THE world is in great flux these days. The still festering economic crisis mainly gripping the US and Europe is provoking vast and fast changes all over.
Russian leaders, for example, now talk about a new thrust in massive modernization. For this, they are willing to modify some of their socialistic ways to attract more foreign investors who have the right kind of plans for Russia’s needs.
China, on the other hand, seems poised to dominate the world economy if they know how to play with their increasingly powerful currency. This development has been worrying the US and Europe as they now clearly see the threat China poses to them.
We, in our country, may not be in the middle of these sea changes, neither in the good or the rising side nor in the bad or the sinking part. But obviously we can’t help but be affected and somehow involved. We have to know how to play our part.
So far, the world drama and suspense seems focused on the economic side, with the usual social and political aspects as unavoidable companions. This is a mindset that needs to be drastically changed, and we can play a part in this effort.
What we have to do is see to it that we are liberated from such restrictive mentality. We need to widen our perspective to include the often neglected spiritual element that actually serves as the directing principle in this cliff-hanging predicament, and we have to tell everyone about it.
We should never belittle this attitude. Very often in big conflicts and controversies, the solutions and relief are made possible by the quiet prayers and sacrifices of men and women doing their daily work conscientiously. These remedies come about when sound social doctrines are applied to their work.
It’s about time we shout to the whole world that the spiritual angle has a right to citizenship in any discussion of world issues and problems. Those big economic, social and political strategies, which many world leaders flaunt, will always start in the hearts of men, and also end there.
If those hearts are not in their proper condition, when they just get contented with purely worldly values and are averse to the more important spiritual and religious values, they will soon enter into a problem. Their vision is likely myopic, their understanding shallow, their reactions knee-jerk.
For sure, that may sound very simplistic to say, especially if we consider that following spiritual values involve a lot of sacrifice while the earthly values can give instant advantages. How many of us get blinded, confused and then misdirected by this play of things so typical of our human condition!
We have to do all we can to realize that the long-term, more lasting and definitive solutions to our problems are attained when the spiritual values are given their due attention. We have to be quick to identify what are mere false advantages, and learn to do away with them.
We have to be mature enough to distinguish between the precious and the pressing, the ultimate and the immediate, and know how to play with those parameters. We have to know that joy comes after some suffering, and to distinguish which suffering can lead to authentic development and which ones do not.
This strategic and indispensable spiritual perspective may not directly contribute technical solutions, but it is what gives guidance, direction and over-all meaning to our human affairs. This point has to be properly understood, since many times people shy away from the spiritual precisely because it does not give technical solutions.
The spiritual perspective is what keeps our humanity intact, since it connects us vitally with our true roots and ultimate goals. It’s enables us to flow and actively cooperation with God’s providence.
It prevents us from dehumanizing ourselves, a process that can subtly occur in us if we are easily deceived by worldly values that exaggerate their legitimate role in our life. We have to be ever ready to defend ourselves from their arrogant stances and powerful rationalizations.
This spiritual perspective leads us not only to pray, to offer sacrifices, but also to study the relevant Christian social doctrines and prudently apply them to specific situations. It fuels dialogue and fosters an interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving. It never means assuming a laid-back, indifferent attitude to our earthly affairs.
This assures us of the proper world order we ought to have, given our dignity as persons and children of God.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Porn exposes sex ed sham
WE are quite ‘pornified’ these days. I just learned, for example, that the porn industry amounts to about $97 billion worldwide. The US alone makes for $13 billion. Imagine that!
I wonder how much it is in the Philippines. No wonder, one can see porn almost at every corner and at just one click on the computers and other gadgets. Is there anything done about this, anything serious and sufficient?
The modern technologies have driven it to break-neck, warp speed, and have enabled it to be accessed in the most hidden ways. Thus, many people just find it irresistible and they helplessly fall into some kind of addiction.
The addiction is actually in pandemic proportions, although no official stats are made on it. This, to me, is a worse indication, because it can only mean that this irregular, anomalous condition is now generally considered as regular and normal.
The porn addiction affects all sectors of society—the rich and the poor, the urbanites and the provincianos, the intellectuals and the laborers, young and old, men, women and the in-betweens, etc. Even consecrated persons are mixed up. It’s a horrible picture!
Also, the move to give porn sites their own domain in the Internet seems to gain ground. Thus, aside from the .com, .net, .org, .edu, we may soon have .xxx.
Those pushing for it claim that in this way there can be better control of these sites, and so on and so forth. But that concern for control is actually needless and irrelevant. It’s all rationalization. In the first place, should it be there?
Obviously, no matter how in theory we can say it should not be there, in reality, it can’t help but be there, and in profusion. Why? Because many people just want it. We would have better chances taming a bull in a china shop than domesticating these people with raging hormones.
The world is sick, and the worse part of it is that it is still in the denial stage. It’s a spiritual illness whose virus is constantly recycled by a recycler embedded in our culture and mentalities.
That recycler is that part of our culture that deems access to pornography as a right, a fundamental expression of our freedom. Unless we outgrow this mentality and delete this virus of a cultural recycler, we are doomed. We cannot get out from the lamentable condition of porn addiction.
This brings us to the touted sex ed program now presented by our Education Department. What is its stand on this issue? From what I could gather, it is generally neutral about it and simply proceeds with some practical suggestions.
This is the congenital infirmity of this sex ed program. It’s conceived and born blind to the moral quality of the issues within its concern. And it dares to present itself as enlightened, for simply being practical and realistic.
But as we all know, all appeals to practicality and realism are useless if they are based on the wrong premises and assumptions. At best, and this is even very rare to happen, they can expect to gain a level of tolerance, but never a cure of the sickness.
What actually happens most of the time is that the practical-and-realistic attitude only prolongs and worsens the anomalous condition, and makes the definitive healing more difficult to occur.
Regarding this scourge of porn addiction, we need to be bold in tackling it. It may require more effort, involve more pain, but in the end we should not avoid to use the frontal approach to it. Of course, neither should we avoid using the more subtle tactics.
But we need to clarify the whole truth about our sexuality and our freedom, the need for chastity, for developing the virtues of charity and piety, etc. Converting theories into praxis about these needs and duties should be a continuing task to be done by everyone according to one’s possibilities.
I’m happy to know that in the States and in other places, there are already initiatives to seriously combat this porn addiction, making their techniques readily accessible and transmissible to whoever would like to have them.
This is a most welcome development, since they carry a holistic approach, properly grounded and oriented, unlike our sex ed program that is so questionable as it reeks with mere ideological animus.
With our world entering into more tricky times, we cannot afford to be easily taken by ideological trappings. We have to enter into the true essence and nature of things.
I wonder how much it is in the Philippines. No wonder, one can see porn almost at every corner and at just one click on the computers and other gadgets. Is there anything done about this, anything serious and sufficient?
The modern technologies have driven it to break-neck, warp speed, and have enabled it to be accessed in the most hidden ways. Thus, many people just find it irresistible and they helplessly fall into some kind of addiction.
The addiction is actually in pandemic proportions, although no official stats are made on it. This, to me, is a worse indication, because it can only mean that this irregular, anomalous condition is now generally considered as regular and normal.
The porn addiction affects all sectors of society—the rich and the poor, the urbanites and the provincianos, the intellectuals and the laborers, young and old, men, women and the in-betweens, etc. Even consecrated persons are mixed up. It’s a horrible picture!
Also, the move to give porn sites their own domain in the Internet seems to gain ground. Thus, aside from the .com, .net, .org, .edu, we may soon have .xxx.
Those pushing for it claim that in this way there can be better control of these sites, and so on and so forth. But that concern for control is actually needless and irrelevant. It’s all rationalization. In the first place, should it be there?
Obviously, no matter how in theory we can say it should not be there, in reality, it can’t help but be there, and in profusion. Why? Because many people just want it. We would have better chances taming a bull in a china shop than domesticating these people with raging hormones.
The world is sick, and the worse part of it is that it is still in the denial stage. It’s a spiritual illness whose virus is constantly recycled by a recycler embedded in our culture and mentalities.
That recycler is that part of our culture that deems access to pornography as a right, a fundamental expression of our freedom. Unless we outgrow this mentality and delete this virus of a cultural recycler, we are doomed. We cannot get out from the lamentable condition of porn addiction.
This brings us to the touted sex ed program now presented by our Education Department. What is its stand on this issue? From what I could gather, it is generally neutral about it and simply proceeds with some practical suggestions.
This is the congenital infirmity of this sex ed program. It’s conceived and born blind to the moral quality of the issues within its concern. And it dares to present itself as enlightened, for simply being practical and realistic.
But as we all know, all appeals to practicality and realism are useless if they are based on the wrong premises and assumptions. At best, and this is even very rare to happen, they can expect to gain a level of tolerance, but never a cure of the sickness.
What actually happens most of the time is that the practical-and-realistic attitude only prolongs and worsens the anomalous condition, and makes the definitive healing more difficult to occur.
Regarding this scourge of porn addiction, we need to be bold in tackling it. It may require more effort, involve more pain, but in the end we should not avoid to use the frontal approach to it. Of course, neither should we avoid using the more subtle tactics.
But we need to clarify the whole truth about our sexuality and our freedom, the need for chastity, for developing the virtues of charity and piety, etc. Converting theories into praxis about these needs and duties should be a continuing task to be done by everyone according to one’s possibilities.
I’m happy to know that in the States and in other places, there are already initiatives to seriously combat this porn addiction, making their techniques readily accessible and transmissible to whoever would like to have them.
This is a most welcome development, since they carry a holistic approach, properly grounded and oriented, unlike our sex ed program that is so questionable as it reeks with mere ideological animus.
With our world entering into more tricky times, we cannot afford to be easily taken by ideological trappings. We have to enter into the true essence and nature of things.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Sex ed a wedge issue
PARENTS should be wary of this DepEd plan to teach sex education to school children. I feel they have to register their concern more vocally, because this move is fraught with danger.
It’s funny that in spite of the enormous logistics problems besetting the department, it prefers to give more attention to this sex ed experiment. Priorities are twisted.
Classrooms are lacking, teachers are underpaid, the whole educational system is peppered with holes, and yet, here we are, talking about sex ed whose taunted benefits are seriously put in question.
I know many private individuals and groups who on their own initiatives have helped schools by supplying desks, repainting the buildings if not putting up new buildings, giving scholarships to students and incentives to teachers, etc., precisely because the DepEd cannot cope with the problems.
There is no doubt that this sex ed affair is ideologically driven. Hardly any consultation with parents was made. It’s just shamelessly pushed by groups that happen to have money and positions of influence. As such it has become a wedge issue, very intrusive and divisive.
In spite of the many good things said of it, we cannot deny the fact that this move is part of a global effort to redefine and reengineer morality, culture and society itself. The local supporters cannot claim total independence from this worldwide network, since the whole idea originated from there.
Obviously, the DepEd officials are saying that the sex ed they are offering would have nothing to do with eliciting prurience. It would not be talking about the sexual act, but about responsibility and health. Tell that to the Marines! We’ve had enough of this meme, but such reasoning is reckless.
Sex is a most delicate topic, and it cannot be dealt with only with scientific or social and health purposes in mind. This is the main infirmity of the sex ed programs so far formulated by different groups. They get stuck in that level.
Sex always has to be situated in the general milieu of chastity and of true love that can only come from God and follow a certain God-given natural law. Chastity is the effort to integrate the constitutive bodily and spiritual elements of sex. It’s not just a kind of open field where anyone can contribute anything he likes.
My experience in inculcating the virtue of chastity to the young has always required of me nothing less than heroic prayers and sacrifice and endless monitoring of developments.
A youth’s mind and heart are delicate, unstable, easily affected by all sorts of things. As much as possible someone has to be there whenever they need help, clarification, reassurance, etc.
In this task, it would be better to be pro-active, able to read minds and predicaments, and not to wait for them to come and tell. They have to be given the whole picture of sexuality and chastity, not the slanted and distorted ones often presented by some ideologies that have different agendas.
In the UN formula which is what our local sex ed program follows, this ideological approach is quite clear. There are references, for example, of different forms of families, what we may call alternative forms that are not keeping with our nature.
This approach has gathered greater notoriety since no less than the current US president is strongly supporting it, reflecting a very liberal frame of mind. During the Father’s Day celebration, while he rightly praised the role of fathers in the family, he also said that families can have two fathers, instead of a father and a mother.
This is the kind of development we in our country should try to avoid, by nipping in the bud whatever initiatives can lead to it. I have no doubt that the present sex ed program touted by the DepEd has this pedigree and possibility. We should be very discerning and prudent.
The problems that the sex ed is supposed to solve are usual problems in any given society. Yes, we need to do something about them, even something drastic. We have to empower the families to fulfill their responsibility to teach chastity and the nature, meaning and purpose of human sexuality.
We also have to clean up our society—the media, the entertainment world, etc. We have to put in place a more responsive social network aimed at helping everyone in this area.
But definitely, the sex ed proposal is out of the question. It is a wedge that can allow many more harmful elements to enter our society.
It’s funny that in spite of the enormous logistics problems besetting the department, it prefers to give more attention to this sex ed experiment. Priorities are twisted.
Classrooms are lacking, teachers are underpaid, the whole educational system is peppered with holes, and yet, here we are, talking about sex ed whose taunted benefits are seriously put in question.
I know many private individuals and groups who on their own initiatives have helped schools by supplying desks, repainting the buildings if not putting up new buildings, giving scholarships to students and incentives to teachers, etc., precisely because the DepEd cannot cope with the problems.
There is no doubt that this sex ed affair is ideologically driven. Hardly any consultation with parents was made. It’s just shamelessly pushed by groups that happen to have money and positions of influence. As such it has become a wedge issue, very intrusive and divisive.
In spite of the many good things said of it, we cannot deny the fact that this move is part of a global effort to redefine and reengineer morality, culture and society itself. The local supporters cannot claim total independence from this worldwide network, since the whole idea originated from there.
Obviously, the DepEd officials are saying that the sex ed they are offering would have nothing to do with eliciting prurience. It would not be talking about the sexual act, but about responsibility and health. Tell that to the Marines! We’ve had enough of this meme, but such reasoning is reckless.
Sex is a most delicate topic, and it cannot be dealt with only with scientific or social and health purposes in mind. This is the main infirmity of the sex ed programs so far formulated by different groups. They get stuck in that level.
Sex always has to be situated in the general milieu of chastity and of true love that can only come from God and follow a certain God-given natural law. Chastity is the effort to integrate the constitutive bodily and spiritual elements of sex. It’s not just a kind of open field where anyone can contribute anything he likes.
My experience in inculcating the virtue of chastity to the young has always required of me nothing less than heroic prayers and sacrifice and endless monitoring of developments.
A youth’s mind and heart are delicate, unstable, easily affected by all sorts of things. As much as possible someone has to be there whenever they need help, clarification, reassurance, etc.
In this task, it would be better to be pro-active, able to read minds and predicaments, and not to wait for them to come and tell. They have to be given the whole picture of sexuality and chastity, not the slanted and distorted ones often presented by some ideologies that have different agendas.
In the UN formula which is what our local sex ed program follows, this ideological approach is quite clear. There are references, for example, of different forms of families, what we may call alternative forms that are not keeping with our nature.
This approach has gathered greater notoriety since no less than the current US president is strongly supporting it, reflecting a very liberal frame of mind. During the Father’s Day celebration, while he rightly praised the role of fathers in the family, he also said that families can have two fathers, instead of a father and a mother.
This is the kind of development we in our country should try to avoid, by nipping in the bud whatever initiatives can lead to it. I have no doubt that the present sex ed program touted by the DepEd has this pedigree and possibility. We should be very discerning and prudent.
The problems that the sex ed is supposed to solve are usual problems in any given society. Yes, we need to do something about them, even something drastic. We have to empower the families to fulfill their responsibility to teach chastity and the nature, meaning and purpose of human sexuality.
We also have to clean up our society—the media, the entertainment world, etc. We have to put in place a more responsive social network aimed at helping everyone in this area.
But definitely, the sex ed proposal is out of the question. It is a wedge that can allow many more harmful elements to enter our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)