Time and again, long since to these days, loving parents and upright teachers are one in inculcating a noble and ennobling value system in children about sex. Human sexuality is sacred, noble and sublime. In this regard, the three fundamental truths they know and hold on, are the following: One, God created the human person to His own Image. Two: God created the human person as a man or a woman. Three: God created man and woman with the option to become husband and wife for the generation and upbringing of children as their blessings and treasure.

In fact, a great number of parents and teachers who are neither Christians nor Catholics, relate with their children with care and concern in the matter of sex. They too tell the famous fable of “The flower and the Bee” to impart the purity and beauty of human sexuality. Only the malicious, the deprave and the amoral fool around with sex among themselves, with others, their own children included. This is repugnant and unconscionable as it is not even civilized.

Thus comes to mind the SEX BILL 4244. Admittedly, it is very big costly cake with a good amount of attractive icing thereon. But in fact, it has poisonous ingredients. Woe to those who buy the cake. And worst for those who dare eat it, Reasons: The Bill grossly forwards the abominable lies that:

Sex is a danger. That is why men and women should be well protected against it precisely because sex is dangerous. Hence, there is that often repeated advertisement that they must first have “protection” before they take any “action”. Hence, the phrase “Safe Sex”.

Sex is a disease. That is why contraceptives are considered “essential medicines”. Only sickness and disease require medicines. And only a fatal sickness and only a mortal disease demand medicines as essential curative means. In other words, contraceptives are imperative in provision and use.

Sex is a disaster. That is why when engaged in by men and women according to its nature and natural consequences in terms of the possible birth of children, sex is a disaster. The birth of children is disastrous as they are the cause of poverty and misery. Without them, there will be the blessings of family prosperity and national development.

The over-all riders in this matter are the multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturing contraceptives. They are very concerned with Third World Countries – not about the common good and welfare of the people but about the profits they will rake in. Plain and simple.

OVCRUZ, JCD
30 MAY 2011

Vox populi, vox Dei?

JUST like the deluding mantra of Church-state separation that politicians and media men like to use when they don’t want to listen to the voice of the Church, another myth that needs to be exposed, exploded and explained is that of “Vox populi, vox Dei.”

That’s “the voice of the people is the voice of God’ in English. But it need not automatically be so. In fact, it could actually mean, “the voice of the people is the voice of the devil.” “Vox populi, vox diaboli.”

This has happened many times before, foremost of which was when the people shouted “Crucify him, crucify him,” during Christ’s trial before Pilate. And they managed to nail Jesus on the cross.

And every time a rash judgment gathers a critical mass among the people through rumors and gossips, now facilitated and amplified in the media and through our modern technologies, then the “vox populi” easily becomes “vox diaboli,” not “vox Dei.” We don’t have to look far to see abundant evidence of this sad phenomenon.

The origin of the expression actually gives it a negative connotation. According to Wikipedia, the expression has its earliest recorded origin in the 8th century when a certain Alcuin wrote a letter to Charlemagne, saying—

“Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.” In English: “Those people who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God should not be listened to, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

It’s intriguing that while the mantra of Church-state separation pushes for the state’s (meaning politicians and others) separation from Church and from God, the myth of the “vox populi, vox Dei” bats for people’s own deification, such that what they say is what God says also.

I think the common thread that ties these extremes together is our desire to be our own ultimate judge. It’s not God, much less, the Church anymore. If God and Church are not convenient to us in a given issue, we invoke Church-state separation. When God becomes convenient in a debate, then we invoke “vox populi, vox Dei.”

This is the same human trick, a manifestation of our weakness and our tendency to self-justify ourselves, that has been bogging us through the centuries. Don’t you think it’s about time we liberate ourselves from this bondage? The tragedy of our times is that we are now openly declaring ourselves independent of God.

In this current issue of the RH, for example, many politicians and media men are invoking Church-state separation to allow them to have what they want, irrespective of whether these things are against God’s laws as declared by the Church authorities or not.

They prefer their own ideas, their ideologies, their personal and social experiences to guide them, instead of following the law of God as authoritatively taught by the Church.

Then, since they can not altogether do away with the Church, they make surveys, obviously favoring their cause, to say later on that since the majority of the people are for RH, then it must somehow be God’s voice, because it is the voice of the people. “Vox populi, vox Dei.”

We are now seeing an outright revolt of man against God and the main instrumentality used and erected by him, the Church. There are now many people, even some theologians, who believe and declare that the ultimate judge on the morality of things is our conscience. Not anymore God.

Obviously, conscience is an indispensable element in knowing the morality of a certain human act. But conscience cannot live in a vacuum, totally and absolutely independent on its own, without a law that comes from God and entrusted to the Church to guide and teach it.

Our conscience is not the maker of what is right and wrong in our human acts. That’s God’s work, his responsibility, so to speak, and he embeds this in the law of our life and gives authority to the Church to keep and teach this law.

Our conscience can only reflect and interpret this God-given law with the assistance of the Church, and ultimately of God. Everyone has the duty to form his conscience well, again submitting himself to the proper authorities. Our conscience just cannot form itself by itself. It needs an objective law and a teacher with the proper authority.

Imagine what would happen if we apply individual consciences to guide us in our temporal affairs, doing away with government. Anarchy is what I see!

Charity amid conflicts

IT´S good that we are reminded of charity in our current, often heated debate on the RH issue. From time to time, we need to be told to hold our horses a bit, because even if we fervently claim to be reasonable and patient and all that, we often find ourselves on hindsight to have gone over the top.

It just amuses me though that the reminder more often springs from those who are pro-RH than from the anti-RH ranks. Shrewd politicians and astute mediamen, with their skill in timing and wording, know when and how to drop this reminder more to shame their opponents than anything else.

Charity, of course, has to be observed by everyone all the time as much as possible. It is the highest virtue and value we can have here and hereafter. But while St. Paul tells us to pursue the truth in charity, Pope Benedict also tells us in his encyclical ¨Caritas in veritate¨ that the reciprocal is also true—we have to pursue charity in the truth as well.

There´s a fine shade of meaning the Pope wants to inject here. While charity as St. Paul´s ¨is patient, is kind, envies not, deals not perversely, is not puffed up...,¨ it should not be detained in the sugary and inactive state. It also has to pursue the truth, irrespective of the costs, that can include one´s life. Like what happened to Christ.

Obviously, the task of striking the balance in a given situation is the challenge all of us face. When to be patient and impatient, tolerant and intolerant, how to blend charity with justice, justice and mercy, etc., is a skill we all have to learn. I believe that it is a product of grace before anything else. So, I always recommend prayers before action.

I imagine that in spite of all our good intentions and best efforts to be nice and charitable, we cannot avoid tension and some cuts and thrusts that produce scratches at least, if not some wounds. Our dialogues, especially on some contentious issues, cannot avoid these.

What we should try to do then is to be as transparent as we can be in our discussions, laying our cards on the table so everyone would know where we are coming from, avoiding even the slightest mental reservations as much as possible. This would make the dialogue focused without meandering into non-essentials.

Then we should always try to be cordial and respectful even in our sharpest differences. Charity is the whole truth. It should always prevail, even to the point of death. Obviously, before that point of death comes, we need to do a lot of self-denial, disciplining our emotions and passions, restraining our tongue and temper, etc.

We have to learn how to return the discussion to its main point when it happens to stray, as it often does. We have to be constructive, offering solutions, excuses to unavoidable mistakes and faux pas, and a way out when we find ourselves in some dead-end, rather than getting stuck in the negative and destructive.

A sporting spirit and a sense of proper timing are also necessary. Tact and an educated art of diplomacy, down to words and gestures, are indispensable. There are times when we have to keep quiet, allowing the others to consider things again.

We should always remember that we are all brothers and sisters. Even the mistakes people commit cannot erase that reality of our common humanity that obliges us in turn to love everyone. We have to be wary of the urge to demonize those who oppose us, and convert them into some caricature to be held in ridicule.

For this purpose, we need to continually remind ourselves of our fundamental fraternity, making use of human devices to remind us sharply of it, and in a way that leads us to practical options and not just remaining in good intentions.

We have to be quick to forgive, to disregard certain impertinent details that can come along the way. The truth can be presented in different ways. We just have to choose one that is most fitting to the occasion and to the kind of persons involved. This is where the discernment of spirit is most crucial, avoiding mere prudence of the flesh and of the world.

Obviouly, we have to study the issue very well, bringing it even to our prayer so that we get the proper lights and impulses on how to proceed with it. These are some ideas on how to find charity amid our conflicts.