Goodbyes... and... Hellos... 5/12/2009 09:48:00 PM

These past few moths marked significant events in the life of my two high school barkada (bosom buddies)...
In March, C.P.'s mother passed away... She had started getting sick in August. She came for a CT scan in November. Coincidentally, I was the resident-on-duty. The moment I saw the first images on screen, I knew it was terminal cancer A few confusing months passed when she was diagnosed with something immunological/inflammatory rather than her final diagnosis cancer. She was in and out of the hospital. As I was about to go on retreat, C.P. texted to say that she had died in Manila. I couldn't go to say my proper farewells though. A week or so later, C.P. came by the hospital on her Mom's 9th day and showed me a miniature urn with her ashes as well as images of her wake on my friend's camera phone. It was then that I was struck with the reality that I will never see Tita A.P. in this life again.
Then, early this month, R.S. (well, I should now refer to her as R.S.-C.) got married. I was only able to go to her church wedding, real reasons only known to her and me. She had been jittery for a few months before the wedding, so I decided to have lunch with her and give her the encouragement not to be afraid to take the next step. I think the short lunch worked as she raved about the fact that her fiance would adore my ideas about life and marriage. A few days before the wedding, she texted to ask if I can do the reading at their nuptial mass. I agreed. Then I realized that I did not have anything to wear (I was planning to not follow the color scheme as I was just attending, now I was going to read at the mass)! Thus, I found myself using lunch break while on holiday duty to purchase my yellow dress and fancy shoes (with the help of a friend!) and dinner break to wash and dry my outfit. It turned out well and I even got compliments for the dress. I was misty-eyed at the wedding of this long-time friend (we started our friendship in 2nd grade), but I thankfully did not cry openly (hehehe... that would have ruined my make-up!). I am so happy to welcome my new friend-in-law, S.C.!
I guess this illustrates life as we know it... We say our hellos as well as our goodbyes... Yet the best way to do things is to live our now in the way that we should.

A "Lord of the Rings" Twist to the Population Question 5/12/2009 09:44:00 PM

Since I am currently reading "The Lord of the Rings" (I'm now in the first few chapters of the "Twin Towers"), I found this take by Elizabeth Lev juxtaposed with the population issue most intriguing...
***
Tolkien's Dark Lord at the UNHobbit Alliance Brings Triumph of Hope
By Elizabeth Lev
ROME, APRIL 9, 2009 (Zenit.org).- It was an epic tale of triumph worthy of J.R.R. Tolkien. The events at the U.N. Population and Development Commission last week could have been taken straight out of his great trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."
Last week, representatives from 47 countries gathered in New York for the annual meeting of the commission on population and development of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. In view of a world population projected to hit 9 billion in 2050, the commission reviews and assesses the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development approved by the United Nations in 1994.
Behind the optimistic façade of concern for the welfare of a burgeoning population, a darker, most sinister agenda loomed. A new language was insinuating itself amid the hopeful statements of the earlier U.N. documents.
The main agenda item was "sexual and reproductive health and rights" -- the terminology under which many NGOs and U.N. committees promote abortion -- and the codification of a language that would open the door to an array of demands by homosexual activists.
Like the one ring forged by Sauron in the depths of Mount Doom, this term revealed the master plan: "One Ring to rule them all" and to bring them into darkness. Changing the word 'ring' to 'agency,' the specter of the Dark Lord could be replaced by Planned Parenthood, one of the most active NGOs at the meeting.
A prescient few saw the impending menace. Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, noted that "one cannot help but get the impression that populations are seen as the hindrance to greater social and economic development." The prelate also warned that the commission "is giving priority to population control and getting the poor to accept these arrangements rather than primarily focusing upon its commitments to addressing education, basic health care, access to water, sanitation and employment."
But the armies of darkness were strong and seemed invincible. China, Great Britain, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Spain and Germany could be expected to promote this language. The United States, under a new administration in thrall to the culture of death, would use all of its might to advance the reign of Planned Parenthood. All seemed lost.
These international giants, the leaders in economy, development and technology, were certain that no obstacle remained to their plan.
In the statement made by Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the executive director of the United Nations Population Fund, the plan was revealed. She invoked the world financial crisis, and the subsequent difficulty in sustaining programs to improve the health and education of the world's poor. “The financial crisis was threatening to wipe out this hard-won progress." But her solution was to ensure that "greater attention is paid to population issues and more resources are devoted to women's empowerment and reproductive health, including maternal health care and family planning."
Translating this to the common tongue, her proposal is to teach women that childbearing is dangerous and oppressive; therefore abortion is healthy and liberating. Even the Evil Lord of Mordor never tried to pass off his agenda of death and enslavement of the human race as something "positive" and "empowering."
Obaid then reminded the commission that the Cairo conference had agreed that "every person has the right to sexual and reproductive health," and exhorted the commission "to keep the promise to ensure universal access to reproductive health by 2015."
The great nations nodded and applauded, much like the ring wraiths whose will had long been bound to that of their wicked overlord. The culture of life braced itself to take another loss among the many it had already suffered.
Then help came from an unexpected quarter. Iran took the floor and protested that the "right to sexual and reproductive health" could not be substituted with "sexual and reproductive health and rights."
The Iranian delegate pointed out that this phrase had never been included in any negotiated U.N. document before and urged the commission to revert to previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the original 1994 Program of Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion.
Immediately four Catholic countries -- Ireland, Peru, Chile and Poland -- picked up Iran's call to strike the wording. It was an unusual alliance, not unlike the dwarves and elves overcoming their differences to fight the common enemy.
Although the Christian community and Iran find themselves opposed on many issues, it was a heartening vision to see the diverse nations cooperating in defense of alliance and dialogue through the culture of life.
But as in Tolkien's great adventure of the fellowship of the nine, it was the smallest of all that saved the day. Like the four indomitable hobbits of Tolkien's epic, the Holy See (a tiny 104-acre state), Comoros (which I had to look up on Googlemaps -- it's in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar) Santa Lucia and Malta all joined the fellowship to break the stranglehold of the forces of evil.
These four hobbit-like states, whose collective national products probably don't equal the operating budget for Planned Parenthood, spoke loudly and convincingly. Malta decried the consistent attempts by the commission to expand "reproductive health" to include abortion. The delegate from Santa Lucia saw to the heart of the proposed wording and stressed that her delegation understood that this provision did not threaten the right of health care providers to refuse to perform or be complicit in abortions as a matter of conscience.
As Galadrial said to the wavering Frodo, "even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
At the last moment at the close of the meeting, the ring of power was thrown back into the fires of Mount Doom from whence it came. "Sexual and reproductive health and rights" was struck from the text.
In these days of imminent conscience coercion, massive government funding of abortion and other gloomy signs on the horizon, this little fellowship at the United Nations demonstrated what Tolkien's characters whisper during the darkest hours and Pope Benedict XVI exclaims from nation to nation: "There is still hope."
***
Unfortunately, our dear mostly Roman Catholic country was not among the cited "hobbits". We happen to be still in the midst of the reproductive health bill debate without realizing that this catch-all phrase happens to undermine the protection of life from the moment of conception that is actually protected by our constitution. Yet, there will now be government funding for contraceptives which have an abortifacient side effect. If people want to use artificial contraceptives, by disregarding the voice of reason of the Church to accept into their homes the number of children God has ordained to send them at his own good time, let them spend for it themselves. If they don't want to spend for contraceptives, why can't they learn the natural methods of family planning and apply it without spending a centavo. I am a single, and a taxpayer who does not believe that such contraceptives are necessary thus why should my taxes go to such programs when they can be used to offer basic hygiene classes as well as livelihood projects for the underprivileged instead?

Long Courtships are UNHEALTHY!!! 6/15/2007 12:21:00 PM

I stumbled onto a copy of this article while googling (Thanks, Teachertwish!)... Perhaps those of you reading who are teenagers, parents or siblings (I happen to be one!) of teenagers, or working with teenagers may find it interesting, and enlightening as well.

The author is a Filipino numerary priest of Opus Dei. I vaguely remember him mentioning similar ideas as an aside in a theology class I took several years ago.

~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~

Long Courtships are UNHEALTHY!!! by Fr. Jaime Achacoso

Why is a priest writing about a topic like this? What does he know about this stuff? The answer to the latter is simply that I too was a regular dude once, the campus scene in the early seventies not being much different from what it is now as far as this topic was concerned, except that premarital sex was much less then.

After counselling young people for the past thirty years—especially as a priest in the past twenty—I have arrived at the conclusion that premarital sex among teenagers can largely be blamed on going steady. Ultimately, of course, the deterioration of morals in society should be blamed. However, I am more convinced each day that the occasion for possible failures in this regard can be minimized by postponing going steady until after college. This is the main reason that urged me to write this article.

Why Go Steady?

Before anything else, it is important to define our terms, given the different stages of the man-woman relationship prior to marriage. In brief, we can lay down the following:

1st: Dating – the stage of boy-girl friendships, without any hint of exclusivity or any relation to the possibility of a future marriage.

2nd: Courtship – the period of mutual discovery of a man and a woman, the essential qualities of which are the thought of a possible future marriage and — because of this — varying degrees of commitment and exclusivity. This stage can be subdivided into:

  • a) Going steady, the earliest stage of courtship, also referred to by most teenagers as “being on” or — in its lesser form — as “MU” (mutual understanding). It starts when the possibility of a future marriage is first entertained, and therefore marks a certain degree of exclusivity.
  • b) Informal engagement, which follows the moment when a man explicitly proposes marriage to a woman and at least an approximate time frame for such is agreed upon privately between them.
  • c) Formal engagement, the stage after a man formally proposes marriage, for a specific date, and such is communicated to relatives and friends.

Most young people go steady for the wrong reason:

  • a) For companionship – but one does not need to get into such a semi-permanent commitment for companionship; dating several people in turn could provide more companionship.
  • b) For inspiration (to have a special someone) – but at this stage of development, a special someone is more of a limitation to friendships with the opposite sex, which is a big part of high school and college life.
  • c) For a ready date – which is really what most fellows are after at this stage, since it’s a hassle having to find a date every weekend.

If I fall in love

“Father you make it sound so cold-blooded” — objects many a young lady. The fact is, love can be a cold-blooded affair, if it is true love — that is, an act of the will towards a person who has been perceived by the intellect as somebody worthy of love. One does not “fall” in love helplessly. One loves deliberately. Either that or one surrenders oneself to one’s feelings.

Unfortunately, love has been confused with feelings or affections. These are reactions to sensible good that can indeed precede, accompany or follow love, but they are not love. Feelings can be deceiving, since they are only reactions to sensible goods: a pretty or handsome face, a thousand and one details that make somebody nice (or what most girls call “cute”). Only the intellect can really judge the overall aptness of a person for conjugal love. Only afterwards should the will follow: “I love him, because he has the qualities that I consider indispensable for the man who will be my husband until death, and who will be the father of my children.”

The failure to distinguish between feelings of love and love itself is at the bottom of many failed marriages. Consider the fellow who “falls” for his officemate: she shares his interests (they’re in the same profession), she is supportive (they work together), and she is very pretty (he only sees her in her business best). There’s just one hitch: he’s married, with two kids.

As the song goes: “It’s so hard to belong to someone else when the right one comes along.” Only the intellect recognizes that precisely because one already belongs to someone, then anyone else coming along cannot be the right one.

So why can’t I deliberately fall in love in college or high school?

Because real conjugal love is inseparable from marriage. Going steady is like getting engaged. The couple are getting to know each other more, so as to be able to finalize the decision for conjugal love and marriage. It is not rational to get into this relationship in college or in high school, because it is too early for that.

Imagine if a friend tells you he’s going to shop for a computer system. You casually ask him when he plans to make the actual purchase and he — just as casually — tells you he has no plans yet, at least not in the next couple of years. You would think he’s nuts. Why shop now if you’re not going to buy it in the next few years? Something like that happens with going steady in college.

The Problem of Serial Monogamy

Another consequence of teen-age steady relationships is the rise of mentality which has been called serial monogamy — i.e., such steady relationships do not last, averaging anywhere between a year or two. Granted within those two years the couple may really feel in love with each other and thus practice fidelity with each other (hence re monogamous in a sense), nevertheless, since they are too young to really commit themselves to each other for life, the relationship is not indissoluble. Thus, in the span of the decade or so prior to marriage, the unwary young man or woman might go thorough several monogamous but dissoluble relationships. Such serial monogamy prior to marriage is the breeding ground for a divorce mentality afterwards, since conjugal love has been equated with monogamy alone, forgetting the aspect of indissolubility. Real marital love is for keeps. As the old song goes: “If I fall in love, it would be forever. Or I’ll never fall in love.”

How long should the courtship be?

When I ask young ladies this question, they invariably answer “a long time.” I always have to stifle a chuckle, since quite often the young lady in question would be in her late teens and “engaged,” and of course most girls nowadays are not really contemplating marriage before their 25th birthday. This is quite logical, since most girls — at least in the urban setting — go to college, and would therefore want to experience a bit of their professional career before they settle down to the more serious business of raising up a family.

Hence, the young lady is not answering my question, but is rather thinking of how long it will take her to be old enough to get married. If she’s only nineteen, and she wants to enjoy her professional career until she’s twenty-five, it stands to reason that she and her boyfriend will have to wait at least six years before they can marry.

Rephrasing the question normally unravels the fuzzy logic. “If you were twenty-six — I ask — and you start going steady with a twenty-eight year-old fellow who is professionally stable and well off, how much time do you think will you need to make up your mind about each other?” She normally answers: “A year.”

This is the crux of the matter. A couple going steady are calling each other up daily on the phone, probably going to and coming home from office together, spending the whole weekend together, meeting each other’s family — it’s a super-exposure to each other. If they can’t decide in a year or two whether they are meant for each other or not, there’s something wrong with their thinking process.

Why long courtships are unhealthy

What’s wrong with starting the courtship in college or in high school and just prolonging it all the way to marriage at a much later date? The answer has to do with physiology and psychology — specifically male physiology.

Most girls are not very aware of this, but any red-blooded human male will immediately empathize with what I’m going to say: Man is a very sexy (albeit rational) animal.

Girls and women are perfectly equipped by the Creator to be loving and caring — also with the opposite sex — without getting sexual. This is part of their femininity, which is relevant to their role in society (especially connected with child-rearing and caring for the family). Hence nurses have traditionally been women.

Thus in a boy-girl relationship, the girl can be affectionate in many ways — words, looks, affectionate touches, gestures, attention to details — without getting sexually stimulated.

But not a boy. A fellow’s threshold level for sexual arousal is pretty low, so that for most teen-aged boys, a physical display of affection is almost concomitant with sexual stimulation. It’s a matter of physiology and psychology. Thus, a boy is not designed to spend many years with the object of his affection — his girlfriend — beside him, day in and day out, without getting on with it. Either that or he is subjected to a terrible strain to control his sexual drive.

Thus, a steady relationship at college (worse in high school) can be proximate occasion for going too far — at least where the guy is concerned. But since a steady relationship always includes a girl (hopefully!), then the principle applies to both. The moral principle is that to deliberately open oneself to a proximate occasion of doing something wrong, one needs a proportionate reason — i.e., proportionate to the gravity of the wrong that one is exposing himself to.

So when can one start going steady?

Human acts are for their end: to act rationally, one must have an end in mind, and orient his action according to that end. Now what’s the end of courtship?

Marriage is the end of courtship, just as final purchase is the end of shopping (even when one is just window-shopping at the moment, he is normally looking forward to buying in the near future). Thus, when to go steady is a function of the decision — approximate as it may be initially — of when to get married.

As previously mentioned, most girls don’t want to get married earlier than twenty-five; some even much later. Hence, the healthy age for girls to start going steady can be roughly computed:

25 years old (ideal age for marriage) – 2 years (of courtship) =

23 years old at least

Nevertheless, girls can really be quite flexible in their target marriage age: as soon as they have the right fellow, they really can get married.

But not so with men, normally. Contemporary society imposes a minimum age for man to get married well — i.e., the age when he is professionally stable and financially solid. He is expected to be able to set-up house immediately after getting married — at least to be able to rent a flat. Otherwise he will be forced to bring his bride to his parents’ home or move in to his in-laws’ home. As Christ solemnly said, quoting Genesis: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.” (Mt. 19:5).

In our society, this age is about 28-30 years. It takes that much time for a fellow to graduate from college (21 years old), find a suitable job after trying several (25 years old), stabilize himself in that job and get a few promotions (28-30 years old). Nowadays a joint family monthly income of P30,000 would barely enable a couple to rent a humble apartment in the metropolis, or buy a low-cost house on instalment somewhere in Calabarzon. Thus, the minimum age for a man to get into a serious relationship with a woman can also be computed:

28 years old (practical age for marriage) – 2 years (of courtship) =

25 years old at least

Of course there are exceptions—e.g., if either the fellow or the girl is a millionaire to start with (from inheritance or otherwise).

Does this mean teenagers shouldn’t date?

Of course not. Knowing the opposite sex is part of the maturing process that coincides with high school and college years. Dating therefore forms part of a healthy college life. But dating is not going steady. One doesn’t get serious with an occasional date. One doesn’t get intimate with him or her either. Much less would one be committed to him or her in an exclusive relationship. And this is the key to the whole thing: non-exclusivity.

Non-exclusivity is the very guarantee of non-seriousness and therefore non-involvement in those details of physical intimacy which are the run-up for sexual activity. Concentrating one’s affective capacity on one person leads to developing strong feelings (mistaken for love) for that person.

Boy and girls should have many friends of the opposite sex in college and high school. It is part of their educational process to discover different personalities of the opposite sex, precisely in order to be able to one day choose a partner for life. It would be quite a limitation if instead of choosing from a large field of possibilities, one were to be hitched to one person at sixteen, be limited to that person until they break-up (statistically they do so after 1-1/2 years), then get stuck again with one person for another two years, and this way until finally getting married to one (hopefully, without having gone into something regrettable with any of his or her previous partners).

Some girls think that dating several guys would mean they are promiscuous. Quite the contrary, what such casual dating accomplishes is precisely that they avoid being physically promiscuous. Among other things because guys normally behave well — as in properly — with a female friend; he gets more daring with a girlfriend.

A last word on teen-age dating. Multiple dates should be the rule. Not only are they safer — goons will think twice before attacking two or more couples, they also provide a natural check against going too far in manifestations of affection.

Conclusion

One of the greatest consolations in my life as a priest has been to see young people grow — physically and spiritually — into mature individuals, without suffering the scars of a badly-lived adolescence. An even greater joy comes from guiding some of them to lives of dedication to God and their fellow men. No less exhilarating is to see youthful romances bloom — all in their due time — into mature conjugal love and eventually marriage.

In contrast, some of the greatest heartaches I’ve had to suffer as a priest have been to see young people get derailed by premature steady relationships with the opposite sex.

Unfortunately, the past 30 years have seen Hollywood and the media glorify teenage romantic relationships. Coupled with an eroticized environment, this has resulted in what is quite obvious to everyone now: an alarming increase in teen-age premarital sexual relationships, a rise in teen-age pregnancy, and on the whole a deterioration of sexual morality.

I hope reading this piece will make some teenagers reconsider their position and postpone any serious emotional involvement with a person of the opposite sex until the right moment. And if they are already too emotionally involved, at least to cool off a bit.

But if they are hopelessly in love, then I earnestly invite them to go to regular spiritual direction, to frequent the sacraments, and to embark on a no-nonsense struggle to develop the Christian virtues. That was how healthy teen-age romances were possible in the not too distant past. Perhaps that’s how they can be made possible again. I, for one, am all too-ready and willing to help them through spiritual direction.