
A writer and friend once told me that “reading creates an itch, the itch to write in response. The itch to answer.” It seems to me a philosophy that is almost, or should be, natural to arrive at. And I believe – as a writer first and foremost – that the best written things have that same, response-provoking quality to them.
Nevertheless I am fundamentally averse to copying and pasting and publishing that which I didn't write, however good, or what I thought of it in response, however valid or idiotic. It's not simply out of laziness. It's not, I should think, out of fear either: fear of appearing unoriginal, tasteless, inflexible. And I refuse to attribute my stance to a lack of extraordinary circumstances. One could conclude then that perhaps I'm just being stubborn. Hence, the sorry, one-time crack at a book review (it was of Lively's The Photograph, for those fatally curious).
But today I came across Last Confession, a short piece in the Sunday Philippine Daily Inquirer. It was written by Gilda Cordero-Fernando, and her article (I am led to understand) are excerpts from The Last Full Moon, winner of the National Book Award for Best Biography and now the top place-holder of my must-buy list (attended to only during seasons of prosperity).
Just having read the piece, therefore, I am making an exception to copy and paste and publish. I am making an itch as public as made possible by technology today. Here are excerpts from the excerpts:
***
During the alumnae homecoming I met up again with my kindergarten pals Remy and Ludy. They were part of a gaggle of cute old ladies in tiger-stripe blouses (my contemporaries) asking the priest whether the Mass he had just said would be good for Sunday or would they have to go again tomorrow. They were still bargaining with heaven, it made me nostalgic. It sounded like I was back in good old alma mater all right.
Remy said that the week before, she had made a “general confession” (a term I had not heard in decades!) to a kind Italian priest. She recommended it highly, would I like one myself, and I said, oh, yes! without at all knowing why. You will have to remember all the sins you committed since you made your first confession, Remy said. (When I was seven?) And she described how clean and light she felt after having been shriven. No, the general confession had not been difficult, not difficult at all.
Remy said she was so relieved that the priest didn’t even get angry or scold her. (I thought maybe it was because Remy was 79 and the Italian, 60.) He did not even give her any penance - no rosaries, acts of mortification, litanies or ejaculations (heavens, no!). And Remy thought she’d be doing penance the rest of her life! (I began to wonder if Remy had poisoned her husband; she was a widow.) Before leaving, Remy was told that if she remembered any other sin, she was to consider that erased, too. (I guess the priest didn’t want anyone coming back for a second round.)
I wondered, the moment I got home, what I would say in my general confession. That I did not feel sorry about anything I’d done in my life and that there was not a thing I’d like to change? Because that was the truth. My transgressions I had tried to understand. I had suffered their backlash because it hurt me to find out what kind of a lousy person I still was, but even more because they had hurt other people. I had already atoned for most of them with the people concerned. The rest (mostly relationships) I was still grappling with and trying to accept as best I could. I felt that pitfalls were necessary in one’s journey through life - they had made me suffer and learn. Isn’t that what makes us grow? From being ashamed of our bad deeds? Did I have to burden a poor priest with that? I began to regret making an appointment for a general confession.
How could I, for instance, explain why I had not gone to Mass or confession for something like 30 years -and not once regretted it? Didn’t that mean that for the same number of years I had not been a Catholic? (Nor a Protestant nor a Buddhist nor a Muslim.) Aren’t people like me what were called by the nuns “free thinkers,” condemned to hell in the august company of heretics like Voltaire?
Why should a murderer going to confession get better treatment than me?
I remember the day, several decades ago, when I realized that “being spiritual” or being a good person had nothing to do with religion, that spirituality and religiosity were two different things. Searching for my truth could not be done, in fact, within the folds of any religion. That day, I went to a book fair and, for purely literary reasons, bought a Bible from a Catholic booth. As I was leaving, I was proffered a freebie, a pamphlet on Medjugorje and I said, “No thanks, I am not a Catholic.” I was horrified at my refusal. It was the first time I had publicly verbalized my stand. I was agitated. Surely a pack of little demons was hanging on to my skirt and back and I kept looking behind.
That night I went into a deep, deep meditation. I was surprised to find myself asking God if I was still okay in his book. The panoramic image that opened in my mind was of enormous male and female genitalia copulating, much like the earth and sky in primitive myths. At first it startled me but I did not find it blasphemous. Watching the divine act of Love, in fact, made me feel reverential - what is creation, after all, but the greatest act of love? If the symbol seemed crude to a prudish mind, well, in my limited world, sex was a personal heaven.
I felt a warm and protecting love physically enwrap me. I wanted to peer over my shoulder to see if there was indeed a giant magnificent creature embracing me. I felt infinitely loved. God and I had found each other again, but no longer in other people’s terms, just God’s and mine. God didn’t even have to be a “he” written with a capital letter.
In subsequent meditations I got to know God in a deeper way. God is me, the higher me. He is my blood, she is my bones, he is my flesh, she is my organs. He is my eyes and my ears and my nose and my mouth. She is my shoulder blades and my breasts and my womb.
God is imagination. God is inspiration. God is all the heady colors that flood the sunset, the blush on the soles of a baby’s feet.
God is the energy to fly, to leap, to dance, to create. God is, as well, simply to be.
God is the goodness in every human being whether it is in the heart of an enemy or a friend. God is the stranger who gets off his vehicle in a storm to see how he can help me with my stalled car.
God is the rich and poor trying to understand each other. God is the rich and poor liking each other.
God is the sky, the clouds, the seas, the clean rivers, the mountains and the plains, the air that I breathe. God is the rice I eat and the fruits that I suck, the cows on the wayside and the birds that I watch.
God is everything and everyone and everything is God.
God is a warm hug. God is passion. God is sex.
God is learning how to love. God is friendships. God is the solidarity of women taking care of one another, of men taking care of other men, of women and men taking care of one another.
God is one’s husband, nice children and a house filled with art. God is ballroom dancing. God is a green salad and maybe a slice of pizza.
When I came out with that meditation in a small article, I really got it. A pious friend said that God being the sky and the clouds and the rain was “pantheism.” Someone said I was a “polytheist.” Another admitted that God is everything but maybe not the cows and the ballroom dancing and the pizza pie! She made it sound so ridiculous.
I realized that the way people neutralize anything they are not comfortable with is to give it a label. Your painting must be a Picasso, your poetry Edgar Allan Poe, your leaning Marxist. To a scholarly religious, I must be an agnostic, a Manichean, a monophosite, a Calvinist, a Zwinglian, a Quaker, a Christian scientist or a Saksi ni Jehovah.
And we had not even gotten to that quaky creation part yet! Creation is the one attribute of God that human beings share. Artists, painters, singers, composers, dancers, writers practiced it all the time. Does that not mean that we are pieces of God? If you are a piece of God, then what are you?
Blasphemous? To believe that one is God enough to be able to create something beautiful out of the chaos that is our sad land today, to dream to life a society that will care for the earth. If we believed we owned the power.
People create when they are willing to see other options, when they are ready to break boxes and challenge institutions, are not afraid to buck what is accepted and safe. Growth is a special and very painful process. A quote goes: Moonlight floods the whole sky from horizon to horizon; how much of it can fill your room depends on how wide you open your windows.
When all was said and done, the priest asked, So why did you come here? And I replied, Because I wanted to find out if things had changed, if maybe there is now room in heaven for people like me.
He smiled and ignored the question. And gave me absolution anyway. If you die tonight, the holy man said, you will go straight to heaven. I said I believed him.
Promise me you will receive Holy Communion tomorrow, he said. I never make promises I can’t keep, I said. I told him I admired the way their religious order carried out their mission, what tremendous good it had done for the Filipinos.
Then receive Holy Communion tomorrow, he said. Do it for me.
Why should I? I said.
God bless you then, he said, opening his breviary.
You, too, I said, sincerely, and blew the nice old priest a kiss.
***
I am scratching because I am thankful. Thank you, Ms. Cordero-Fernando, for the sublime affirmation that we are not alone.