Archive for June 8th, 2011
Taking everything you have said into consideration, I believe that you claim that people are free-willed and thus are responsible for their actions. However, if we believe that God is omniscient, then he timelessly knows all things. Among these things, he must have known long before who would have become homosexuals and what they would have done regarding their homosexuality. If God knows this, then homosexuals cannot will themselves to choose to act how they are acting regarding their homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be blamed responsible for their actions over their homosexuality, because whatever they do regarding it has already been determined – whether carry the cross or give in to temptation, via God’s omniscience. Au contraire, if we hold onto saying that people have free will, then we have to deny that God is omniscient, because, if the future depended on the actions of man, then he does not perfectly know the future. And this, as Catholics, we will vehemently deny. What do you think about this, sir?
Also, as the church disapproves of homosexuality, it is just modest that it should acquire sufficient information and justification to believe in the wrongness of homosexuality. I see that you quoted verses in the Pentateuchregarding homosexuality in your blog. But, I think that explanations for the nature of homosexuality’s existence will provide me better context in understanding why the Church sees it as wrong.
- As for you, son of man, tell your countrymen: The virtue which a man has practiced will not save him on the day that he sins; neither will the wickedness that a man has done bring about his downfall on the day that he turns from his wickedness (nor can the virtuous man, when he sins, remain alive).Though I say to the virtuous man that he shall surely live, if he then presumes on his virtue and does wrong, none of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered; because of the wrong he has done, he shall die.
- And though I say to the wicked man that he shall surely die, if he turns away from his sin and does what is right and just,
- giving back pledges, restoring stolen goods, living by the statutes that bring life, and doing no wrong, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of the sins he committed shall be held against him; he has done what is right and just, he shall surely live. Yet your countrymen say, “The way of the LORD is not fair!”; but it is their way that is not fair. (Ez 33:12-17)
There are some things that we have to trust God’s Word: if he says that homosexual acts deserve the punishment of death (mortal sin), then consider them as such. We have to trust God’s Wisdom, because it is God who created us and he knows what is best for us. Surely your most powerful computer comes with a manual. If you don’t read the manual, you may destroy your computer by over voltage, water spill, and high temperature. In the same way, God has provided us with a manual on how to live properly: the Bible and the Church. We have Christ as our model.
In the Old Testament, God warned the Israelites to eat only fishes: crabs and shrimps are forbidden because they don’t have fins and scales and they crawl. Now we know that they have too much cholesterol. God also forbade Israelites from eating fat: fat is only offered to God as aburnt offering. Now we know that fat is bad for our heart. God also forbade those with leprosy to go near other men: those with leprosy must be quarantined until they are healed. Now we know that quarantine of those with diseases works: germs are transmitted by contact or proximity (sneeze and cough). If God’s wisdom is shown in the laws of clean and unclean animals, the laws of burnt offerings, and the laws of leprosy, then we should also trust God’s wisdom when he condemns homosexuality, bestiality, and sorcery in Leviticus.
Sex Education and Reproductive Health Bill: Bishop Luis Antonio Tagle interviews Fr. Nono Alfonso, S.J.
My transcription of the Word Exposed–RH bill part 8 by Bishop Tagle on the Reproductive Health Bill. The interview with Fr. Nono Alfonso, S.J. was dated May 16, 2011. See the You Tube here.
My friends here we are again in the discussion about the different facets of the controversial reproductive health bill which is being pushed in the congress. we are glad that this discussion is being watched, heard, and shared with many.
With us once again is Fr. Nono Alfonso, SJ. He is the executive director of the Jesuit Communications.
Fr. Nono welcome back!
Good morning, bishop. And good morning to you all.
The morning is getting better because you are giving us your time.
My friends what we shall tackle now is related to education, especially sex education of children. This is what we shall look at together with the responsibility of the parents.
Ok fr. nono.
Yes, because what we refer to here contains something controversial–in the eyes of the church and of some parents. There are provisions in the RH bill or RP bill which is being pushed in the congress, which says that from Grade 5, our children will be taught sex education. Of course, this is very controversial, because first, should they be taught at their age? They are still very innocent. Should they immediately be taught? Second, Who should be teaching these things, these sensitive issues of sex and sexuality. What can you say about these bishop in these two questions. The children Grade 5 and second, you know the situation in our schools, in our public schools. Should they be the one who shall teach?
Maybe in your first point on the sex education that shall start at Grade 5. Of course, one of our aims is total education. We always say this. Education can help not only in the development of man but also in man’s progress. Education is also part of the Church’s mission. Like you, the society of jesus, you are into educational ministry, mission. Thus, It is not true as what others are saying that the Church is opposed to education. No. What the church wants to emphasize is this: because holistic education to make better citizens of the nation and better christians–is that we must be very prudent. For example, in the field of Sex education at these ages, We must study this carefully, because instead of educating, we plant more the seeds of what can destroy later on. Is education what shall really happen or we are pushing in the too early times the children the things that cannot be handled by their minds. I am a teacher, too.
He is a good teacher.
He is also a good student. That’s enough.
I also teach. I always look at the reactions of the students. Sometimes, I feel what I prepared and the topic. Maybe it is not yet right for them. Maybe there are things that are preliminary before this topic can be truly understood. That is why I understand this preoccupation. Maybe it would be a wrong education that will happen if in this age that they are not prepared, you will be the one who shall put wrong ideas.
Also what is terrifying is that there are somethings–that is even before the present heads the department of education have sat in office–there are now pilot modules of sex education manuals. These are already being tested in 10 pilot regions, but they refuse to state what schools are these implemented. Aside from the contents, if we see the other excerpts, they are somewhat shocking.
I saw the modules. First, they have a request to their students in these pilot testing, “Do not to share this when you go back to your parents. And especially do not tell this to Father or to Sister.” There are these prohibitions to the students. This is like teaching children to tell a lie. But this is shocking, bishop. What I found out is not even for grade 5, but for lower grade levels. They are already taught–I am sorry for saying this–masturbation. These are for mature audiences. You can see from the modules that they give that these are not well discerned, they do not ask “who are the audience?”
What you are saying is good, Fr. Nono. The concern of the church is that in these modules the approach to sex is too clinical: it is only an activity, only factual, biological, on what is said, “How can you protect yourself?” But the sexual act is always part of morality and relationship. And that is what is not being tackled. This is where the biggest concern of the church lies. Is sex education only just about a technique or how to do it or are they part of the holistic view of man and relationships?
These are the values.
Precisely. And what you are saying is what I also saw: “You are not obliged to tell this to your parents.” When I saw these, I put myself in the minds of the parents. I have a child. There is always a apprehension on what is being taught to my child. When I see behavioral change, I ask what is happening. In the teaching of the church, the primary responsibility of teaching and formation of the children are the parents. And that is also in the Constitution.
And that is also the answer to my second question. Who shall be the one who shall teach? Because I have a very practical view of these things, bishop, because have interviewed in Radio Veritas, the teachers themselves who admit that they are not trained to teach. You know the state of our schools: lack of classroooms, lack of textbooks. So the teachers make their own rackets and gimmicks. They do not have the same teaching styles. This is terrifying. And some are using certain things just to teach these sensitive issues. Second, not only the physical structure, but also the teachers themselves admit that they lack traing on how to teach these sensitive issue. That is why bishop, it is too terrifying for me.
Now, the challenge is if we want that we parents are the ones who will form, especially those who are married in the church. I remember that there is a question for those who are getting married: are you ready to raise as better Christians the children that God will give you. There in the ritual itself, we are being reminded that we have the responsibility. The schools, catechists, and teachers are only support. And the parents have right to say, “I don’t want these lessons. Do not teach these to my children.” Now if this is mandatory, it removes from the parents their role. And what is happening? Is this dictating to the parents? But we want children to be truly educated. In the biological part, there are sciences, there is biology. And there are values. We wish that the parents must also take their formation seriously, so that they can form their children.
We hope we have helped and gave explanations.
So, thank you again, Fr. Nono.
It has been a pleasure, bishop.
If we call you, you do not think twice. Thank you very much to you, especially those who follow this discussion. We encourage you to share what you learned in our simple discussion. Thank you very much.