Posts Tagged ‘Homosexuality’
Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents. In this feast we remember the many children who were killed not only by Herod during the time of Christ, but also the many babies born and unborn who were slaughtered through the birth control policies of Pharoah, Kissinger, and Obama. Now, with the passage of the RH Bill into a law which promotes contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterine walls, we can also put Pres. Noynoy Aquino on the list of the birth control autocrats of history.
1. Herod at the Birth of Christ
In this feast we remember the children ages 2 and down who were slaughtered by Herod for fear of a new born king of the Jews who will overthrow Herod’s power:
When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, 2 behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,2saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star 3 at its rising and have come to do him homage.”3When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.4Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 45They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:6′And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel.’”7Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearance.8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage.”…
When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”14Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.158 He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”16When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Mt 2:1-16)
2. Pharoah at the Birth of Moses
In this Feast we also remember the Israelite babies who were killed by Pharoah for fear of the growing number of Israelites in Egypt. Pharaoah tried several approaches to birth control for the Israelites: (1) forced labor and slavery, (2) killing of male babies born by midwives, and (3) throwing of male babies into the Nile River. Below is a detailed account:
Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph,* rose to power in Egypt.9He said to his people, “See! The Israelite people have multiplied and become more numerous than we are!10Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase;* otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave the land.”
11Accordingly, they set supervisors over the Israelites to oppress them with forced labor.d Thus they had to build for Pharaoh* the garrison cities of Pithom and Raamses.12Yet the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians began to loathe the Israelites.13So the Egyptians reduced the Israelites to cruel slavery,14making life bitter for them with hard labor, at mortar* and brick and all kinds of field work—cruelly oppressed in all their labor.
15The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah,16“When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool:* if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.”17The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live.18So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this, allowing the boys to live?”19The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.”20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous.21And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them.
22Pharaoh then commanded all his people, “Throw into the Nile every boy that is born,e but you may let all the girls live.” (Ex 1:8-22)
3. Kissinger and the NSSM 200
NSSM 200 is the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). It was written in 1974 under the leadership of Henry Kissinger. This report is the basis of the policies of many US Presidents from Ford to Obama. Below are the salient provisions as summarized in Wikipedia:
“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].
“Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].
“Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,’ ‘imperialists,’ multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles” [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].
“We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.” [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends]
“In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”
4. Obama and Planned Parenthood
Here is a short story about the long love affair of Obama and the world’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood. The excerpt below is from Life News:
- President Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times, horrifyingly voting against protecting babies who survived abortion and voting in favor of leaving them to die. A vote against this legislation was a vote for infanticide. [Source]
- On his third day in office, President Obama repealed the pro-life “Mexico City Policy.” By doing this, President Obama made groups that perform and promote abortion eligible for U.S. foreign aid funds. [Source]
- Planned Parenthood’s funding jumped from 33% to nearly 50% – over $487 million in taxpayer funding now goes to the abortion giant (under Obama and his administration). This is almost half a billion dollars that American families are forced to pay in tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. [Source]
- President Obama refused to sign an emergency budget, putting funding the military at risk, until Planned Parenthood funding was included in the budget. This was following Live Action’s Sex Trafficking investigation, showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting the sex-traffickers of underage girls. [Source]
- The president has pushed for his “pet legislation,” The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which would help fund “community health centers” (Planned Parenthood is their prime target). Additionally, the HHS mandate would force all Americans to fund abortion and contraception, with no exceptions for religious institutions or religious individuals who are vehemently against abortion and contraception. [Source]
5. Pres. Noynoy Aquino and the RH Bill (Law?)
In his 2012 State of the Nation Address, Pres. Aquino said:
I have great faith in Secretary Luistro: Before the next year ends, we will have built the 66,800 classrooms needed to fill up the shortage we inherited—of this, we expect 40,000 for this year. The 2,573,212 backlog in chairs that we were bequeathed will be addressed before 2012 ends. This year, too, will see the eradication of the backlog of 61.7 million textbooks—and we will finally achieve the one-to-one ratio of books to students.
We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase. Perhaps Responsible Parenthood can help address this.
The cat is out of the bag: for PNoy, the reason why there is a backlog of classrooms is because of rise in student population. PNoy’s solution is simple: responsible parenthood to decrease the number of babies born. In other words, birth control. That was in July 2012. In December 2012, he pushed the ratification of the RH Bill which would teach sex education from Grade 5 to High School. The bill would also make condoms and other contraceptives more accessible through subsidies from the National Government at taxpayer’s expense.
Who is behind this? PNoy is just a puppet: though he takes the main credit as the actor, the one behind the scenes are writing the script. And that script is the NSSM 200 state policy:
”Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.”
There are many ways for the US to coerce a Least Developed Country (LDC) like the Philippines to accepting family planning programs. One way is by tying the program’s implementation to increase in financial aid and investments. The other way is to use abortion providers(Likhaan and Planned Parenthood) and contraceptive manufacturers (pharmaceutical firms) to lobby for the passage of national family planning programs such as the RH Bill. Many senators and congressmen made it appear that they were bought to the idea of birth control through the RH Bill, but in the process they sold themselves and their country for 30 pieces of silver. Actually, they cannot anymore withstand the pressure from US and PNoy who are hell-bent in getting the RH Bill approved. A lunch with PNoy made many congressmen change their votes to YES to RH Bill. The threat of expulsion from the Liberal Party, with the 2013 elections as backdrop, silenced even the Bill’s strongest critics. And there is a pork barrel awaiting the executive’s butcher knife.
PNoy sent the RH Bill as a battering ram against the gates of Congress and Senate and the walls of the two institutions collapsed. PNoy now holds the Judiciary on his left hand, and the Congress and Senate on his right hand. There is now a new form of Philippine government: the PNoy autocracy. Render unto PNoy what PNoy wants. Or else.
With a government like this, more birth control programs are on their way to keep the population in check, to lessen dissent against the autocracy: Divorce, Euthanasia, and Homosexuality. All these are related to the RH Bill:
- Divorce. If contraceptives become more available and the youth are taught how to use them through sex education, then there is no more reason to get married, because the youth can get the pleasure of the marriage bed without tying marriage knot. And the husbands and wives who are married would see no more reason for marriage if their neighbor’s wife and husband is prettier or sexier. Then people clamor for the approval of the Divorce Law.
- Homosexuality. And why would restrict the pleasures of the marriage bed to heterosexual couples. If they use contraceptives, their sexual intercourse remains sterile. This does not differ from the homosexual intercourse which is also sterile. Then the people would clamor for the approval of Anti-Discrimination Laws to make Homosexuals have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples. In all these, no children are born or if there are, they are too few to mention–products of accidents of contraceptive failures–and most of them are out of wedlock. The Philippine population plummets.
- Euthanasia. Without children, there is no one to take care of the old. The old becomes a liability to the government: senior citizens get pensions and medical care without doing work. So if the government can think that the solution to classroom shortage is by planned parenthood, then there will be similar response to the problem of the aged: kill them off through euthanasia or make them continue to work past retirement age until they die. By the sweat of their brow the aged must eat.
Lady Gaga’s concert in the Philippines has sparked a new controversy on whether Catholic teaching on the four last things–death, heaven, hell, and purgatory–still makes sense on the modern world. It appears, however, that modern Atheistic Western Civilization cannot make its own values; it only proposes an idea opposite to what the Catholic Church teaches, as we can deduce from the ideas espoused by the Filipino Freethinkers. The Church proclaims the light of the world who is Christ. The Filipino Freethinkers proclaim the shadow of that Light. So the Filipino Freethinkers can do nothing but object to the Ten Commandments, and in doing so they form their own Ten Commandments:
- There is no God. Science has explained everything. I define what is right and wrong for me, and I don’t care what is right and wrong for you. As long as we don’t hurt each other, everything is fine.
- You can use the name of God in vain and make fun of him. He does not exist anyway. (Insert blasphemy here). The right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution.
- Sunday is just one of the days in the week. Sunday is not the time for going to mass but for shopping or playing sports or watching concerts.
- We honor our hominid ancestors via evolution and we thank Darwin for breaking our bonds with Adam and Eve. Mother and father are discriminatory labels. That should be parent 1 or parent 2, since both parents may be of the same sex. Actually, the proper term should be couples, because couples does not imply a child. Marriage is only for sexual union, and a child is an unnecessary burden which can be avoided through contraception and abortion.
- The aim of each human being is to live life to the fullest. Those who live an unsatisfactory life do not have the reason to live, so they must be killed. Thus, abortion, suicide, and euthanasia are ok, especially for the unborn, the infirm, disabled, the disfigured, and other useless members of the society.
- Marriage is not a sacrament but a contract between two parties, which can be revoked anytime. Adultery, concubinage, and fornication are natural relationships like marriage. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia should not be discriminated by bigots.
- There is no such thing as private property and fruits of personal labor. The government owns everything and I am the government.
- It is ok to lie in order to protect one’s self-interest.
- I want your wife. I want your husband.
- I want whatever you have.
Hi Dr. Sugon,
I sent you further inquiries about your thoughts on the nature of homosexuality last May 18, and I was wondering if you have received it. I am very much looking forward to discuss and be enlightened about matters which I still am not aware of, and I think that this conversation wonderfully helps me in doing that. In case you haven’t received it, I’ll be copying my reply here. Again, thanks, and I hope to hear from you soon.
“Yes, I say that homosexuality is partly a biological phenomenon, however, I did not say that because it is a biological phenomenon that homosexuals do not have a choice on their lifestyle. Homosexuals have the choice to live conservatively, that is not denying their homosexuality, but living in a way which does not scream the essence of stereotypical homosexuality (i.e. cross-dressing, application of excessive make-up). They also have the choice to dress and express their ideas more through clothing and other sociocultural avenues. But, what they don’t have a choice at is their attraction orientation – just as a straight man does not have a choice to get attracted to women and vice versa, unless society affects them to act otherwise. The same thing goes with your example of a murderer. I do not claim that killing is good, but a murderer who was born with schizophrenia or other psychological disorder is not deemed morally responsible for the act of killing, because he technically did not have a choice; his body was programmed to act that way. Therefore, this murderer, instead of being sent to jail, is sent to a psychological facility in which he will serve his term. What I think then is that, generally, homosexuals must not be held responsible for their orientation, and thus be condemned for it, because they don’t have a choice on who to get attracted to. (One particular exception may be a man who was born with the probability of getting attracted to women, but chooses to engage homosexually.)
To clarify, are you suggesting that homosexuals can be “trained”? I disagree with this point, and I will provide sociocultural references that show that such a transformation to becoming a heterosexual is improbable. Although we can try putting homosexuals in psychological facilities, or perhaps have the Church assist in an action to rehabilitate them from their homosexuality, society is not designed to act upon such an action. The case is different from the psychologically impaired, because there is a probability that they hurt themselves or others when they do not get treated. It is improbable that a particular gender is more inclined to doing harm to people than other genders, so it is not necessary to “treat” them. Also, becoming stable and constant in early years, gender is part of one’s identity (Kail, 2010). Therefore, trying to manipulate one’s gender through conditioning entails tainting one’s identity. With that, society deems that a mandate or even to advocate change in gender is unethical. That is why centers for homosexual rehabilitation do not exist.*But, I do not deny that there are still people who try to convert homosexuals, however, because gender is established and constant, these most of these people fail. Stories of fathers drowning their children in a drum of water and physically abusing them seem to attest to this.
Yes, man has free will, but this free will is affected by many factors. Thus, human behavior is not governed by biological instincts alone, but rather affected by it, together with the environment. We do not just punch the person who accidentally stepped on our foot, because we think that he did not mean and know what he did, even if, by our fight-or-flight mechanism, our bodies tell us to punch him or flee the scene. Homosexuality acts in the same way. Since social mores and teachings do not give enough reason to convince homosexuals to constrain their biological instnict to get attracted to the same sex, homosexuals think that they are justified in following their biological instinct.
Moreover, the link you provided me is Vatican’s official statement on the nature of marriage and homosexual unions alone. I am still stumped on what the Church claims about the essence and nature of homosexuality: where did it come from, for example.“-
*I have looked into this matter, and I stand corrected in saying that there are homosexual rehabilitation centers. However, it is highly frowned upon by the society and by the Catholic Church herself, because, again, it’s unethical.
Yes, I received it a long time ago, but it got buried in my many emails for not responding soon enough.
The short answerto your question on the nature of homosexuality is this: I don’t know.
The long answer is: God created only male and female. And God blessed them: “Be fruitful and multiply!” If God only made male and female, how is it possible that some men are attracted to men and women to women? The answer to this question is related to the more fundamental question: If everything that God created is good (read Genesis 1), why is there evil in the world? Answer: God made the angels good, but He gave them free will to reject or accept his love. Some angels used their free will to reject God’s love, and they became demons, with all the powers of angels before their fall, but filled with malice and hatred against God. Their choice is irrevocable.
Now, if God made humans only male and female, why are there lesbians and gays? Answer: before their Fall, Adam and Eve have perfect control over their passions. This is called Original Justice. But Satan, the leader of the fallen angels, is envious of the privilege of Adam and Eve, for they and their descendants shall become children of God if Adam and Eve pass the test. But misery seeks company. So Satan tempted Eve to disobey God’s commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree, and she brought his husband Adam with him in her disobedience. Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve lost their perfect control over their passions. This is Original Sin. And this defect of Adam and Eve is passed on to their descendants, together with increase birthpangs, difficulty of tilling the ground, and ultimately, of bodily death. Thus, homosexuality is a result of Original Sin. It is very difficult to cure, but the struggle to overcome ones homosexual tendencies is itself a path to sanctity, a cross that a homosexual has to bear in order to reach heaven. God can provide us with all the graces that we need to overcome temptation. We only need but ask. As Christ said: “For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened….how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Lk 11:9-13).
Let us always pray and fast. Fasting helps us control our passions. If a homosexual can learn how to control himself from eating meat on Fridays, he will build up spiritual reserves to combat his hunger for the human flesh during sexual intercourse with a fellow man (or with a fellow woman as in the case of lesbians). Some passions are difficult to remove; they are like stubborn demons that refuse to get out of a man. The apostles, too, encountered several cases of demonic possessions that the apostles have difficulty sending out. The apostles complained to Christ, and Christ said to them: “”But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.” In the same way, homosexuality can also be cured, but it can only be done by prayer and fasting. The only way to see if this method works is to try it.
Posted by benjie on June 9, 2011 at 11:56 am
RH Bill does not only benefit the pharmaceutical companies. It also benefits the priests who are sex perverts and maniacs. Are you sure your priests don’t use condoms and contraceptives?
Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on June 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Good argument. RH bill would benefit both Catholic and INC ministers who are sex perverts and maniacs. If we do not allow RH Bill to become a law, illicit sexual intercourse can be more easily known because the woman will get pregnant or acquire sexually transmitted diseases. So why does the INC support the RH bill and why does the Catholic Bishops don’t? Is it because majority of the INC ministers are sex perverts and majority of Catholic Bishops are celibates?
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.
Below is my reply to the author of the Daily Tribune’s Frontline artile entitled “No Church Issue” published 05/27/2011.
You cannot take religion and God out of the RH Bill because religion and God are not present in the RH Bill. In the place of God, you have in the RH bill the idols named “overpopulation”, “safe sex”, “reproductive health”, and “pro-choice”. Ancient Filipinos have fertility rituals–they pray for rain, abundant harvest, and many children. The RH bill, on the other hand, have infertility rituals: condoms, pills, and ligation–and abortion, if all these fail.
Separation of church and state means that churches have no business interfering with state matters, such as how and where to build roads, bridges, and buildings. At the same time, the state has no business interfering with morality which is the domain of the Church. The RH bill is in the domain of morality because it concerns human life and eternal salvation, so the Church has to intervene. As Christ said: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt 22:21)
Italy is distinct from the and the Vatican City State where the Pope resides. So the government affairs of Italy is not the business of the Pope. But regarding condoms and pills, Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Art. 14) wrote: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” This encyclical is not only for Italy (whose Northern parts were known as the Papal States for more than a thousand years) but for the whole Catholics worldwide, including the Philippines.
There is a distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church. Divorce is the breaking up of a valid marriage. This is not possible, because Christ said:
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:4-10)
King Henry VIII of England asked the pope to allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused, so King Henry broke from the Catholic Church and declared himself the Head of the Anglican Church. By the way, many Anglican bishops and entire parishes are now converting to the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, annulment in the Catholic Church means that there was no marriage in the first place, so the man and the woman whose marriage was annulled are free to marry.
I am glad that the author recognizes that some contraceptives are abortifacients. Concerning contraception, as I said before, the state has no authority to define what is morally good or not, only the Church does. The Catholic Faith has united the warring tribes of the Philippines into a single nation. So for the sake of the common good and the Filipino religious tradition, the Philippine State should recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in matters of morality. If the state cannot promote good morals, it is better that it desist from promoting bad morals by not passing the RH Bill into a state law.
If the author cannot see that the world has become more promiscuous, she may like to watch a Hollywood films and TV 60 years ago and compare it with the Hollywood films and TV now. She may like to count the average number of times that the following words are mentioned: sex and fuck. She may like to classify the films according to the number of scenes nudity in various levels is shown. This would be a good research paper, and the author would be surprised at her results: “The world indeed has become more promiscuous!”
What the pope is saying regarding condoms is that in conscience darkened by sin, the use of condoms to protect the partner from sexual disease can be a sign of the slow awakening of the moral sense. Here is the quote in full:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.
There is a distinction between liberal education and liberal Faith. Liberal education of Ateneo simply means that students become well rounded individuals: they study languages, humanities, arts, and sciences, regardless of their chosen course. The core curriculum is the essence of Ateneo’s liberal education.
On the other hand, to have a liberal Faith is antithesis of being Catholic. To be liberal in Faith is to choose only the doctrines and teachings that you feel like obeying and discard the rest. Pope Benedict XVI calls this the Cafeteria Catholicism. The words of Dr. Clamor are only partly true. There are things in Catholicism that if one does not believe them, you do not cease to be Catholic. An example would be some Marian apparitions and other private revelations to the saints. But there are things called dogmas that are non-negotiables: if you don’t believe them, you cease to be Catholic. You become a heretic. An example would be the Dogma of the Trinity.
Membership in the Church is not a subjective feeling or being conscious about it. If you are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you become the member of the Catholic Church. Outside the Church there is no salvation. If you are cut off from the Church, you wither and die, because the Church is the Body of Christ (c.f parable of the vine and branches).
One cannot support the Reproductive Health Bill in good conscience, because a good conscience is formed by obedience to the teachings of the Church. Support for the Reproductive Health Bill can only be a result of malformed conscience. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae has explicitly condemned the use of contraceptives in married life as instrinsically wrong. Your Th 121 can have his/her opinions on what should the Catholic Church do regarding homosexual couples, but he does not have the Magisterium (Teaching Authority) of Bishops and Popes. Your teacher can say his opinions and we can debate forever. But when the Pope speaks ex Cathedra as successor of Peter, the case is closed.
In the time of Jose Rizal, to be an Atenean is to have a liberal education. Jose Rizal studied Latin and Greek and learned the arts and sciences. A true Atenean is a devotee of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Jose Rizal carved the Statue of the Sacred Heart in wood with a penknife. A true Atenean is a devotee of Our Lady. Jose Rizal prays the rosary. This is the reason why the Ateneo Basketball Team was once known as the Hail Mary Squad because they always pray the rosary before each game. And this is also why we sing our Alma Mater Song:
“Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you!”
As an agnostic, you have to be careful when you sing this song. Mama Mary can convert even the most hardened sinners. The Campus Ministry in Ateneo never cease to give the Miraculous Medal every year. It is not called Miraculous Medal for nothing. If you receive that medal and pray a Hail Mary a day devoutly for a month, you will be converted. If you are incredulous, try it.
When Rizal gone astray into masonry, did his Jesuit teachers approve of his views? No. This led to the series of letters between Rizal and Fr. Pastells, SJ. Rizal’s physics teacher, Fr. Federico Faura, SJ, the man who first forcasted Philippine storms, rebuked Rizal for his insolence. But when Rizal was shown the statue of the Sacred Heart that He carved in his youth, Rizal converted. Fr. Faura heard his confession and he died in Luneta as a true Atenean and Catholic.
A colleague of mine called me up yesterday that he got copies of the recent issue of the Guidon, the official student publication of the Ateneo de Manila University. He told me that I was featured there, so he asked me sign about 10 copies. It’s for history’s sake, he said. The article was entitled, “Physics prof draws flak over comments on ‘homosexual’ thesis.” The article was about the comments I received in my blogpost: http://monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ateneo-psychology-department-has-an-undergraduate-thesis-poster-exhibit-on-homosexuality/.
Physics prof draws flak over comments on ‘homosexual’ thesis
by Katerina D. Francisco
A theoretical physicist who posted comments about a thesis poster exhibit on homosexuality drew angry comments from students, who called the professor out on his alleged homophobia.
Quirino Sugon Jr., Ph.D., an assistant professor from the physics department, wrote an entry in blog entitled “Ateneo Psychology Department has an undergraduate thesis poster exhibit on homosexuality.” The entry was posted last February 18.
His post contained a notice from the psychology department, which announced a poster exhibit featuring this year’s senior theses. Two of the featured theses had themes related to homosexuality.
Sugon then commented that the Ateneo was being besieged by “homosexual propaganda,” a remark that drew the ire of one of the thesis groups he had pointed out.
The exhibit, held last February 21 to 24 at the MVP basement, showcased theses of senior psychology students presented in poster format.
The notice from the psychology department also contained a list of five nominees for the best undergraduate thesis. In his comment, Sugon highlighted two of the theses for their topics on homosexuality.
“If Ateneo de Manila University does not defend its Catholic traditions against the siege of homosexual propaganda, Ateneo shall become a Catholic-In-Name-Only just like other Jesuit schools like Georgetown and Fordham who caved-in to homosexual ideology. The Dark Ages are at hand,” Sugon said.
Such remarks did not sit well with Leia Erika Obias and Paolo Stephen Banaga. They, along with Joy Albertine Mae Valenton, worked on a thesis entitled, “I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It: An Interpretative Phenomenological Study of Filipino Homosexual Men in Mixed Orientation Unions.”
Obias clarified that not all of the theses in the exhibit were about homosexuality. She also commented that Sugon’s note at the end implied that her group’s thesis was “homosexual propaganda.”
“This is what angered me… the most,” she addressed to Sugon in a reply to the blog post. “You have made assumptions without first getting the facts.”
“I might not be Catholic and have verses from the Bible at hand to strengthen my point, but I’m sure that there must be something there that tells you not to discriminate against anyone, homosexuals included,” she added.
Obias found out about the entry when she saw a link to the blog site posted on Facebook. Upon reading the entry, she informed here thesis partners and their adviser, Mendiola Ten-Calleja. Banaga said the entry quickly gained notoriety in the department.
Obias explained that their thesis was about mixed orientation marriages, or marriages between homosexual men and heterosexual women. Banaga said they decided to work on this topic because most studies have been devoted to studying unions between homosexuals.
“We wanted to open the eyes of the people that it’s a reality that’s out there. We wanted to address it. We wanted to give the views of both spouses [so] people will understand,” Banaga explained.
Asked for comment, Sugon said care must be taken in the things that one chooses to work on or publish.
“They have to [read] it very carefully, [because it is like] a precipice,” Sugon said regarding the student’s thesis. “[Once] you work on [or] study something that the Church calls sin, ultimately you [can be convinced] on the ideas and propositions of the [other ideology].”
“So without the guidance of the Church, it is perilous for an ordinary student to just [work on it] in a carefree way.”
He added that the things that one publishes become support for or against an ideology.
In the wake of the issue, the psychology department released an official statement on the undergraduate students’ research on homosexuality.
“Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. As an empirical science, it seeks to describe, understand, and explain human phenomena, as these exist in society. Homosexuality is one such phenomenon that can be subject matter of social scientific investigation.
With reports by Jam D. Paclibar
The Department of Psychology warmly invites the community to view the Psychology Undergraduate Poster Exhibit from February 21 to 24, 2011 at the MVP Basement Lobby. The exhibit showcases the theses of the senior Psychology students in poster format.
We would also like to invite everyone to the Senior Psychology
Research Conference on Thursday, February 24, 4 to 6pm at the Leong Auditorium. In this conference, the five nominees for Best Undergraduate Thesis will present their papers.
An Interpretative Phenomenological Study on the Subjective Experience of The Balikbayan Child by Chester P. Cheng, Danela Lois S. Gil, and Maria Enrily D. Magtanong
Coping and Empowerment Strategies of Female Survivors of Prostitution by Gloria Gail Lim, Nina Lizares, and Irisa Wassmer
Filipino Homosexual Families and the use of Redefinition and Intentionality Strategies for Building and Sustaining Family Networks by Leonora Isabelle Dumlao, Francesca Amalia Gaviola and Denise Suarez
I Kissed A Girl and I Liked It: An Interpretative Phenomenological Study of Filipino Homosexual Men in Mixed Orientation Unions by Paolo Stephen R. Banaga, Leia Erika B. Obias and Joy Albertine Mae G. Valenton
An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Experience of Cancer in a Filipino Family by Katrina G. Caballas, Paula Elise SM. Doroteo, and May Anne V. Lee
Monkshobbit’s Notes: If Ateneo de Manila University does not defend its Catholic traditions against the seige of homosexual propaganda, Ateneo shall become a Catholic-In-Name-Only just like other Jesuit schools like Georgetown and Fordham who caved-in to homosexual ideology. The Dark Ages are at hand.
I. The School Forum on MVP’s Speech
I attended the forum on MVP’s commencement speech yesterday. There were four speakers, but I can remember only two: Fr. Ben Nebres, S.J. and Mr. Leland de la Cruz. Fr. Ben announced the resignation of MVP and he emphasized the Board of Trustee’s decision was based on Catholic Moral Theology: there are many mitigating factors to the deed and among them are full knowledge and consent. Leland, on the other hand, talked about the hurt experienced by other members of the Ateneo community. His question is essentially on how do we reconcile the academic honesty we teach to our students with MVP’s speech. I admire Leland for his courage.
I did not share my opinion in the forum. I only listened. I noticed that those who speak in favor of BOT are generally older teachers and those who speak in favor of Leland are generally younger. If you ask my opinion, I shall say that this issue is beyond my competence as a blogger. I cannot directly quote from the Catechism or from a papal encyclical. This is not a doctrinal problem, but something academic or something on the question of personal culpability which I am not competent to judge. And besides, MVP and the Board of Trustees are not my colleague: they are my superiors. I can air my disagreement to my colleague’s opinions, but for those of my superiors, I shall prefer to be mum and let those in authority decide on the issue. My code of conduct is governed by St. Ignatius 10th Rule for Thinking, Judging, and Feeling with the Church:
Rule 10. We ought to be more inclined to approve and praise the decrees, recommendations, and conduct of our superiors than to speak against them. For although in some cases their acts are not or were not praiseworthy, to speak against them either by preaching in public or by conversing among the ordinary people would cause more murmuring and scandal than profit. And through this the people would become angry at their officials, whether civil or spiritual. However, just as it does harm to speak evil about officials among the ordinary people while they are absent, so it can be profitable to speak of their bad conduct to persons who can bring about a remedy.
I haven’t seen the letter of Leland’s group before it was published on the web. And many faculty members haven’t seen it. It would have been better if they shared it with all the faculty first, get the pulse of the community, and broadcast it afterward. More could have added their names on the list. But that is only in hindsight.
II. The Continuing Scandals: LADLAD and the Reproductive Health Bill
One faculty walked to one of the microphones to speak her opinion. And she passed behind my chair. And while passing by I heard her whisper something to this effect: “the Catholic teaching on … is next.” From the tone of her voice and murmurs I hear I can sense that she is referring to the issue of the Reproductive Health Bill which many faculty signed in support of the bill. For this matter I can speak my mind, because I will not be speaking my mind but the mind of the Church: I shall simply quote Humanae Vitae:
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. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (section 14, par. 3)
Danton Remoto, the founding chairman of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered party list group LADLAD sits somewhere to my left. From the mention of the word “ladlad” which means “to lay bare in public” in one of the opinion presentations on MVP’s speech, I can see some nods in approval of LADLAD. This is the second continuing scandal in Ateneo de Manila University: you have a professor in a Catholic University which pushes for the adoption of homosexual norms in the government, in defiance of Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality as stated in the Catechism.
Unlike MVP who admitted his error, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill and LADLAD in Ateneo continued to claim to know better than the Church’s Magisterium. Fr. Ben Nebres’s appeal to Catholic teaching on full knowledge and consent for the sinful deed to be grave falls on deaf ears: you have a group of faculty members who do not anymore believe in the Church’s teaching authority. If the Catholic Church can err in its teaching on contraception and homosexuality, then the Catholic Church can also err in its teaching on venial and mortal sins.
The disobedience to Church’s teaching authority also leads to another thing: the spirit of dissent to authority in general. Dissent begets dissent. I saw this years ago when the Vice President for Loyola Schools, Dr. Cuyegkeng, was standing in front of the students explaining the new University dress code–a code for modesty as a guardian of chastity. Some Faculty members and Student leaders lambasted her in her face. They find it difficult to follow a simple rule as to dress decently when you are in school. Where is academic freedom in that? they say, forgetting that students come to the Ateneo not to tell Ateneo what to do, but rather to be formed by Ateneo in the Jesuit Catholic tradition. You don’t talk down to the Vice President; you entreat her in deference to her position, to the dignity of the office that she represents. And I feel that the wording of the letter in response to the BOT’s decision on MVP could also have been written in the same spirit: the spirit of entreaty and deference.