Swali kwa Joseph Magata: Padre Ildefonsi Katundu aliyegombea ubunge huko Bukoba alikuwa anatafuta jukwaa la kutetea haki za mashoga?

Mama Amon

JF-Expert Member
Mar 30, 2018
2,019
2,473
Mwandishi anayejitambulisha kwa jina la Joseph Magata, amejenga hoja kadhaa kuhusu sakati ya Padre Ildefince Katundu wa Jimbo la Nkenge mkoani Kagera. Magata amefanya hivyo kupitia gazeti la Raia Mwema, ukurasa wa 10, kwenye toleo la 12-18 August 2020. Makala yake ina kichwa cha maneno Kanisa liko sahihi kumzuia padre wa Bukoba kugombea upadre.

Habari za Padre Katundu ziliufikia umma kupitia barua iliyoandikwa na Askofu Desiderius Rwoma wa Jimbo Katoliki la Bukoba kwenda kwa Kardinali Pengo, Maaskofu Wakuu, Maaskofu na Katibu wa Baraza la Maaskofu Katoliki (TEC). Barua hiyo ilivuja na kuingia kwenye mitandao ya kijamii kupitia kwa mtu asiyejulikana. Kivuli cha barua hiyo ni hiki hapa chini.

Padre Ildefonce Katundu.jpg


Kati ya hoja zote zilizoandikwa na Magata kupitia makala hii, nina tatizo na hoja yake moja pekee. Kuhusu hoja hiyo nakusudia kuonyesha mambo yafuatayo:
  1. Kuonyesha uchambuzi wa hoja ya Magata,
  2. Kuonyesha uhakiki wa hoja ya Magata,
  3. Kuonyesha kosa la maudhui ya kiushahidi katika hoja ya Magata,
  4. Kuonyesha kosa la kuwavalisha wasomaji miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga,
  5. Kosa la Magata kuiga tabia mbaya kama Mtakatifu Papa Paul VI,
  6. Kuonyesha kosa la Magata kutumia hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza iliyo batili, na
  7. Kuonyesha kosa la Magata kushindwa kutofautisha uhai wa mimba na uhai wa gameti.
A. Uchambuzi wa hoja ya Magata

Kwa ufupi kabisa, Magata amejenga hoja yenye kusema haya: Mosi, anadai kwamba, kama hatutaki matokeo fulani tunapaswa kuepusha uwepo wa chanzo ambacho kinaleta matokeo hayo.

Pili, anadai kwamba, matokeo R ni hatima inayoletwa na chanzo P kupitia barabara ya Q, ambapo P inawakilisha kitendo cha padre kugombea ubunge, Q inawakilisha kitendo cha padre kushinda nafasi ya uongozi wa siasa za dola, na R inawakilisha kitendo cha padre kutetea ushoga na haki za mashoga. Kuna hatua kadhaa kati ya kitendo P na kitendo R.

Na tatu, kwa sababu mbili zilizotajwa hapo juu, Magata anahitimisha kwamba, tunapaswa kuepuka kitendo P.

Hivyo, napendekeza kwamba, kimantiki, hoja ya Magata inao muundo wenye pointi sita zifuatazo:

  1. Kama hatutaki matokeo fulani, basi tunapaswa kuepuka sababu zinazoleta matokeo hayo.
  2. Kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kugombea nafasi za kisiasa (P) ni sababu ya kwanza katika mnyororo ufuatao wa sababu na matokeo: kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kufanya siasa za dola, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei (Q); na kitendo cha mapadre kutetea ushoga na haki za mashoga, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei (R).
  3. Kitendo cha kutetea ushoga na haki za mashoga ni haramu kwa sababu haki za mashoga, ikiwemo haki ya kujitambulisha kama shoga, ni haki batili, kama ambavyo haki ya kuzini, haki ya kusema uwongo, haki ya kuua mtu asiye hatia, haki ya kutesa binadamu, na haki ya kufanya uovu mwingine wowote, ni haki batili.
  4. Kwa hiyo, kutokana na madokezo namba 1-3 hapo juu, inafuata kimantiki kwamba, kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kufanya siasa za dola, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei, hakipaswi kufanyika.
  5. Sheria za Kanisa Katoliki, fungu la 285(3) zinawakataza mapadre kufanya siasa za dola.
  6. Kwa hiyo, kutokana na madokezo namba 4-5 hapo juu, Kanisa Katoliki liko sahihi kukataa padre Ildefonce Katundu wa Nkenye, mkoani Kagera, kugombea ubunge.
Nakusudia kuhakiki hoja hii katika aya zifuatazo.

B. Uhakiki wa hoja ya Magata

Kuna njia mbili za kuhakiki hoja. Njia ya kwanza ni kukosoa muundo wa hoja kwa kuonyesha kwamba, pamoja na kuwa madokezo yote ni ya kweli, hitimisho halitokana na madokezo yanayolitangulia. Muundo wa hoja ya Magata hauna tatizo kwa hiyo sitatumia njia hii.

Na njia ya pili ni kuonyesha kwamba, pamoja na kwamba muundo wa hoja uko sawa sawa, lakini bado maudhui yake, angalau katika pointi moja, yanapingana na kanuni ya ukweli.

Nakusudia kutumia njia hii kuonyesha kuwa, katika hoja ya Magata kuna madokezo kadhaa yanayosema uwongo, na hivyo kuiporomosha hoja ya Magata.

Dokezo la kwanza katika hoja ya Magata, linasema kwamba, kama hatutaki matokeo fulani tunapaswa kuepusha uwepo wa chanzo ambacho kinaleta matokeo hayo. Ni sawa na kusema kuwa, kama tunataka matokeo fulani tunapaswa kupigania uwepo wa chanzo kinacholeta matokeo hayo.

Nimebaini dokezo hili kutokana na maandiko ya Magata yanahoonekana kuongelea siasa za dola kama chanzo KINACHOLETA matokeo ya ushoga, yaani, hali ya mtu kuwa na mbetuko wa kijinsi unaomfanya kutamani kufanya ngono na watu wenye jinsi kama yake.

Hali hii inayoitwa uhomifilia ni kinyume cha uheterofilia, ambayo ni ali ya mtu kuwa na mbetuko wa kijinsi unaomfanya kutamani kufanya ngono na watu wenye jinsi tofauti na jinsi yake.

Magata anasema kuwa, kama ilivyo kwa wanasiasa walei, padre mwanasiasa anaweza KULETA ushoga jukwaani na kuunadi, anaweza KULETA ushoga bungeni na kuutungia sheria, na anaweza KULETA ushoga serikalini na kuutungia kanuni za utekelezaji. Kwa ujumla, kuleta matokeo fulani ni KUSABABISHA matokeo hayo.

Hii ni kanuni ambayo Magata anaitumia katika hoja yake bila kuitamka wala kuifafanua waziwazi. Nitaifafanua ili kuweka msingi wa kuimulika hoja yake.

Kwa mujibu wa falsafa ya sababu na matokeo, yaani etiolojia (etiology) kuna sababu za aina mbili.

Kwanza, kuna sababu zinazoanzia kwenye matukio ambayo yamesababishwa na wakala mwenye urazini na utashi. Mfano ni uwakala wa binadamu (anthropocentric agent causation) na uwakala wa Mungu (theocentric agent causation).

Pili, kuna sababu zinazoanzia kwenye matukio ambayo hayakusababishwa na urazini na mapenzi ya binadamu au urazini na mapenzi ya Mungu (event causation).


Kusudi tuweze kutathmini anakisema Magata, hebu tuone tofauti kati ya uwakala wa kirazini na uwakala wa matukio yasiyoanzia kwenye urazini kwa mujibu wa Tim Black (2004) wa California State University, anayesema hivi:

We might in the first place think of an agent as 'a persisting object … possessing various properties, including, most importantly, certain causal powers and liabilities. A paradigm example of an agent would be a human being or other conscious creature capable of performing intentional actions' ...Agent causation is then supposed to be a 'species of causation … in which the cause of some event or state of affairs is not (or not only) some other event or state of affairs, but is, rather, an agent of some kind

Kisha J. Dmitri Gallow (2017), wa University of Pittsburgh, anaeleza dhana ya tukio C kusababisha tukio E kama ifuatavyo:

An event C caused a distinct event E if and only if either event C caused event E or there is a sequence of events D1, D2, ... ,Dx, Dy, ..., Dn such that: event C caused event D1; event D1 caused event D2; ..., event Dx caused event Dy,…, and event Dn caused event E. (P.67)

Kwa mujibu wa J. Dmitri Gallow (2017), wa University of Pittsburgh, kwa mtazamo wa hesabu za yamkini, kusema kwamba "C caused E" maana yake ni kwamba:

An event type C is causally relevant to an event type E if and only if, C is temporally prior to E, and, for some causal background context K the probability of E given that C has occurred under context K is greater than the probability of E given that C has not occurred under context K. (p.36)

Maneno "context K" yanamaanisha mazingira ambayo yanapaswa kuwepo ili kusindikiza tukio C, yakiwa na mchango maalum wa kietiolojia katika ujio wa tukio hili.

Kwa mfano yamkini ya mwanamke kubeba mimba kwa sababu ya kutiana na mwanamume endapo yai limepevuka ni kubwa kuliko yamkini ya mwanamke kubeba mimba kwa sababu ya kutiana na mwanamume endapo yai halijapevuka. Hapa, tukio C ni kutiana, tukio E ni kubeba mimba, na "context K" ni kupevuka kwa yai la uzazi.

Mbali na nadharia ya etiolojia inayoongozwa na kanuni za hesabu za yamkini, kuna nadharia ya etiolojia inayoongozwa na kanuni za uyakini (determinism) au kanuni za utabirifu (regularity).

Katika mtazamo huu, kwa mujibu wa Quentin Smith (1996), kusema kwamba "C caused E" maana yake ni kama alivyosema David Hume ():


"Hume's definition includes three conditions for being a cause: temporal priority, spatio-temporal contiguity, and a nomological relation... According to [this relation], C is a cause of E only if there is a law of nature L that enables a statement that E occurs to be deduced from the premises that C occurs and that the law L obtains."

Kwa mujibu wa makala ya Magata, kama ikisomwa kwa kuzingatia nadharia hizi za kietiolojia, uhomofilia wa mashoga unaletwa na binadamu wanasiasa. Yaani, anapendekeza kwamba, japokuwa Mungu ndiye muumba wa vitu vyote vinavyoonekana na visivyoonekana, ukiwemo uhomofilia wa mashoga, lakini bado anaona kuwa, ushoga hauletwi na Mungu.

Yaani, katika dokezo la pili, Magata anapendekeza mnyororo wa sababu na matokeo ufuatao: "Kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kugombea nafasi za kisiasa (P) ni sababu ya kwanza katika mnyororo ufuatao wa sababu na matokeo: kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kufanya siasa za dola, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei (Q); na kitendo cha mapadre kuzikubali haki za mashoga, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei (R)."

Katika sentensi hii, Magata anapendekeza mambo mawili. Kwanza, anapendekeza kuwa, kuna uhusiano wa kietiolojia, yaani uhusiano wa sababu na matokeo, kati ya kugombea nafasi ya kisiasa na kushinda, pale kura zinapotosha.Yaani, kitendo P kinasababisha kitendo Q, endapo kura zitatosha. Sina tatizo na pendekezo hili.

Na katika pendekezo la pili, Magata anaonekana kupendekeza kuwa, lazima kuna uhusiano wa kietiolojia, yaani uhusiano wa sababu na matokeo, kati ya kushika nafasi ya uongozi wa kisiasa na kutetea haki za mashoga. Yaani, kitendo Q lazima kinasababisha kitendo R.

Kwa kuzingatia nadharia mbili za kietiolojia zilizojadiliwa awali, natamka kwamba, Magata ameshindwa kubainisha ushahidi wa kutuwezesha kutetea dokezo la pili.

Naona kwamba, ni kwa kuzingatia maana hii, Magata anasema kwamba, walei wanaofanya siasa za dola sio "watakatifu" kama walivyo mapadre wasiofanya siasa za dola, kwani:


“...wakiona ushoga utawaingiza madarakani watatunga sera ya ushoga… [watainadi] sera hiyo kwenye kampeni… [na vwalei hawa wakiingia bungeni wanaweza kutunga] sheria za kuhalalisha ushoga [waliounadi] kwenye kampeni… [na] sheria hiyo ikianza kutumika watumishi [walio] serikalini [kupitia daraja lao kama walei watakuwa] wanautetea ushoga…[na] kama mahakama ina jaji ambaye ni [mlei] hukumu zake zitalinda haki za mashoga [zilizo] kwenye sheria ile.”

Hivyo, Magata anaona kuwa, katika mazingira haya:

“kama kuna mapadre [wanaofanya kazi zinazotekelezwa na walei walioko huko] bungeni, serikalini, mahakamani, [basi, mapadre] wote hawa watakuwa wameuleta ushoga kwa kutumia mamlaka yao [ya] ‘civil power’ wakiwa kwenye [utekelezaji wa] kazi zao [katika] ‘public office’.”

Kwa sababu hii, Magata anaona kwamba ni LAZIMA kila padre atakayeanza kufanya siasa za dola atakuwa ameanza safari ya kutetea haki za mashoga, na kupoteza kabisa uwezo wa kujizuia kufanya utetezi huo baada ya hapo.

Hapa natumia neno "watakatifu" katika mipaka ya maana iliyotamkwa na Kamusi Kuu ya Kiswahili inayosema kuwa "utakatifu" ni hali ya kitu au mtu "mwenye kutakasika na makosa, uovu au dhambi." (BAKITA, 2015).

Kwa ujumla, pendekezo hili, lenye lengo la kulinda "utakatifu" wa mapadre na kuhoji "utakatifu" wa walei wanaofanya siasa za dola, linayo matatizo makubwa, kwani ushahidi wake haukubaliki. Uhomofilia wa kishoga hauletwi/hausababishwi na maamuzi ya binadamu, kwa maana kwamba, hautokani na uwakala wa binadamu (anthropocentric agent causation). Ukweli ni kwamba, uhomofilia wa kishoga unaletwa/unasababishwa na uwakala wa Mungu aliyeumba binadamu mwenye hali ya uhomofilia (theocentric agent causation).

Kitu kinachoweza kusababishwa na uwakala wa binadamu (anthropocentric agent causation) ni tabia zinazoambatana na hali ya ushoga. Yaani, tabia kama vile ulawiti kati ya mwanamume shoga na mwanamume shoga, usagaji kati ya mwanamke shoga na mwanamke shoga au uamuzi wa kufunga ndoa za jinsi moja kati ya wanaume wawili ambao ni mashoga au kati ya wanawake wawili ambao ni mashoga.

Kwa kushindwa kuutambua ukweli hii Magata ameandika dokezo lisilozingatia umakini wa kitafiti, katika namna ambayo inamchafua Padre Katundu na kuwadhalilisha walei wanaofanya siasa za dola.

Katika dokezo la 3, Magata anatamka kuwa haki za mashoga ni haki batili. Hivyo anaonya juu ya hatari ya wnasiasa "kuleta ushoga" nchini Tanania. Hata hivyo, hakueleza maana ya "ushoga" wala maana ya "haki za mashoga."

Lakini, mazingira ya dokezo la tatu yanaashiria maneno "haki za mashoga" kumaanisha haki ya kulawitiana, haki ya kuoana, haki ya kutonyanyapaliwa na jamii ya watu wasio mashoga, na haki kama hizo. Uhalali au uharamu wa kimaadili wa tabia hizi unapaswa kutetewa kwa hoja na sio kutamkwa tu kikasuku, kama anavyoonekana kufanya.

Hatimaye, katika dokezo la 4, kutokana na madokezo namba 1, 2 na 3, lakini bila kufanya utetezi wenye kuonyesha uhusiano wa kietiolojia kati ya kushika nafasi ya uongozi wa kisiasa (Q) na kutetea haki za mashog(R), Magata anahitimisha kwamba, kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre kufanya siasa za dola, kama wanavyofanya wanasiasa walei, hakipaswi kufanyika.

Kisha, kupitia dokezo namna 6, anatumia dokezo namba 4 na 5 kuhitimisha kwamba ni sahihi kwa Kanisa Katoliki kuwazuia mapadre kufanya siasa za dola ili wasipoteze utakatifu wao.

Katika hitimisho hili, Magata anairejea Sheria ya Kanisa Katoliki namba 285(3), isemayo kwamba: “clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.”

Magata anaonekana kudai kuwa sheria hii ni ukuta wenye kutenganisha makleri na walei wanaofanya siasa za dola ili kulinda utakatifu wa mapadre wanaofanya uinjilishaji kwa kusema “ukweli” juu ya “uovu” kama vile “ushoga” kwa kuwatenganisha na walei wanaofanya siasa za dola kwa kusema “uwongo” juu ya “uovu” kama vile “ushoga”.


C. Kosa la maudhui ya kiushahidi katika hoja ya Magata

Kwa ujumla, hoja ya magata inazo dosari mbili za kimaudhui.

Mosi, Magata anapinga ubaya wa "uovu" kwa kutumia mfano wa "ushoga" bila kueleza "ushoga" ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani. Anautumia mfano huu bila kuelewa kwamba, akichukuliwa kipimo cha homoni za mwili wake atakutwa na asilimia fulani ya homoni za kike, kwa maana kwamba, katika ngazi ya fiziolojia, Magata pia ni shoga anayepinga ushoga!


Na pili, hoja ya Magata inaanguka kwa sababu ya dosari ya kiepistemolojia iliyo katika dokezo namba 2.

Katika dokezo hili, Magata alipaswa kutuonyesha kinaganaga ni kwa vipi kufanyika kwa kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mapadre za kufanya siasa za dola (Q) ni lazima iwe sababu ya kufanyika kwa kitendo cha kuzikubali haki za mashoga (R).

Lakini, Magata hakuonyesha ni wakati gani hasa kitendo Q lazima kiwe sababu ya kitendo R.

Kwa mujibu wa nadharia sahihi ya kietiolojia, kama ilivyojadiliwa hapo juu, ni maoni yangu kwamba, sio madai ya kweli kusema kwamba, kila padre atakayefanya siasa za dola atalazimika kuunga mkono haki za mashoga, bila kutaka.

Hivyo, kwa sababu mbili za kimaudhui zilizojadiliwa, hoja ya Magata inayochunguzwa hapa inaiporomosha hadi kuwa kifusi.


D. Kosa la kuwavalisha wasomaji "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga"

Tatizo la tatu katika hoja ya Magata limo kwenye uamuzi wake wa kuchangia katika mjadala kuhusu hoja ya kutenganisha dini na dola kwa kutumia "majongeo" yanayoanzia kwenye umoja kwenda kwenye wingi, yaani "specific to general approach" katika namna ambayo inamvisha msomaji "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga," pasipo na sababu za msingi wa kutumia "miwani" hiyo.

Ukivalishwa miwani yenye rangi nyekundu kila kitu unaona ni chekundu. Ukivalishwa miwani yenye rangi ya kijani, kila kitu unaona ni kijani. Vivyo hivyo, ukivalishwa "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga" kila kitu utaona kinafanana na ushoga, na hivyo kila kitu kunuka shombo la ushoga. Yaani, kama hukubaliani na ushoga utakikataa kitu hicho kwa sababu ya kuhisi kuwa kinanuka shombo la ushoga.

Kwa kuutambua ukweli huu wa kisaikolojia na kiepistemolojia, Magata aliamua kwamba mjadala huu uongozwe na mkakati wa kutazama mambo kwa kutumia "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga."

Ndio maana madokezo yake matatu ya kwanza yanaongelea mfano wa ushoga kabla ya dokezo la nne kuongea uovu kwa ujumla. Ni makati wa mwandishi kumvisha msomaji "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga."


Hii ndiyo “debate framing strategy" aliyoipendekeza Magata. Ni mkakati wa kuwataka watu wafikirie juu ya hofu ya ushoga (homophobia) kwanza kabla ya kufikiri juu ya mada inayoongelewa. Ni mkakati wa kuwaondoa watu katika ngazi ya kutumia akili na kuwaweka katika ngazi ya kutumia hisia zinazoambatana na hofu ya ushoga.

Katika ngazi hiyo ya hofu ya ushoga watu wanateleza na kuanguka kwenye hitimisho hata bila kuchukua muda kudadisi sababu za kulikubali hitimisho.

Kwa maneno mengine hii ni "moral panic strategy," yaani mkakati wa kufanikisha kukubalika kwa hoja kwa kusababisha taharuki kwa sababu ya tishio la jamii kukumbwa na janga la kimaadili, endapo hawtakubaliana na hitimisho linalopendekezwa.

Siupendi mkakati huu kwa kuwa ni mkakati wa kimachiaveli kwa ajili ya kupotosha mijadala ya kirazini. Ni mkakati unaoongozwa na kanuni ya siasa za Kayafa, yule Kuhani Mkuu wa Wayahudi aliyesema kuwa "ni afadhali mtu mmoja afe ili kuokoa watu wengi," ambao ni mfano hai wa umachiaveli tunaoupata katika injili.


E. Kosa la Magata kuiga tabia mbaya ya Papa Paul VI

Mkakati huu wa kuwavalishwa wasomaji "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga", pamoja na ubovu wake wa kimaadili, ndio ulitumiwa na washauri wa Papa Paul VI, wakiongozwa na Fr. John C. Ford, kupotosha mjadala juu ya matumizi ya kingamimba uliofanyika mwaka 1965-68, kupitia Tume ya Kipapa Kuhusu Uadilifu wa Matumizi ya Kingamimba.

Tume ya Kipapa ilihitimisha kuwa "contraception is extrinsically evil." Ndio kusema kwamba, kutumia kingamimba kama vile kufanya ngono kwa kondomu SIO kitendo haramu kwa kila mtu, kila mahali, kila wakati na kwa kila sababu inayoweza kufikirika, kwani uharamu huo unategemea mazingira ya kitendo husika.

Kwa mujibu wa kina Peter Harris (1968), katika kitabu chao kiitwacho, "On Human Life: An Examination of Humane Vitae (London: Burns and Oates Ltd)" uamuzi wa Tume ulikuwa ni huu:


"The voting was in writing and therefore secret. The answers to the basic question, "Is contraception intrinsically wrong? were Yes-2, Yes, with reservation-1, abstained-2, No-9." (Peter Harris et al 1968, pg. 166)

Kutokana na uamuzi huu, Ripoti ya Wajumbe Wengi wa Tume ya Kipapa waliandika mengi, lakini aya inayobeba msimamo wao kwa njia ya muhtasari wa kupigiwa mfano ni maneno yafuatayo kutoka kwenye ripoti yao (Papal Majority Report):

The responsible procreative community is always ordered toward procreation, this is the objective and authentic meaning of sexuality and those things which refer to sexuality (affectivity, unit, the ability to procreate). So, we can speak of the 'procreative end' as the essential end of sexuality and of conjugal life. But this procreative end does not have to be realized by a fertile act when, for instance, parents already have children to educate or they are not prepared to have a child. This obligation of conscience for not generating springs from the rights of the already existing children or the rights of the future child. A child has a right to a 'community of life and unity' so that it can be formed and educated. (Peter Harris et al 1968:213)

Kwa mujibu wa hayati Askofu Denis Hurley wa Afrika ya Kusin, kanuni kuu iliyoiongoza Tume ya KIpapa inatwa "the principle of overriding right," yaani, "kanuni ya haki ambayo ina maslahi mapana," kama maneno niliyoyapigilia mstai hapo juu yanavyothibitisha.

Lakini kina Fr. John Ford, kupitia Ripoti yao ya Wajumbe Wachache wa Tume ya Kipapa (Papal Minority Report) walimshauri Papa Paul VI autazame mjadala juu ya kingamimba kwa kutumia "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga," na kumwonyesha kuwa, kama akifanya hivyo, hitimisho linalofuata ni kwamba kuzikubali haki za watu wanaotumia kingamimba ni hatua ya kwanza kuelekea kwenye kuzikubali haki za mashoga. Kina kina Fr. Ford walimwandikia Papa Paul VI hoja ifuatayo:


"The great majority of theologians who argue that contraception is not absolutely illicit in individual conjugal acts posit the principle of totality as the basis for this opinion. This means that every partial good must be ordered to the good of the whole and in the case of conflict of interest a partial good must be sacrifced for the good of the whole. However... traditional teaching admits the principle of totality and demands that the sexual act not take place except in relation to the whole reality of procreation and education [of children].
Once one has set aside this traditional principle, one would also be setting aside a fundamental criterion, up until the present time unshaken in its application to many acts which have always been considered by the church to be serious sins against chastity... [They include] concubinage... oral and anal copulation [in marriage], ... solitary masturbation... [and mutual] masturbation among youth...
[Also] many theologians, who maintain that contraception is not intrinsically evil, seem to come to this conclusion from a more general principle: ... that “the end specifies the means” and that “between two evils the lesser is to be chosen.” ... If this principle is admitted... it could be concluded that masturbation is for the good of personal equilibrium, or [that anal copulation related to] homosexuality [is] good for those who are affected with abnormal inclinations and seek only friendship with the same sex for their balance. The same could be done for the use of abortives or of abortion directly induced to save the life of the mother." (Peter Harris et al 1968:197-200)

Hapa utaona kuwa, kina Fr. Ford wanajenga hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza (slippery slope argument) ikiwa na muundo wa kimantiki ufuatao:


  1. If the more general principle which states that “the end specifies the means” is admitted, then it could be the cause for concluding "that contraception is not intrinsically evil";
  2. If contraception is not intrinsically evil, then, the following acts are not intrinsically evil: masturbation, homosexual anal copulation, direct abortion,concubinage... oral copulation, anal copulation, solitary masturbation, and mutual masturbation.
  3. But, If you don't want the effect, then avoid the cause;
  4. Thus, the Pope should avoid the more general principle which states that “the end specifies the means” which is the cause of all the stated moral evils. (my paraphrase)
Katika dokeo la pili, kwa kuweka "contraception," "masturbation," "homosexual pedication," na "direct abortion" katika kapu moja la kimaadili, kina Fr. Ford walimvisha Papa Paul VI "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga" kiasi kwamba, hakuwa na uwezo tena wa kuona tofauti ilivyopo kati ya uhai wa gameti zinazokufa kupitia "contraception," "masturbation," na "homosexual pedication," kwa upande mmoja, na uhai wa mimba zinazokufa kupitia "direct abortion", kwa upande mwingine, wakati tofauti hii ni muhimu sana kimaadili. Kama nitakavyoonyesha punde, kina Fr. Ford walikosea kupuuzia tofauti hii, na hivyo kumpotosha Papa Paul VI .

Ukweli ni kwamba, uadilifu au uharamu wa "contraception," "masturbation," "homosexual pedication," na "direct abortion" hautokani na kukubalika kwa "contraception."

Pamoja na kwamba ushauri huu wa kina Ford, ulitumia "miwani yenye rangi ya ushoga" kama mkakati wa vitisho hewa, lakini bado Papa Paul VI alikubaliana nao, na kisha kuutumia kuandika waraka wa Humanae Vitae (1968)."

Katika waraka wake huu Papa Paul VI alilipinga hitimisho la Tume ya Kipapa kwa kutamka kuwa, "sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive... [is]... intrinsically wrong." (Humanae Vitae 1968, para. 14).


Ndio kusema kwamba, kutumia kingamimba kama vile kufanya ngono kwa kondomu NI ni kitendo haramu kwa kila mtu, kila mahali, kila wakati na kwa kila sababu inayoweza kufikirika, kwani uharamu huo hautegemei mazingira ya kitendo bali hutegemea mwenendo wa kitendo chenyewe. Katika ukamilifu, Papa Paul VI aliandika hivi:


"Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.... [contraception 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... Consequently, it is a serious error to ... justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong." (Humanae Vitae 1968, para. 14).

Hapa, Papa anataja fasili ya maneno "kukinga mimba," kwa kutumia maneno [contraception is] any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation," ambapo neno "procreation" linamaanisha mchakato wa uzazi ambao ni mduara wenye hatua zifuatazo:

Gametogenesis, heterophilic attraction (libido), arousal (excitement), copulation, inseminatory orgasm, resolution, fertilization, compaction, cavitations, hatching, implantation, organogenesis during gestation, delivery, parenting, and gametogenesis tena.

Kwa sababu ya mchakato huu, sasa wanasayansi, wanateolojia na wanafalsafa wengi wanaoikataa "Kanuni ya Teolojia ya Kayafa" (Caiphas Theological Principle), wanakubaliana kwamba, Papa Paul VI alifikia hitimisho lenye makosa wakati ule na bado kosa lake lipo hai hadi leo.

Kwa mfano, Profesa Alfonso Gomez-Lobo (2005: 199-203) ameonyesha vema kosa la kina Fr. Ford. Anasema kwamba, kina Fr. Ford walishindwa kuona kwamba jukumu la kuheshimu mimba halimaanishi uwepo wa jukumu la kuheshimu gameti ambazo ni chimbuko la mimba. Nitafafanua hoja yake baadaye kidogo huko chini.

Hivyo, ni kweli kwamba, katika kipengele cha kuheshimu uhai wa mimba, Papa Paul VI, alikuwa na lengo zuri la kuikimbia "Kanuni ya Teolojia ya Kayafa," kama inavyojidhihirisha kwenye tendo la utoaji mimba.

Lakini Papa alikosea pale alipotoa fasili ya neno "contraception" inayomaanisha kwamba, kuna jukumu la kuhesimu uhai wa gameti kila mara, kila wakati, kila mahali, na kwa kila mtu.

Kutumia kemikali zinazofanya kazi kama kingamimba kwa kuua gameti za kiume, kwa mfano, haliwezi kuwa kosa kama kilivyo kitendo cha kutumia madawa hayo kuua mimba. Ni vivyo hivyo kwa matumizi ya kondomu za kiume na kondomu za kike.

Kwa hiyo, sio kweli kwamba kila matumizi ya kingamimba ni haramu kimaadili kila mahali, kila wakati, kwa kila mhusika na kwa kila sababu inayoweza kufikirika.

Kwa hiyo, Papa Paul VI aliikumbatia "Kanuni ya Teolojia ya Kayafa," huenda bila kujua, kwa sababu ya shinikizo kutoka kwa kina Fr. Ford. Hawa kina Fr. Ford walitumia mbinu haramu ya "mora panic strategy" kumlainisha Papa.

Magata ametumia mbinu ya kina Fr. Ford kuyumbisha mjadala mzuri juu ya umantiki wa kutenganisha dini na dola.

Ni hivi: Anachosema Magata ni kwamba, kuruhusu haki za makleri wanaotaka kufanya siasa za dola ni hatua ya kwanza kuelekea kwenye kuruhusu haki za mashoga.

Kimsingi, kwa pendekezo hili, Magata anatoa picha potofu kwamba, kwa sehemu kubwa, huenda Padre Ildefonce Katundu aliamua kugombea ubunge wa Nkenge ili apate jukwaa la kutetea “haki za mashoga” na "kuleta ushoga" nchini Tanzania.

Kwa kiwango hiki, Magata ameungana na magazeti ya kina Cyprian Msiba kufanya udaku wa ushoga, wakati, hapa nchini Tanzania, bado ushoga sio "tatizo la kijamii" linalohitaji kufanywa ajenda yenye kipaumbele namba moja katika kuhudumia jamii.

Najiuliza: kati ya maovu kama vile wizi, rushwa, ujambazi, mauaji, ubakaji, utoaji mimba, na ushoga ni kwanini mtu abebe ushoga kama mfano mkuu wakati takwimu za uhalifu zinazotolewa na jeshi la polisi hazionyeshi tatizo hili kuwa kubwa kuliko matatizo haya mengine?

Yaani, kati ya Watanzania 60,000,000 kuna mashoga wangapi hadi tupate sababu ya kutumia ushoga kama paradigm case of human evils in Tanzania? Ushoga ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani? Haki za mashoga ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani? Na je, ushoga unaweza kuletwa nchini Tanzania kutoka nje kama ambavyo mitumba inaletwa au ni sifa ya kibayolojia ambayo mtu husika anazaliwa nayo?

Na swali kubwa zaidi ni hili: Je, Katiba ya Tanzania inatenganisha dini na dola kwa sababu hizi za kishoga alizozitaja Joseph Magata?

Kwa mara ya kwanza, nimeona tatizo kubwa katika namna ya uandishi wa Magata. Badala ya kuandika kama mwanazuoni, ameandika kama mwathirika wa propaganda za "ubeberu wa kiroho" unaotekelezwa kupitia mgongo wa dini anaoujadili mara nyingi Joseph Mihangwa.


Pia nimejiridhisha kwamba, Magata ametumia mkakati wa hoja batili yenye mgongo unaoteleza (fallacious slippery slope argument) ili kufanikisha utetezi wake pasipo uhalali katika mbinu hii. Mkakati wake umewatia doa wanasiasa walei na kuwatukuza mapadre pasipo kuzingatia uhalisia wa mambo katika pande zote mbili.

Magata anaandika kana kwamba hakuna Maaskofu na Mapadre ambao ni mashoga na kana kwamba hakuna masisita ambao ni wasagaji. Ukweli hauko upande wake.

F. Kosa la Magata kutumia hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza iliyo batili

Maoni yangu hayawezi kueleweka bila kueleza maana ya "hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza," yaani "slippery slope argument." Nitafanya hivyo hapa.

Nafikiri njia rahisi ya kuonyesha kuwa Magata amejenga "hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza" ni kufupisha hoja yake kwanza. Kwa kutumia mfumo wa Aristotle wa kusanifu na kuhakiki hoja, ambapo hoja nzuri inapaswa kuwa na pointi tatu, ni wazi kwamba, Magata amejenga hoja yenye muundo wa kimantiki ufuatao:


  1. Kitendo P ni hatua ya kwanza katika mnyororo wa sababu na matokeo yafuatayo: kitendo P lazima kinasababisha kitendo Q; na kitendo Q lazima kinasababisha kitendo R, wakati kitendo R hakikubaliki kwa mujibu wa kanuni za maadili;
  2. Kama hutaki matokeo fulani, unapaswa kuepuka sababu ya matokeo hayo;
  3. Kwa hiyo, kitendo P ambacho ni hatua ya kwanza hakipaswi kufanyika.
Katika dokezo la kwanza, Magata ameonyesha hatua mbili kutoka P hadi Q na kutoka Q hadi R. Lakini, zinaweza kuwepo hatua nyingi zaidi katika "hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza." Kwa saabu hii, hoja yenye mgongo unaotelea inawea kupewa muundo ufuatao kwa kifupi:


  1. Kitendo A1 ni hatua ya kwanza katika mnyororo wa sababu na matokeo yafuatayo: A2, A3,....Ax,...Ay,..., An, wakati kitendo cha mwisho An hakipaswi kufanyika (au kinapaswa kufanyika);
  2. Kama hutaki matokeo fulani, unapaswa kuepuka sababu ya matokeo hayo (au kama unataka matokeo fulani, unapaswa kuhuisha sababu ya matokeo hayo);
  3. Kwa hiyo, kitendo P ambacho ni hatua ya kwanza hakipaswi kufanyika (au kwa hiyo, kitendo P ambacho ni hatua ya kwanza kinapaswa kufanyika).
Kwa ujumla, hoja yenye mgongo unaoteleza, inawea kuwa na sura hasi au sura chanya. Katika sura hasi, inakuwa ni hoja inayojengwa kukataa jambo kufanyika. Na katika sura chanya, inakuwa ni hoja inayojengwa kuhimiza jambo kufanyika. Kila aina inaweza kuwa halali au batili kimantiki. Kwa mfano, hoja ya kukataza jambo, bila kujali kama ni halali au batili, inazo sifa kumi zifuatazo:

  1. Kuna mtendaji anayetafakari juu ya kufanya kitendo fulani au uamuzi wa kuikibali sera fulani.
  2. Mtendaji anabaini kwamba kuna mtiririko wa matukio ya ziada utakaoanza mara tu baada ya kitendeka kwa kitendo au kufanyika kwa uamuzi.
  3. Katika mtiririko wa matukio haya, matukio ya mwanzo hayana madhara makubwa, lakini kadiri matukio yanavyoongezeka madhara makubwa huzaliwa.
  4. Kuna vichocheo vinavyosaidia kusukuma mtiririko wa matukio haya, kiasi cha kumfanya mtendaji kuachana na ushiriki wake katika mtiririko huu hadi mwisho. Kichocheo ni kitu kinachofanya kazi kama hamira ya kuharakisha mchakato kusonga mbele kwa kasi, kiasi cha kumfanya mtendaji kupoteza uwezo wa kujizuia. Kunaweza kuwepo na vichocheo zaidi ya kimoja kwenye hoja husika, na vichocheo hivyo vinaweza kujitokeza katika hatua tofauti za mtiririko. Vichocheo hivyo vinaweza kuwa ni mazingira yanaohusisha maoni ya kijamii kuhusiana na kukubalika kwa tabia fulani.
  5. Mtendaji anaona kuwa, mwanzoni mwa mtiririko wa matukio, mtendaji atakuwa anao uwezo wa kuamua kujizuia kuendelea na ushiriki kwenye mchakato.
  6. Lakini, katikati ya mtiririko, Mtendaji anaona kuwa, kuna eneo lenye utelezi (gray zone), ambako atapoteza uwezo wa kuamua kujizuia kushiriki kwenye mchakato, na hivyo kulazimika kuendelea mpaka mwisho.
  7. Mtendaji anabaini kuwa ni vigumu kwake kujua ni katika hatua gani atakuwa ameingia kwenye eneo lenye utelezi (gray zone), na hivyo kupoteza uwezo wa kujizuia.
  8. Mtendaji anabaini kuwa akishafika kwenye eneo lenye utelezi (gray zone) hawezi kujizuia tena, na badala yake atalazimika kuendelea mpaka mwisho wa mtiririko.
  9. Mtendaji anabaini kuwa, baada ya kuingia kwenye eneo lenye utelezi (gray zone), ataserereka mpaka mwishoni mwa mtiririko akiwa anasababisha majanga kwake na kwa watu baki wanaguswa na matukio hayo.
  10. Kwa kuzingatia mambo yote haya, mtendaji anaamua kwamba, kwa ajili ya kuepuka na kuepusha majanga haya, anapaswa kujizuia kuchukua hatua ya kutekeleza kitendo cha kwanza.
(Kwa ufafanuzi zaidi tazama: Douglas Walton, The Basic Slippery Slope Argument, Informal Logic, 35.3 (2015):273-311, at 287-90).

Kwa ufupi, basi, "hoja batili yenye mgongo unaoteleza" inazo hatua kuu saba kama ifuatavyo:


  1. Kuna mtendaji anayefikiria kutekeleza kitendo cha kwanza "A."
  2. Mtendaji anabaini kuwa utekelezaji wa kitendo A, utasababisha utekelezwaji wa kitendo A1, kitakachosababisha utekelezwaji wa kitendo A2, na vivyo hivyo, kusababisha utekelezwa kwa vitendo "Ax," . . . "Ay," . . ., mpaka kitendo "An."
  3. Mtendaji anabaini kwamba, katika mtiririko wa matendo "A, A1, A2, . . . , Ax, . . . Ay, . . ., An," kuna pingili ndogo ya matendo, yaani pingili inayoanzia "Ax" mpaka "Ay," ambayo ni eneo lenye utelezi (gray zone), ambapo "x," "y" na "n" ni tarakimu zinazoonyesha hatua gani ya kitendo imefikiwa.
  4. Mtendaji anabaini kwamba mtendaji T anao uwezo wa kujizuia kutekeleza matendo yote kabla ya kufikia pingili ya matendo yenye utata, yaani pingili inayoanzia kwenye kitendo "Ax" na kuishia kwenye kitendo "Ay."
  5. Mtendaji anabaini kwamba, baada ya kuifikia pingili ya matendo yenye utata, yaani pingili inayoanzia kwenye kitendo "Ax" mpaka kwenye kitendo "Ay," mtendaji T atakuwa amepoteza uwezo wa kujizuia kutekeleza matendo haya kiasi kwamba atalazimika kuendelea na utekelezaji wake mpaka kufikia hatua ya kitendo cha mwisho cha "An."
  6. Mtendaji anabaini kwamba, kitendo cha "An" kikifanyika kitazalisha majanga, ama ya kimaadili au vinginevyo, ambayo yanapaswa kuepukika kwa gharama yoyote.
  7. Kwa hiyo, Mtendaji anahitimisha kuwa, kitendo cha kwanza "A" kinapaswa kuepukwa.
Kwa ujumla, katika hatua saba zilizotajwa awali, kama Mtendaji atafanikiwa kuona kwamba kuna ushahidi wa kuunga mkono kila hatua iliyotajwa, basi hitimisho katika hatua ya saba ni halali. Kama hakuna ushahidi wa kuthibitisha, japo hatua moja, basi, tunakuwa tumepata "hoja batili yenye mgongo unaoteleza" inayopaswa kupuuzwa.

G. Kosa la Magata kushindwa kutofautisha uhai wa mimbana uhai wa gameti

Namalizia andiko langu kwa kuonyesha kuwa, jukumu la kuheshimu uhai wa mimba halimaanishi kuwa kila mtianaji analo jukumu la kuheshimu uhai wa kila gameti, kila wakati na kila mahali

Profesa Alfonso Gomez-Lobo (2005: 199-203), kupitia makala yake yenye jina, "Does respect for embryos entail respect for gametes?, Theoretical Medicine 25(2004):199–208" anajibu swali letu hapo juu kwa kuandika yafuatayo:


The latest developments in human embryonic stem cell research and the prospect of human cloning to obtain genetically matching stem cells have renewed the urgency of a careful and rational discernment of what is owed to early human life. The ethical debate centers around the question whether it is morally right or wrong to destroy human embryos, cloned or not, to obtain stem cells.
Those who argue for the impermissibility of the intentional destruction of human embryos often rely on some form of the so-called ‘potentiality argument,’ and those who argue for the permissibility of those actions often present objections to this specific argument.
One key objection is that if one holds that human embryos should be respected, and hence not destroyed, then one should also respect human gametes, a conclusion most people would reject…
The objection takes the form … that would follow from the transitivity of potentiality [as follows]:… ‘…if X has an active potentiality for giving rise to Y, and Y has an active potentiality for giving rise to Z, then it must follow that X itself has an active potentiality for giving rise to Z.’
The substitutions supplied in the context are the following: X stands for ‘the contents of the petri-dish prior to fertilization’ that can give rise to ‘a fertilized ovum,’ Y stands for ‘a fertilized human ovum [that] has an active potential for developing into ... '[an infant] human person’ and Z stands for ‘[an adult] human person’...
What should be abandoned, I submit, is the substitution instance of the transitivity principle for potentiality. Whether the principle holds in all cases I do not know, but I will try to show that, in this case, there is a fallacy of equivocation in its application because in the steps from X to Y and from Y to Z there are two quite different kinds of active potentiality involved...
A well-formed, healthy human embryo can and, if all goes well (that is, if no lesion occurs, if proper nutrition is available, etc.), will develop into an adult of the species.
Why? Because he or she possesses within the appropriate cytoplasmic context the full complement of 46 chromosomes, including either the XY or the XX combination.
The potentiality to become a male or female human adult is due to the biological program contained in the genome. That program determines, among other things, into which kinds of tissues and organs the various stem cells will differentiate.
By contrast… [a] sperm or an ovum, by itself, cannot become an embryo and, even less so, an adult. The biological potentiality to develop into an adult is not there because each one of them only has 23 chromosomes and a human organism requires the full set of 46 and the appropriate cytoplasmic context. This much any person familiar with elementary biology will grant…
Indeed, a satisfactory analysis of the potentiality of gametes of the same species to fuse should make clear that these body parts can combine their genetic material in ways in which gametes from different species cannot.
Their potentiality to fuse amounts to a natural match in their respective DNA that makes them complementary, yet they remain individually impotent to be the cause of any further organic development.
On the other hand, if in fact a sperm and an ovum do successfully join together, if the two pronuclei fuse and syngamy goes well, then and only then a potentiality arises that was not present in the gametes before the fusion…
It seems clear, then, that the potentiality of a male gamete to fuse with a female gamete (and vice versa) should not be identified with the potentiality arising from the fusion.
Biologically speaking, the latter is something strikingly new. Transitivity, we must conclude, does not hold from the potentiality to fuse to the potentiality to become an adult.
If the foregoing reasoning based on elementary biological evidence is correct, then the ... argument has been undercut. It is simply not true that the potentiality argument entails the absurd conclusion that human gametes are due the same respect as persons.

Kwa mujibu wa hoja ya Gomez-Lobo (2005), inafuata kimantiki kwamba, kingamimba zinazoua gameti hazina madhara ya kimaadili kwa sababu ya mauaji hayo pekee.

Matumizi ya kondomu za kiume, kondomu za kike na sabuni zinazoua gameti za kiume ni vitendo vinavyoua gameti.

Kwa hiyo, hizi ni mbinu za kukinga mimba ambazo zilikatazwa na Papa Paul VI kimakosa. Yaani, wakati Papa Paul VI alisema kuwa "contraception is intrinsically evil" ukweli ni kwamba "contraception is extrinsically evil."

Na kwa sababu hii, Papa, Kardinali, na Askofu anayeendeleza kosa lililofanywa na Papa Paul VI hana haki ya kupewa utii kadiri kosa hili linavyohusika. Yaani, kama Padre Katundu ameandika barua ya kuacha kutoa huduma ya kipadre kama njia ya kupinga UKAYAFA huu yuko sahihi kwa asilimia zote mia.


Baada ya maelezo haya, sasa endelea kujisomea makala yake ili uone jinsi Magata alivyoshindwa kujenga hoja inayokubalika kimantiki …

=============


Makala hii imeandaliwa na:

Mama Amon,
Sumbawanga,

Maboresho ya mwisho yamefanyika: 31 Agosti 2020 at 6:00 a.m.
 
Wakatoliki mtufupishie kwa lugha rahisi hii makala duh! makleri nk nk😱
 
Hii thread imesomwa na watu wangapi maana ina post 5 tu?

Idadi ya wasomaji ni tofauti na idadi ya watu wanaoposti.
Tumia JF Tools kuangalia idadi ya wasomaji.
Kama hujui jinsi ya kuangalia takwimu hizo waulize mods wakuelekeze.
 
3 Reactions
Reply
Back
Top Bottom