NiweMugizi anakuwa ndumilakuwili katika topiki anayoijadilia. Akitaka asiwe ndumilakuweili ni lazima ajitenge na kusoma dua kwenye mikutano ya kiserikali.
Tatizo la kusahau kutofautisha maneno "fiducia" na "fides"
Wanateolojia na wanafalasafa ya lugha wanatofautisha kati ya "Fiducia" na "fides." Wakati "fiducia" linamaanisha "affective faith" neno "fides" linamaanisha "rational faith."
Kuhusu tofauti hii Chia na Juanda (2020), katika makala yao "Understanding the Relationship Between Faith and Knowledge," iliyochapishwa kwenye Jarida liitwalo Didaskalia (Volume 3, issue Number 1), ukurasa wa 2-3, wanasema yafuatayo:
"Faith is employed both as an epistemological and as a non-epistemological term. The words fides and fiducia provide conveniently self explanatory labels for the two uses.
"We speak, on the one hand, of faith (fides) that there is a God and that such and such propositions about him are true. Here ‘faith’ is used cognitively, referring to a state, act, or procedure which may be compared with standard instances of knowing and believing.
"On the other hand, we speak of faith (fiducia) as a trust, maintained sometimes despite contrary indications, that the divine purpose toward us is wholly good andloving.5 Hick, thus, defines faith not only in area of cognitive but also feeling."
"Speaking theologically, faith has passive and active meaning. Passively, faith is God’s work in us that changes us and gives new birth from God (John 1:13). Actively, on the other hand, it means believing, obeying, trusting, hoping, and being faithful in Christ and Holy Scripture. Therefore, faith is two-sided coin. On one hand, it has a beginning, in the past, but it does not stop but it is ‘on going’ activity such as obeying and being faithful."
Ni katika mazingira haya Papa anataja maana tofauti za neno "baraka." Hivyo, naona kuwa, kwa kuzigatia maana hizo tofauti, Askofu NiweMugizi alipaswa kutaja maandiko mataktifu yanayokataza "baraka" maalum kwa miungano ya watu wanaojihusisha na mapenzi ya jinsia moja. Hakufanya hivyo.
Kimsingi, ukiangalia Tamko la Papa, na ukazingatia tofauti za maneno "Fiducia" na "fides" ambazo Askofu NiweMugizi anazofahamu vizuri kuliko mimi, "hazina ya imani" kwa maana ya "fides" bado iko salama.
Tamko la Papa ni ufafanuzi unaowataka makasisi kuondokana na dhana kwamba homosexuals, transgenders, intersexuals na eunuchs ni "uchafu" kama alivyokuwa anaamini na kushikilia Papa Yohane Paul wa pili.
Na bado Papa Yohanne Paul II anao wafuasi wake leo wenye kufikiri namna hii. Askofu Flavian Cassala ni mmoj wao. Lkini zama za sayansi zimepindua mtazamo huo.
Askofu NiweMugizi ni mtalam wa sheria za Kanisa. Anajua vema kwamba sheria za Kanisa zinatofautisha kati ya mawazo yafuatayo: "ratification," "consumation," "blessing," "marital act," na mawazo baki kama haya.
Katika mipaka ya misamiati hii Tamko la Papa Francis halijakiuka sheria za Kanisa. Ni agizo halali, na ukaidi wa Askofu NiweMugizi ni haramu inayistahili adhabu ya kiutawala.
Baraka anazoziongelea Papa Francis hazina tofauti na zile zinazotolewa kwa wezi wakubwa waliothibitika kwamba wameiba, na hawajarudisha walichokiiba. Mpaka leo tunawaona Kanisani wakipokea baraka.
Hivyo, ufafanuzi wa Askofu NiweMugizi unaibua maswali yafuatayo: Kasisi anaweza kuogopa kutekeleza majukumu yake kwa sababu tu ya hofu kwamba watu wanaweza kutafsiri matendo yake isivyo? Kama jawabu ni ndiyo, kwa nini kuna undumilakuweili kuhusu baraka kwa wezi wanaofahamika kwa jamii na wazinzi wa jinsia moja?
Tatizo la kisemantiki
Lakini pia, kuna tatizo la kisemantiki na kiepistemolojia. Kanisa Katoliki linamaanisha nini linapotumia neno "ushoga"? Na linatumia utaratibu gani kuwatambua mashoga na wasagaji?
Kuna matukio kadhaa yanaonyesha kwamba, ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki, neno "ushoga" linatumika kihuni kama silaha ya kipropaganda kwa ajili ya kuwanyamazisha wakosoaji wa baadhi ya misimamo tata ya kanisa katoliki tena wakati mwingine dhidi ya watu wasio na hatia. Mifano ipo.
Kifo cha Rodney Mutie Mengi mwaka 2005 kilizua mvutano kati ya baadhi ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki na Reginald Mengi, mzazi wa Rodney.
Mengi aliweka bayana kwamba mwanaye alikufa kwa UKIMWI, hivyo akahimiza watu kuwa waaminifu au kuwa waangalifu kwa kujikinga kwa kutumia kondomu.
Miongoni mwa watu walio mjibu tena kwa maandishi kupitia magazeti ni Askofu NiweMugizi.
Baadaye kidogo, gazeti la Kiongozi likaunga mkono pilika hizi kwa kuchapisha habari isemayo kuwa "Serikali Ikemee Ushoga."
Kisha Askofu KIlaini akawaita Maparoko wote wa Dar na kuwapa orodha ya watu ambao anaona kuwa ama ni manabii wa "ushoga" au mashoga kabisa, kwa sababu tu kwamba wanaandika kuhimiza matumizi ya kondomu kama kingamagonjwa na/au kingamimba.
Maparoko wakasukuma taarifa hizi kwa walei, na walei wakazisambaza mitaani na serikalini.
Mie taarifa hizi zilinifikia kupitia mjumbe was baraza la walei parokia ya kimara.
"Paroko amesema kuwa Askofu KIlaini amekutaja kwenye orodha ya mashoga. Pia wamo Mashanga na Priva," mtoa taarifa alisema.
Nikamshukuru kwa taarifa na kuingia kazini.
Nilikuwa najua kuwa Professional Janet Smith ameandika kitabu kizuri just ya mada ya "contraception" kikiitwa "He manage Vitae: A generation Later."
Nikatinga Cathedral Bookshop na kuweka oder. Mpaka kesho naisubiri order hiyo. "Baba Askofu KIlaini amesitisha order yako," wahudumu was duka la vitabu walinijuza.
Sikuchoka. Nikitumia mifereji baking ya maarifa kukielimisha. Sasa Nina weledi wa masumbwi ya hoja kwa kiwango Cha kumtoa kwa knock out Askofu KIlaini katika raundi ya Kwanza.
Kwa ujumla, picha kubwa niliyoibaini hapa ni kwamba , kina KIlaini wanaamini kuwa mapenzi ya jenitalia kwa jenitalia yanayofanyika kwa kutumia kingamimba kama vile kondomu ni tendo la kishoga.
Yaani, huu ni mtazamo kwamba watu wawili wa jinsia tofauti, na hivyo ambao sio mashoga, wanaweza kufanya tendon la kishoga.
Lakini ukweli ni kwamba, pasipo "homo-affective condition" hakuwezi kuwepo na "homosexual acts."
Na inaonekana kwamba, haya ndiyo mafundisho wanayopewa vijana wetu huko seminarini. Wanafunzwa teolojia ya ushoga inayowafanya mbele ya jamii waonekane Kama Watu wenye kuumwa ugonjwa wa umachuaveli wa kiteolojia (theological machiavellism)
Ni mafundisho mabovu yanayoliweka Kanisa Katoliki karibu na mafundisho ya kishirikina na kuliweka mbali na mafundisho ya kisayansi kuhusu ujijsia was binadamu.
Lakini, bado kuna shida kubwa zaidi katika eneo hili la kisemantiki.
Maelezo mengi ya makasisi wetu, akiwemo Askofu Ruwaichi wa Jimbo Kuu la Dar es Salaam, hayatofautishi kati ya "homo-affective condition" na "homosexual acts."
Utafiti unaonyesha kwamba, mkanganyiko huu umeenezwa mpaka ngazi ya ndoa kupitia mafundisho kwa wanandoa kabla ya kufunga ndoa.
Wakati wa mafundishi haya ya wanandoa, maparoko wengi wanawambia "wanafunzi wao" kwamba "ni mwiko kwa wanandoa kufanya ushoga," yaani ulawiti, utadhani kwamba mashoga wote wanafanya ulawiti.
Wanachofanya maparoko hawa ni sawa na kufanya uenjilishaji wa kufundisha amri za Mungu kwa kuwambia waumini kwamba: usiue kama wanavyofanya Wanyakyusa, usizini kama wanavyofanya wahaya, usiibe kama wanavyofanya wachaga, usiseme uwongo kama wanavyofanya wazaramo, usitamani mke wa jirani yako kama wanavyofanya wangoni, na orodha inaendelea.
Lakini, sio Wanyakyusa wote ni wauaji, sio Wahaya wote ni wazinzi, sio wachaga wote ni wezi, na kadhalika, Kwa hiyo, uenjilishaji wa aina hii ni matumizi ya mbinu haramu kwa ajili ya kufanikisha lengo zuri, yaani "umachiaveli."
Basi, kwa njia hii maparoko wanawavisha miwani ya kishoga wanandoa na wao kuanza kuitazama dunia kwa kutumia miwani hiyo. Miwani hii ni tatizo la kijamii maana inawaonyesha "ushoga" hewa.
Tatizo hapa ni kwamba, maparoko husika wanasahau kuwa sio kila ulawiti ni tendo la kishoga na kwamba tendo la ulawiti kati ya mwanamke na mwanamume sio, na haliwezi kuwa, tendo la kishoga.
Kimsingi, kuna janga la kisemantiki ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki kuhusu maana ya neno "ushoga." Napenda kufahamu Askofu NiweMugizi anayo maoni gani kuhusu tatizo hili.
Tatizo la kiepistemolojia
Kiepistemolojia pia kuna tatizo kubwa. Kuna waseminari kadhaa huko seminari kuu wamekuwa wakiachishwa masomo kwa sababu ya madai kwamba wana "vidole vya kishoga," ambavyo ni dalili ya ushoga.
Yaani wakuu wa seminari wanatumia "second to fourth digit ratio (2D:4D ratio)," mbinu ambayo haikubaliki kisayansi. Nimewashuhudia Padre Kaombe, hayati Profesa Kanywanyi, na watu baki wakitumia mbinu hii pia.
Kuna makruta waliwahi kufukuzwa kwenye mafunzo kwa kutumia kigezo hiki pia. Kuna dalili kwamba "mafundisho tata ya Kikatoliki kuhusu namna ya kuutambua ushoga" yalikuwa na mchango hapa pia. Hili ni janga la kiepistemolojia katika jamii. Napenda kufahamu Askofu NiweMugizi anayo maoni gani kuhusu tatizo hili.
Tatizo la "tuhuma hewa" za kumomonyolewa kwa "hazina ya imani " Katoliki
Kuna madai yasiyo kweli kwamba Tamko la Papa limemomonyoa "hazina ya imani" Katoliki. Propaganda hii inaenezwa sana na mabaraza ya Maaskofu sehemu nyingi duniani. Inafika mahali ninatilia shaka weledi wao juu ya kile wanachokiongelea.
Kwa ufupi, hoja ya "Fiducia Suplicans" (Suplicating Trust) inaweza kufupishwa katika sentensi tatu kama ifuatavyo:
- Liturgical blessings, such as marital ratification, are exclusively reserved for individuals and heterosexual couples who are living in regular situations, meaning that, their lifestyles are compatible with God's will.
- Non-liturgical blessings can be administered to individuals and couples who are living in either regular situations or in irregular situations, meaning that, even individuals and couples whose lifestyles are incompatible with God's will, can receive them.
- Thus, couples in irregular situations such as a cohabitating couple, a contracepting couple, a polygamous couple, a couple in civil marriage, a pedicating heterosexual couple, and a pedicating homosexual couple can receive non-liturgical blessings, as a means toward conversion to perfection.
"The document Fiducia supplicans (FS) of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) claims that priests may, in certain circumstances, give blessings to “couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples” (Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, “Presentation”; FS 31). The qualifying circumstances include the following factors: scandal must be avoided (FS 30, 39), the blessing is to be informal and not performed in a liturgical setting (FS 9-11, 23-24, 31-39), and the blessing must neither lead to confusion (FS 5) nor signal a change in the Church’s moral teaching (Fernández, “Presentation,”; FS 3, 4)...
"FS includes a helpful set of reflections on the various kinds and parts of blessings (a descending gift from God, an ascending prayer of praise or thanksgiving to God, and an extending of blessing towards another). In this essay, I focus on the descending aspect. A blessing is chiefly (as a descending reality) a gift of divine assistance in the present for the ultimate good of the recipient. As such, a blessing is a means to an end. The ultimate end of any blessing is of course eternal salvation, but the proximate end is some present good suitable for the journey to heaven. A blessing targets the recipient either simply as a person—called to be a son or daughter of God—or according to some special aspect, activity, or purpose in life. If the blessing targets a special activity, it gives wings, so to speak, to the person in that activity, approving it and assisting it...
"In its climactic paragraph, it states, 'Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex' (FS 31). Clearly, FS is here treating persons as partners. Thus, it is treating them under a special aspect, namely, as being partners in various kinds of non-marital sexual relationship: unmarried, adulterous, and homosexual...
Pia Dkt. Erick Ybara(2023) kwenye post yako moja mtandaoni anaongeza ufafanuzi ufuatao kuhusu waraka huu:
"Liturgical blessings require the object to conform to God’s will. Enduring and maintaining a SS union does not conform to God’s will. Therefore, SS unions cannot be the object of a liturgical blessing.
"However, blessings are not to be reduced to liturgical blessings (only), since, there are blessings such as the one given by God to mankind by sending His Son to be our Lord and Saviour. Just that blessing on its own had as object the unworthy, sinful, and fallen world of man. Such a blessing surely had no preconditions nor did it require us to do anything. It was all a move of God’s free and undeserved mercy, love, and grace.
"From this consideration, a pastoral option opens for the Church to use the power of the priesthood to administer blessings towards SS unions without requiring the couples to quit their sin...
"The blessing should fall upon the couple in such a way that the persons, as objects, have enriched everything that is 'good, true, and humanly valid' in their lives. So the blessing is for the enrichment of whatever is good, true, and beautiful in their life. Not only that, but it says that the blessing might enrich all that is good, true, and humanly valid in their lives “and in their relationships"...
Kwa kuzingatia ukweli huu, nimesikiliza maelezo ya Askofu NiweMugizi ili niweze kubaini wapi Tamko la Papa linasigina "hazina ya imani" ("deposit of faith") kwa kiwango ambacho kinahalalisha ukadi wa hadharani kama alivyofanya. Pia nimepitia maoni ya "Maaskofu Waasi" sehemu mbalimbali duniani kwenye andiko "List of opponents of Fiducia supplicans" lililoko Wikipedia.
Nilitaka kujua wapi Papa amekosea. Kuna maelezo ya jumla kwamba Papa amekiuka mafundisho Katoliki kuhusu ndoa ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani. Lakini nikisoma tamko la Papa sioni jambo hilo. Nataka kuonyesha ukweli huu kwa kuanzia mwaka 1968. Tuanzie hapa:
"Marriage … is … the wise and provident institution … whose purpose …[is] to effect in man …[a] loving design ... as a consequence [of which], husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another … in the generation and rearing of new lives." (Pope Paul VI (1968), Humanae Vitae, para 8).
"This particular doctrine [that each and every marital act 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 unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." (Pope Paul VI (1968), Humanae Vitae, para 12).
"Therefore ... excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse [between two fertile heterosexual persons], is specifically intended to prevent procreation [using a condom, swallowing contraceptive pill, vasectomy, tubal ligation, using a cervical barrier, norplants, withdrawal, fellatio, manual sex, thigh sex, interbreast sex, armpit sex, heterosexual pedication or homosexual pedication]." (Pope Paul VI (1968), Humanae Vitae, para 14).
Hivyo, kihistoria, kwenye mipaka ya Waraka wa Humanae Vitae, fasili ya ndoa ifuatayo inahusika:
"Heterosexual marriage is a union between a man and a woman which is ratified in public under an oath to live together for their entire common life to the exclusion of all others, as husband and wife, after it has been consummated by sexual acts which simultaneously entail unitive significance and procreative significance, and which are then regularly used to actualize it, regardless of whether they are procreative in effect or otherwise." (My synthesis from Humanae Vitae 1968, para 8, 11, 12).
Kwa kuzingatia mafundisho haya, mwaka 1983 sheria ya Kanisa Katoliki, iliyoandaliwa na Papa Yohanne Paul II akiwa kama mtunga sheria mkuu wa Kanisa, chini ya kifungu cha 1055(1), ilitoa fasili ifuatayo kuhusu ndoa:
"Marriage is a covenant , by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its very nature is ordered to the wellbeing of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children."
KIfungu cha cha 1057(2), kinafafanua kwamba:
"Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage."
Hatimaye, kifungu cha 1061(1) kinatofaitisha kati ya kubariki ndoa (ratification) na kuthibitisha ndoa kitandani (consumation) kama ifuatavyo:
"A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum (ratified) if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum (consumated) if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion (humano modo) a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh."
Chini ya vifungu hivi, kuna pointi mbili muhimu za kisheria. Pointi ya kwanza ni kwamba watu wanaohusika na utoaji wa ridhaa ya kufunga ndoa ("the subject of matrimonial consent”) ni mwanamume na mwanamke ("man and a woman)."
Na pointi ya pili ni kwamba, tendo la ngono linarodhiwa na wanandoa ("the object of matrimonial consent”) ni "a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring...by which the spouses become one flesh," yaani "tendo la ngono linaloweza kusababsha mimba ... ambalo huwafanya mwanamke na mwanamume kugeuka mwili mmoja".
Kwa kuzingatia ushahidi wa kisayansi tulio nao leo, pointi hizi mbili zikitazamwa kwa kutumia miwani ya kimantiki zinatualika kuuliza na kujibu maswali yafuatayo:
- "Is canonical marriage involving homosexual couples possible?
- "Is canonical marriage involving intersexual couples possible?
- "Is canonical marriage involving transgender couples possible?
- Is canonical marriage involving infertile couples possible?
- canonical marriage for homosexual couples is impossible since they are closed to new life.
- canonical marriage for intersexual couples is impossible since they are closed to new life
- canonical marriage for transgender couples is impossible since they are closed to new life
- canonical marriage for infertile couples is impossible since they are closed to new life
- Kama jawabu kwa maswali haya yote manne ni "hapana" kwa sababu ile ile ya "ugumba" nini hatima ya makundi haya ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki?
- Kama jawabu kwa maswali haya yote manne ni "hapana" kwa sababu ile ile ya "ugumba" kwa nini jozi ya mwanamke na mwanamume ambayo inahusisha angalau mgumba mmoja wanaruhusiwa kufunga ndoa Kanisani?
Lakini wako wanazuoni wanaopinga pendekezo hili kwa hoja kwamba maneno "mwanamke na mwanamume" yanatokana na mafundisho ya Biblia yasiyoweza kubadilishwa na binadamu.
Na kuhusu swali la pili, baadhi wansema kwamba, kwa kuwa ndoa ya wagumba hufanya mapenzi katika namna ambayo inatekeleza hatua ya kwanza ambayo ndoa ya wazazi hutekeleza, basi wanayo sifa ya kisheria ya kuwaruhusu kufunga ndoa kwa mujibu wa sheria za Kanisa.
Lakini, wanasayansi na wanafalsafa wanaozingatia ukweli kwamba pale ambapo yamkini ya utungo wa mimba ("final cause") kutokea ni ziro, basi, tendo la ngono ya jenitalia ya kiume ndani ya jenitalia ya kike ("efficient cause"), wahusika wakiwa ni jozi ya wapenzi wawili angalau mmojawapo akiwa mgumba, haliwezi kuwa na hadhi sawa na tendo la ngono ya watu ambao sio wagumba.
Kuhusu tofauti na uhusiano uliopo kati ya tendo la ngono ya kuingiza uume kwenye uke bila kutumia kingamimba ("efficient cause") na tukio la kutungwa kwa mimba ("final cause") wanazuoni wafuatao wanatupa mwanga zaidi, kama ifuatavyo:
Bertrand Russel (1953) anatundisha haya:
"Aristotle maintained that causes are of four kinds (namely, material, formal, efficient and final cause); modern science admits only one of the four. Two of Aristotle's four need not concern us; the two that do concern us are the "efficient" and the "final" cause.
The "efficient" cause is what we should call simply "the cause"; the "final" cause is the purpose. In human affairs this distinction has validity. Suppose you find a restaurant at the top of a mountain. The "efficient" cause is the carrying up of the materials and the arranging of them in the pattern of a house.
The "final" cause is to satisfy the hunger and thirst of tourists. In human affairs, the question "why?" is more naturally answered, as a rule, by assigning the final cause than by setting out the efficient cause.
If you ask "why is there a restaurant here?" the natural answer is "because many hungry and thirsty people come this way." But the answer by final cause is only appropriate where human volitions are involved. If you ask "why do many people die of cancer?" you will get no clear answer, but the answer you want is one assigning the efficient cause. This ambiguity in the word "why" led Aristotle to his distinction of efficient and final causes.
He thought—and many people still think—that both kinds are to be found everywhere: whatever exists may be explained, on the one hand, by the antecedent events that have produced it, and, on the other hand, by the purpose that it serves. But although it is still open to the philosopher or theologian to hold that everything has a "purpose," it has been found that "purpose" is not a useful concept when we are in search of scientific laws. We are told in the Bible that the moon was made to give light by night.
But men of science, however pious, do not regard this as a scientific explanation of the origin of the moon. Or, to revert to the question about cancer, a man of science may believe, in his private capacity, that cancer is sent as a punishment for our sins, but qua man of science hemust ignore this point of view.
We know of "purpose" in human affairs, and we may suppose that there are cosmicpurposes, but in science it is the past that determines thefuture, not the future the past. "Final" causes, therefore, donot occur in the scientific account of the world." (Source: Bertrand Russel (1953), The Impact of Science on Society (Routledge), p.10-11)
Profesa Edward Fesser (2008) aliandika yafuatayo:
“The universe is filled with natural regularities; this is uncontroversial. These include the regularities manifested in the biological realm–the way the heart pumps blood, thus keeping an organism alive, or the way a species is so adapted to its environment that its members can reliably find sources of food, reproduce themselves, and so forth–but Aquinas is not especially interested in these over any others. Indeed, unlike [William] Paley and ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents, he is not, for the purpose of the Fifth Way, particularly interested in complexity per se at all.
The regularity with which the moon orbits the earth, or the regularity of the way a struck match generates fire–both very simple examples compared to eyes, hearts, species, and the like–are no less important. Indeed, they are more important for his argument. For life is a fairly rare phenomenon, confined so far as we know only to the earth.
But the far simpler causal regularities I have been speaking of are completely general, and pervade the physical universe. Indeed, they largely constitute the physical universe, which can be thought of as a vast system of material elements interacting according to regular patterns of cause and effect. But there is no way to make sense of these regularities apart from the notion of final causation, of things being directed toward an end or goal.
For it is not just the case that a struck match regularly generates fire, heat, and the like; it regularly generates fire and heat specifically, rather than ice, or the smell of lilacs, or the sound of a trumpet. It is not just the case that the moon regularly orbits the earth in a regular pattern; it orbits the earth specifically, rather than quickly swinging out to Mars and back now and again, or stopping dead for five minutes here and there, or dipping down toward the earth occasionally and then quickly popping back up.
And so on for all the innumerable regularities that fill the universe at any moment. In each case, the causes don’t simply happen to result in certain effects, but are evidently and inherently directed toward certain specific effects as toward a ‘goal’ . . . This doesn’t mean they are consciously trying to reach these goals; of course they are not.
The Aristotelian idea is precisely that goal-directedness can and does exist in the natural world even apart from conscious awareness” [Source: Feser, Edward(2008), The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press), ebook].
Aidha, Professor Edward Fesser (2009) anasema yafuatay:
“It is the existence of any causal regularities at all that [Aquinas] takes to require explanation . . . For Aquinas, the fact that A regularly brings about B, as B’s efficient cause, entails that bringing about B is in turn the final cause of A.
For if we did not suppose that A inherently ‘points to’ or is ‘directed towards’ the generation of B as its natural end, then we would have no way to account for the fact that A typically does generate B specifically, rather than C, or D, or E, or indeed rather than no effect at all.
Of course, some interfering factor might prevent A from bringing about its typical effect, or from bringing it about fully or perfectly; this is why Aquinas speaks of a cause bringing about the ‘best’ or perfect result at least ‘nearly always.’
But these unusual cases can only be understood against the backdrop of the typical case, and in particular in light of the fact that a cause inherently points to the best or most perfect realization of its effect, even if it might sometimes be prevented by circumstances from bringing it about” [Source: Feser, Edward(2009), Aquinas (London: Oneworld Publications), p.113].
Mwanafalsa W. Norris Clarke (2001) anafafanua:
“If the efficient cause at the moment of its productive action is not interiorly determined or focused toward producing this effect rather than that, then there is no sufficient reason why it should produce this one rather than that. Hence it will produce nothing at all: indeterminate action is no action at all, hence can produce no determinate effect.
But the effect as a real being must be determinately this or that, and this determination must be explained by, or find its sufficient reason in, the cause which brings it into being.
This dynamic pre-ordination or predetermination of the cause toward this determinate effect, as precontained in the cause at the moment of its action and perduring throughout the action as its guiding form, is precisely what is meant by final causality, or focused efficient causality, efficient causality focused toward a determinate end or goal = the effect-to-be-produced as guiding the action of the efficient cause as it produces its effect.
The final cause resides, therefore, in the efficient cause but as focused toward its future effect-to-be-produced . . . Every effect of an efficient cause must be some determinate being or mode of being.
But precisely because it is an effect depending on its cause, with its sufficient reason for existing located in its cause, its efficient cause must contain the sufficient reason not only for its existence but for its particular mode of existence, for its being this particular effect and not some other.
Otherwise, it would have no sufficient reason for its being as it is. It follows that the agent at the moment of its action, and throughout the execution of the same, must contain within itself an interior determination or pre-ordination of its power toward producing this effect rather than some other . . . [Therefore] every efficient cause, in order to be an efficient cause in action at all, must act for an end, i.e., its action must be finalized, directed, focused from within toward the effect to be produced as end or goal to be attained” [Source: Clarke, W. Norris(2001), The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press), p. 200-201].
Hatimaye, mwaka 2015 Mwanazuoni huyo wa Marekani Profesa Alexander Pruss, ambaye ni miongoni mwa wanazuoni Katoliki alikuwa na mtazamo ufuatao:
"The 'final cause' understood in this way isn't really a cause. When A acts to achieve B, so that B is the 'final cause' of A, then the existence of B doesn't do anything to explain A's activity. To see this, consider a case of final causation: a dog drinks to hydrate the body. The hydration of the body is the final cause.
But suppose that the dog is sick and it vomits before the drink hydrates the body. It is still true that the hydration of the body was the final cause of its drinking. But in this case the hydration of the body never occurs. So the 'final cause' in this sense need not even exist to explain the activity. But real causation is a relation between real relata.
A final cause understood like this is a cause only in a manner of speaking.It is better to understand final causation where the final cause is something like a representation of the effect the causation is directed towards, a representation found in the efficient cause."
Kisha mwaka 2019, Mwanazuoni huyo wa Marekani Profesa Alexander Pruss, alisema tena yafuatayo kuhusu jambo hili:
“It is sometimes said that: (1) One can have p explain q and q explain p when the types of explanation are different. I think statement (1) is mistaken, but in this post I want to focus not on arguing against (1), but simply on arguing against one particular and fairly common form of argument for statement (1):
(2) In cases of Aristotelian final causation, it typically happens that y is a final cause of its own efficient cause. (3) If y is a final cause of x, then that y occurred finally explains that x occurred. (4) If x is an efficient cause of y, then that x occurred efficiently explains that y occurred. (5) So, it’s possible to have p explain q and q explain p when the types of explanation are final and efficient, respectively. I want to argue that this argument fails...
First, explanation is factive: if p explains q, then both p and q are true. This is because explanations provide correct answers to why questions, and a false answer isn’t correct. But final explanations are not factive. I can offer an argument in order to convince you and yet fail to convince you. (Indeed, perhaps this post is an example.) Therefore, statement (3) is not always true.
That doesn’t show that statement (3) is false in the case that the argument needs. But it is plausible that an action that fails for extrinsic reasons has exactly the same explanation as a successful action. The failed action cannot be explained by its achieving its goal, since it doesn’t achieve its goal. Therefore, the successful action cannot be explained in terms of its achieving its goal, either.
Second, efficient causation is a relation between tokens. If I turn on the lights in order to alert the burglars, then my token turning-on-the-lights is the efficient cause of the token alerting-the-burglars. But final causation is not a relation between tokens. For suppose that I fail to alert the burglars, say because the burglars are blindfolded (they were challenged to rob me blind, and parsed that phrase wrong) and don’t see the lights.
Then there are infinitely many possible tokens of the alerting-the-burglars type any one of which would pretty much equally well serve my goals. For instance, I could alert the burglars at 10:44:22.001, at 10:44:22.002, etc.
In the case of action failure, no one of these tokens can be distinguished as “the final cause”, the token I am aiming at. Indeed, if one particular possible token A[0] were the final cause, then if I happened to produce another token, say A[7], my action would have been a failure—which is absurd.
Thus, either all the infinitely many possible tokens serve as the final causes of the action or none of them do. It seems wrong to say that there are infinitely many final causes of the action, so none of the tokens is.
Given that explanation of the failed action is the same as of the successful action, it follows that even in the successful case, none of the tokens provides the final cause.
Therefore, we should see final causation as a relation between a type, say alerting the burglars at some time or other near 10:44:22, and a token, say my particular turning on of the lights. But if so, then statement (2) is false, for it is false that in the successful case the same things are related by final and efficient causation: the final causation relates the outcome type with a productive token and efficient causation relates the productive token with the outcome token.
As I said, this doesn’t show that statement (1) is false, but it does show that efficient and final explanation do not provide a case of statement (1)."
Kwa ufupi, maswali yote sita niliyoyauliza hapo juu yanahitaji mijadala ya kiufundi katika ngazi ya kisayansi, kiteolojia na kifalsafa. Mijadala hiyo lazima itoe majawabu makini kwa maswali matatu yafuatayo:
- What is a man and who counts as one?
- What is a woman and who counts as one?
- What is marital consumation, how should it be conclusively effected, and why?
The question then becomes… what is meant by the word ‘woman’ in the context of marriage, for I am not concerned to determine the ‘legal sex’ of the respondent at large. Having regards to the essentially heterosexual character of the relationship which is called marriage, the criteria must in my judgment be biological, for even the most extreme degree of transsexualism in a male, or the most severe hormones which can exist in a person with male chromosomes, male gonads and male genitalia cannot reproduce a person who is naturally capable of performing the essential role of a woman in marriage. In other words, law should adopt, in the first place, the first three doctor’s criteria, i.e. the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests, and if all three are congruent, determine the sex for the purpose of marriage accordingly, and ignore any operative intervention. The real difficulties, of course, will occur if these three criteria are not congruent. The question does not arise in the present case and I must not anticipate, but it would seem to me to follow from what I have said that the greater weight would probably be given to the genital criteria than to the other two…. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Respondent is not a woman for the purpose of marriage but is a biological male and has been so since birth. It follows that the so-called marriage of 10 September 1963 is void.(Corbett v Corbett (1970) 2 WLR 1306, 2 All ER 33; www.pfc.org.uk/caselaw/Corbett%20v%20Corbett.pdf).
Lakini uamuzi wa kesi hii ulipinduliwa katika mahakama ya juu, kwa sababu ya hoja kwamba kuna tofauti kati ya jinsi na jinsia. Udadavuzi ulikuwa hivi:
"Our departure from the Corbett thesis is not a matter of semantics. It stems from a fundamentally different understanding of what is meant by ‘sex’ for marital purposes. The English court apparently felt that sex and gender were disparate phenomena. In a given case there may, of course, be such a difference. A preoperative transsexual is an example of that kind of disharmony, and most experts would be satisfied that the individual should be classified according to biological criteria…. The English court believed, we feel incorrectly, that an anatomical change of genitalia in the case of a transsexual cannot ‘affect her true sex’. Its conclusion was rooted in the premise that ‘true sex’ was required to be ascertained even for marital purposes by biological criteria. In the case of a transsexual following surgery, however, according to the expert testimony presented here, the dual test of anatomy and gender are more significant. On this evidential demonstration, therefore, we are impelled to the conclusion that for marital purposes if the anatomical or genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person’s gender, psyche or psychological sex, then identity by sex must be governed by the congruence of these standards." (M.T. vs J.T (1976) 355 A. 2d. 204, 140 NJ Super 77; www.leagle.com/decision/1976217140NJSuper77_1209.xml/M.T.%20v.%20J.T)
Mijadala ya aina hii bado inaendelea ndani na nje ya mahakama. Lakini, Papa Francis anasema kuwa wakati mijadala hiyo ikiendelea, Kanisa halipaswi kuacha mtu yeyote nyuma.
Hivyo Papa aliamua kubuni wazo la "synod on synodality" iliyosindikizwa na tamko la "Fiducia Supplicans."
Kwa ajili ya kufanikisha mikakati hii anahimiza "paradigm shift" miongoni mwa wasaidizi wake. Lakini bado naona anayo kazi kubwa. Bado ukale, mapokeo, umuhimu wa "hazina ya imani" na mambo kama hayo vinatawala.
Lakini, nionavyo mimi, kukumbatia "hazina ya imani" katika namna ambayo inajeruhi maisha ya baadhi ya wanadamu ni kosa kimadili.
Yaani, "promoting a deposit of faith that harms by conceptual and practical exclusion is a machiavellistic and an un-Christian strategy."
Tatizo la kuinua maadili ya ngono na kusahau maadili ya uchumi
Kwa miaka 55 sasa Kanisa katoliki limewekeza sana katika kutafiti na kujadili maadili ya ujinsia wa binadamu na kuwekeza kidogo sana kwenye maadili ya uchumi na siasa. Wenzetu Waislamu wanawekeza sana kwenye uchumi wakati huu. Mfano, ukienda kituo chochote cha mabasi na magari ya masafa marefu kuvuka mikoa ni mali za waislamu, maduka makubwa ni mali ya waislamu.
Aidha, wakati tunamaliza mwaka tayari Waarabu kupitia Kampuni ya Blue Carbon walikuwa wameweka mapatano ya kutwaa asilimia nane ya misitu ya Tanzania. Lakini uvamizi huu hauko Tanzania pekee. Gazeti moj la Kiingereza limeripoti yafuatayo majuzi:
The four MOUs that Blue Carbon has so far signed in Africa cover 20% of Zimbabwe (18 million acres), roughly a tenth of Liberia (2.5 million acres) and Zambia (20 million acres respectively), and 8 percent of Tanzania (20 million acres). The company has also approached another well-forested African country, Angola.
Aidha, tayari Waingereza kupitia kampuni ya Carbon UK (T) Ltd wamefunga mikataba ya kutwaa misitu iliyo katika mbuga sita. Bandari ya Dar imetwaliwa na Shekhe wa Dubai, na kadhalika.
Pia ukosefu wa Katiba ya nchi inayoakisi matakwa ya umma, na inayoiweka Ikulu chini ya Bunge, sasa umeruhusu nchi yetu kuwa koloni la Waarabu wa Dubai. Kuna haja ya kupigania Katiba mpya kwa nguvu zote, muda wote.
Matukio haya yanahitaji uwekezaji mkubwa kwenye ujenzi wa akili za watu ili wajue namna ya kuchambua na kupinga unyonyaji unaoendelea.
Mfano, ni Watanzania wachache sana wanaweza kujadili dhana ya "Treaty" na kuonyesha kwanini IGA kati ya Tanzania na Dubai ni tatizo la kimataifa. Lakini bado Makuhani wetu wanaelekeza nguvu kwenye maadili ya jenitalia. Hiki sio kipaumbele sahihi kwa sasa katika Afrika, na SECAM wanapaswa kuamka.
Maswali kwa Askofu NiweMugizi
Kwa ujumla ninajiuliza maswali yafuatayo:
- Kuhani anaweza kuogopa kutekeleza majukumu yake kwa sababu tu ya hofu kwamba watu wanaweza kutafsiri matendo yake isivyo? Kama jawabu ni ndiyo, kwa nini kuna undumilakuweili kuhusu baraka kwa wezi wanaofahamika kwa jamii na wazinzi wa jinsia moja?
- Kwa nini viongozi wenfi wa Kanisa Katoliki linapenda kufanya uenjilishaji kwa kutumia "mental reservation", kwa maana ya "equivocation" inayohusiana na neno "ushoga", wakati wanajua fika kwamba utaratibu huo unawapotosha waumini kwa kuwafanya wafikirie zaidi juu ya "ulawiti" hata mahali ambapo wanapaswa kuwa wanafikiria juu ya "hali ya kimaumbilie" yaani homosexual condition?
- Hizi "irregular situations" zinazowakumba Wakristo na na kuwaweka kwenye "moral dilemmas" ziko Ulaya pekee na hapa Afrika hakuna kwa vile Afrika inayo chanjo dhidi yake?
- Ni kifungu gani cha Biblia kinaruhusu baraka kwa "pedicating heterosexual couples" lakini kinakataza baraka kwa "pedicating homosexual couples"?
- Sio "utapeli wa kidini" kuwafundisha watu kwamba kitendo cha mwanamke na mwanamume kutumia kingamimba ni tendo la kishoga?
- Sio tabia ya "umachiaveli wa kidini" kuwavisha joho la ushoga wakosoaji wa mafundisho tata ya kanisa, tena wakiwa wanafanya hivyo kwa kutumia hoja ambazo zingeweza kujibiwa kwa ushahidi bila kumshambulia mleta hoja?
- Sio "ushirikina wa kiteolojia" kuwafundisha watu kwamba kila tendo la ngono inayofanyika kwa kuingiza uume katika uke, kati ya mwanamke na mwanamume ambapo angalau mmoja wao ni mgumba, ni tendo la ngono ambalo ni alama ya uzazi?
- Bado fundisho kwamba: "each and every marital act (efficient cause) must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life (final cause)," linabaki na uhalali pale ambapo kuna uhakika wa asilimia zote kwamba yamkini ya kutokea kwa "final cause" inayotjwa ni zero?"
- Na je, kwa nini Biblia na Yesu wanaongelea wanawake, wanaume na matowashi lakini ninyi Makuhani mnaongea kana kwamba hawa matowashi hawapo kabisa?
- Kwa nini uongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki unapenda sana kuwekeza zaidi kwenye maadili ya jenitalia badala ya kuwekeza zaidi kwenye maadili ya siasa na uchumi?
IV. Hitimisho
Kwa ufupi, ni maoni yangu kwamba, tamko la Papa limekuja wakati ambapo baadhi ya viongozi wa Kanisa Katoliki mahalia halijajipanga kimtazamo ili kuweza kulitendea haki.
Bado wanaishi kwenye boma la ukale wa teolojia na mapokeo yaliyoasisiwa na Papa Yohane Paul II tangu miaka ya 1968 akiwa bado ni Kardinali wa Krakow, huko Poland. Alifuta upadre na ubatizo wa Padre Gross Sally kwa sababu kwamba alikuwa hunta (intersexual).
Lakini, tayari Papa Francis anaongelea "paradigm shift" ambayo inahitajika katika namna ya kufikiri, kuhukumu na kutenda ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki, kwa kusoma alama za nyakati tukiwa tumevaa miwani ya sayansi, tekinolojia, teolojia na falsafa bila kubagua nyenzo yoyote kati ya hizi.
Kwenye sekta ya elimu tunasema kwamba "if one wants to teach a donkey anything, one must be more knowledgeable than the donkey." Wanafaksafa wanasema "out of nothing comes nothing," kwa maana kwamba, "we can not give what we do not have."
Katika suala la sasa, busara hizi maana yake ni kwamba kuhani aliye mtumwa ndani ya boma la ukale wa teolojia na mapokeo hawezi kutakatifuza ulimwengu wa wanasayansi mamboleo kwa ufanisi. Sababu ni kwamba "ombwe huzaa ombwe" na "mtu hawezi kutoa kitu asicho nacho."
Hivyo "paradigm shift" ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki ni lazima, ikiwa inaambatana na "reparation" kwa wale wote ambao baadhi ya viongozi wa Kanisa wamewajeruhi kwa kutumia mbinu za kimachiaveli pasipo uhalali wowote, hata kama waathirika wameshakufa.
Bila hivyo kuna sababu ya kutangaza ugomvi wa kudumu dhidi ya makuhani wote ambao ni wafuasi wa Nicollo Machiavelli, kwa sababu ya wao kufikiri kuwa inawezekana kuwanyamazisha watu wote, siku zote na sehemu zote kwa kutumia mbinu haramu kama vilr kuwavisha joho la ushoga bila kujali kwamba ni mashoga au hapana.
Itikadi hii haikubaliki kwa Yesu, kwa Mtume Paulo na kwa Wakristo makini.
V. Pendekezo
Ni muhimu hapa kuweka bayana kwamba, swali juu ya ndoa ya mke na mume ni kitu gani na ndoa ya mke na mume sio kitu gani linahitaji kujibiwa kirazini zaidi kuliko kunukuu misahafu, maana hii ni taasisi inayovuka mipaka ya kidini.
Tangu enzi za Fr. Gregor Mendel maneno "mwanamume" na "mwanamke" yamepata maana pana zaidi kuliko ilivyokuwa enzi za Biblia. Na sasa kisheria maneno "legal sex" yamepata fasili mpya inayohitaji maelezo ya kisayansi yasiyo kwenye Biblia.
Nguvu kubwa ya kifkra inapaswa kuelekezwa huku. Hii tabia ya baadhi ya Maaskofu kupewa air-time katika luninga ya Taifa (TBC) na kisha kutumia nafasi hiyo kuhubiri chuki badala ya upendo unaoambatana na kutoa elimu makini hapana. Mungu hapendi uinjilishaji unaotumia mbinu za kimachiaveli.
VI. Kanusho/Disclaimer
Napenda ifahamike kuwa sitafuti maslahi binafsi katika andiko hili. Yaani sitafuti kuombewa kwa sababu mbili. Mosi, mie sina tatizo la uhomofilia. Pili, hata kama ningekuwa nalo, nafahamu kuwa baraka ni sala, na siamini katika miujiza itokanayo na sala. Hivyo, bado nisingelikuwa na sababu ya kutaka yeyote aniombee kwa sababu hii.
Badala yake naandika haya kwa kusukumwa na mambo mawili. Mosi, ninaamini katika jamii inayoheshimu usawaziko wa haki (a just society), bila kujali vigezo vya kinasibu vinavyotamkwa na watawala, bila kuzingatia misingi ya kimaumbile.
Matowashi, mashoga, mashosti, watu wenye jinsi-pindu (intersexuals/mahunta) na watu wenye jinsia-pindu (transgenders) ni binadamu wenye haki ya kuishi kama binadamu baki kwa mujibu wa maumbile yao kama binadamu.
Na pili, ni dhamira yangu ya kukuza na kuhami tunu ya urazini ndani na nje ya Kanisa Katoliki. Kuna juhudi za kuwaburuza waumini zinafanyika kwa kutumia kigezo cha "Baba Askofu Kasema" hata pale anaposema "kauli zenye ukakasi na zisizo na ushahidi," kama vile kauli kwamba "baadhi ya binadamu ni uchafu katika jamii," na hivyo kuchochea chuki dhidi yao, jambo ambalo ni kosa la jinai.
Adolf Htler alikuwa mwansiasa aliyekuwa na jeuri ya aina hii. Na sasa tunashuhudia jeuri kuu, inayotokana na ulevi wa madaraka ya kdini, na isiyokubaliana na kanuni ya hadhi ya utu.
Lazima waumini makini kupaza sauti za kupinga uhuni huu, na hasa unapofanyika kwenye altare ya ibada takatifu tena kwa kutumia luninga ya Taifa (TBC).
Kwa kuzingatia mantiki hii, Maaskofu na makasisi wote wenye fikra za kufanya uinjilishaji kwa kutumia matusi, uwongo na mbinu baki za kimachiaveli, ni wahuni wanaojificha kwenye majoho ya kikuhani.
Hawana tofauti yoyote na panya-road wanaovaa suti. KImsingi, kuhani anayehubiri kwamba mashoga, mahunta na matowoashi ni "uchafu" katika jamii ni panya-road wa daraja la juu, maana yeye anavalia joho la kikuhani badala ya koti la kawaida. Ni afadhali ya Hitler aliyekuwa mhuni anayevaa magwanda ya kijeshi.
MWISHO.
Uchambuzi huu umeandaliwa na:
Mama Amon,
Mkurugenzi Mtendaji Mkuu,
Dawati la Utafiti la Mama Amoni (DUMA),
SLP P/Bag
"Sumbawanga"
Tanzania.
