Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Sex: Two opposing views

An article from the PDI aka...


The Bishop's Move by Jesselynn G. de la Cruz

There’s more to the comprehensive sexuality education program than the DepEd and DOH admit, claims the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. This should be taught by parents, the bishops insist, instead of being “mandated by government and funded by population agencies”

Why do our children need to be taught about sex? And who should teach them?

The two questions spring from a premise over which there seems to be no debate: that yes, Filipino youths need to learn about sex.

The “why” and the “who” remain areas of contention and escalating tension between the country’s Catholic Bishops and government agencies pushing for a comprehensive sex education program in public schools.

There is a marked difference in perspective on the issue that caused the Church and the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Health department (DOH) to part ways on sex education.

The Catholic Church says sex is sacred; (the government agencies) say sex is dangerous,” explains Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), which has vehemently opposed the DepEd-DOH program.  [This is where the battle line is drawn just as I have always debated people who do not understand the Church's stand on sex.  Unless we have a common definition of what sex is then there is nothing to talk about.  But there are those who say that contraception should be allowed by the Church even for married couples.  The answer to that is: sex is for the creation of life and any artificial means to stop the creation of life, take note of this, is against the natural moral law and is therefore morally wrong and sinful!]

This distinction is vital, the archbishop notes, because it determines why, how and by whom sex education should be taught. “What is important for the Church is that sex education should not be removed from the human person and therefore cannot be abstracted. In fact, we would not call it ’sex education,’ but rather ’education in human sexuality.’”

The premise that sex is “for pleasure, but is dangerous,” he added, leads to a conclusion that you can have the pleasure but “you must be protected.” And this seems to be the approach of the sex education program as envisioned by the DepEd-DOH, he adds.

But the Church view on the sacredness of sex is that “it is for man and woman to be able to give God an occasion to create, with the parents co-creating,” [the stand of the Church towards sex will never be compromised with what that pig named Sigmund Freud said!  The world worships his view on human sexuality even if he impregnates his sister-in-law and has an abortion!] contends Cruz. In that context, sex—or human sexuality, as the Philippine Church prefers to call it—cannot be considered merely a school subject alongside the other course offerings in the regular curriculum that can be taught in modules and in regular class sessions. It is not something you can teach “objectively,” like math or science, he adds.

Caloocan bishop Deogracias Iñiguez had expressed the same sentiments to explain his participation in a protest action launched by a party-list and child advocacy group at the DepEd office in Pasig City last month.

Iñiguez has since consistently urged Education officials to stop the pilot-testing of the sex education program in some 180 elementary and high schools in the country.

Sex is now perceived as pleasure for today’s generation,” he noted. [And no one dare tell otherwise!]

The Catholic Church has always maintained that the first teachers of human sexuality should be the parents—specifically, mothers.

If the DepEd and the DOH are serious in launching a sex education program in schools for the good of the children, the Bishops counter, then they should address the parents first: teach parents how to teach their children. [The government cannot handle EVERYTHING.  This is one fact of life they have to accept.]

“Once the parents have been provided or equipped with the necessary information, then they will be able to adjust this information to the needs of their kids. Because every kid will have a separate level of growth and understanding—mentally, psychologically and emotionally. If the parents teach human sexuality in the context of their family, their papa and mama, ate and kuya—then it’s closer to home and not something alien,” says Cruz. [Oh I can here Maramba and de Quiros say, "Look bishop. You do not have a wife and kids.  You are in no position to tell us how to do it!  ENGK!  Non sequitur!]

But even before the issue of how and by whom sexuality education should be taught, the CBCP seeks an honest disclosure of the motivation and objective of the program[Can we hear the UN and EU and HUGE pharmaceutical money behind all of this?  Didn't we hear the same when the Cheaper Medicines Act was being heard in Congress?  The tactics are SOOOO very the same.]

“The reaction from the bishops and the Catholic lay faithful regarding the sex education program to be introduced in schools is rooted in the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, which was introduced in Congress and that became a very poignant issue of dissent between the CBCP, particularly the Commission on Family and Life, and the House representatives themselves,” Cruz admits.

With this background, he continues, the conclusion is rather obvious. “The sex education program ordered by the DepEd goes hand in hand with the RH Bill backed by the DOH. There is a very big lobby, funded by the international pharmaceuticals who are marketers of contraceptives, condoms, etc., that started with the RH Bill and continues with the Comprehensive Sex Education Program.” [And what do you think fuels these columnists to air their tirades against the Church, eh?  30 pieces of silver STILL is a LOT of money.]

The country’s Catholic leaders, says Cruz, are convinced that the sex education program is a way for the two government agencies to ultimately introduce an RH program—a population control program—“that will not have to pass any other legislative agency, and lose strength in the process.”

“There may be more to it than they are ready to admit. I’m saying the (DepEd and DOH) are not doing this only on their own initiative,” the former Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan stresses.

There seems to be pressure and/or incentives from some source. So we’re questioning the motivation—and the finality. The start and the goal are both dubious—and it has to be exposed for what it is, for what the agenda is.”

This final argument, the former CBCP president says, is meant to examine the purpose or objective of the Comprehensive Sex Education Program.

“The Church believes, insists—and includes in every document and law—that the responsibility of parents is procreation and education. And when we say education, the objective is to provide our children with: information—they will know; formation—it will have an effect on them, and transformation—it will make a difference in them,” says the archbishop.  [Archbisop Cruz is impressing me!  He speaks like he is a father who has real kids of his own.  Very impressive, indeed.]

“Sexuality education can be all that, only if it is the responsibility of the parents, and not because it is mandated by government and funded by population agencies.”


It's all about the money folks...Why you might ask?

They have exhausted the market in Europe, Japan and the Americas where the call now is towards more people to be born.  Population in these parts of the world is going down quickly.  More people are growing old while there are only few being born, no thanks to contraception and abortion and...also sex is for fun.

Know the issues so that you don't get bamboozled by agents of death who are willing to write for the devil for 30 pieces of silver!

No comments:

Post a Comment