Catholic dating tips: Lessons from a strip-tease dancer

Why do many men go to clubs to watch a strip-tease dancer do her art?  Well, she can simply go out naked on stage, gyrate, and spread her legs, but there would be nothing exciting about it.  It’s just that: there is no more room for imagination.  As Einstein said, imagination is more powerful than knowledge.  So to arouse men’s sexual passions, a strip-tease dancer has to invite men to a journey of discovery by making them think and guess what lies more beyond than meets the eye.  A strip-tease dancer must turn herself into a rosebud with her petals all wrapped up, and then slowly bloom before men’s eyes, opening each petal one by one as the Spring opens skillfully and mysteriously her first rose: the outer coat, shirt, and bra; the skirt, the shoes, the stockings, the half-slip, and underwear.  And finally there is nothing left to see, but a woman gyrating on stage.

Advertisements

Lost innocence: Muslim child brides and US sex education for children

In this post, I shall talk about two things: Muslim child brides in the Muslim East and US sex education for children in the Secular West–an education not only in schools, but also in movies and TV shows.  And lastly, I shall propose the Catholic remedy by discussing the 6th and 9th Commandments, together with the virtues of modesty and purity.

Read more at Monk’s Hobbit.

Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) using Mary and the Holy Rosary in vain

Catholics for RH using Mary and the Holy Rosary in vain

Catholics for RH using Mary and the Holy Rosary in vain

Something diabolical is afoot: Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) is using Mary and the Holy Rosary to promote something which is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. I think they found a  mnemonic device: RH is Roproductive Bill, so HR is Holy Rosary. HR for RH. Sounds good, right? But alas, as the Holy Rosary and the Reproductive Health Bill are opposites that can’t be mixed, in the same way as one cannot mix water and oil.

Reproductive Health Bill is for contraception, but Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Contraceptives prevent conception; conception is the failure of contraception. Had Mary practiced contraception, we would not have Christ. The contraceptive mentality says:

“Mary, you are still young. A good life still awaits you. That child will prevent you from attaining that good life. You have a boyfriend, Joseph, an honest and just man.  You are already betrothed to him.  What will he say to you when he finds out that the child is not his?  He will despise you and leave you.  What will your parents and relatives say when they found you with child and Joseph divorced you, you will be despised by all.  Worst, they will hand you over to be stoned to death, according to the law of Moses.

And even if you and your child will escape death by stoning, you will have a hard life raising that child.  A Son of God?  That’s a ridiculous title?  No one will believe that.  Surely, you don’t believe that.  A prophet maybe, but not Son of God.  There is no precedence in history that God became man.  You are just deluding yourself that you are talking to an angel.  You fast too much that you began to see things that are not there.  Slap yourself in the face.  Maybe that would awake you to your senses.

Catholics for RH Bill poster

Catholics for RH Bill poster

But Mary said “No” to contraceptive mentality and “yes” to God.  And in doing so, she undid the disobedience of Eve, who took the fruit of disobedience in her womb, believing that she would be like God who can define what is good and what is evil.  Mary, said, “yes,” and the whole plan of salvation unfolded starting from her Immaculate womb:

Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.

It is Mary’s openness to life that should serve as model for all women.  A married woman becomes open to life if she accepts whatever child God gives her as a gift to be treasured and cared for.  Because the child is so great a gift, a woman must prepare for such great responsibility, by not having intercourse outside of marriage.  Chastity is the path to marriage and modesty is the guardian of chastity.  As the Song of Songs says: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, do not arouse, do not stir up love, before its own time.”

For the members of the Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH), if you still consider yourself Catholic, listen to what Pope Paul VI wrote in his encyclical Humanae Vitae:

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.

Atenean Chris Tiu on the Chastity talk of Jason Evert

A Moment of Conversion

by Chris Tiu (AMDG blog)

I never could have imagined myself attending a chastity talk, although I am a believer of chastity and purity. But one thing led to another and I found myself at SMX two Sundays ago seated right at the back of a chastity speaker himself, Jason Evert! I had no idea what he looked like. All i knew was that he was American. And because the person in front of me was the only blond person I saw in the jam-packed SMX , I figured it was him.

Honestly, my understanding was that it was going to be a talk about love and relationships, not about chastity. I also heard really positive feedback from his prior speaking engagements upon arriving to the Philippines just 2 days before. Hence, I decided to listen and pick his brains.

The program started with a Holy Mass. After which, I was introduced to Jason by a friend of mine and we spoke for a bit. Jason must have read what was going on in my mind and so he picked me as a volunteer at the beginning of his talk. He wanted to start his talk with the question, “how far is too far” in a relationship.  And to illustrate his point, he made me put on a “lady gaga” wig and acted out as if we were on a date.  And in an instant, he lifted me upon his shoulders! One hand supporting me, and one hand holding the mic! Deep inside, I was thinking, Wow! This guy is strong! I stand at 5’11 and Jason was just about 5’7. He was probably 30 lbs. lighter than me. Then he lifted me towards the end of the stage and asked me if he should still go on. Of course, i said NO! And he took me down and thanked me for volunteering!

So what’s his point? The point is not to put our loved ones in danger.  He said that asking “how far can I go with a girl without sinning” can be put more positively into “how far can I go with a girl in protecting her innocence”.  Think of it this way. He invited us to think of our future wife who may be dating another guy right now. How far do we want that guy to go with her? It is like Stephen Covey’s “thinking with the end in mind”, the end here being marriage.  Then he said “girls, do not allow a guy to lift the veil of your body before he lifts the veil in your head–in marriage.”

To illustrate his point further he cited statistics in the US which says that those who married as virgins has a divorce rate of 70% less than those who were not. This was taken from a 700-page book research in the US with the largest survey respondents.

What made me think deeper was his analogy of our love for our future wife with the love of Christ for the Church. He quoted St Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. I couldn’t help but think of Mel Gibson’s the Passion of the Christ when he described how Jesus suffered for us, His Church, His Bride.  He said that that’s how much we have to be willing to suffer for our future wife. And part of that sacrifice is to live a chaste life now. We need to free ourselves so that we can love!

Read more

Continuing scandal in Ateneo de Manila after MVP’s speech: LADLAD and the Reproductive Health Bill

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.