Friday, June 24, 2016


In more plain words  and clear language, a Personality Disorder is both categorically and fundamentally a deviation in the human mind which has its adverse effect or negative impact in the human will, the human emotion and thinking process – considering that the wholeness of the human person precisely consists in the functional unity of the previously said three constitutive elements which bring about the wholeness of the human person.  Let it be said though that more than anything else, it is the human mind that is usually considered as key constituent element of a human person.

In still more elementary language therefore, a Personality Disorder is irregularity in the mental functions of an individual  who then exhibits a combined not normal – not ordinary, not standard, not expected – behavioral (actuation and reaction) pattern.  The mere mention of “Mental Hospital” immediately brings to mind where those with severe or terminal thinking, acting  and reacting abnormality are brought to be attended to by Psychiatrists.  Whether they really become partially or totally cured is another question – although  through proper and continuous medications, they become less abnormal but not altogether normal as a rule.

Different experts in Psychiatry understandably proffer different reasons for the various causes of Personality Disorders – something that is expected, considering the nature (organic constitution, thinking attribution and intricate working) of the human mind.  To know, to understand and to analyze, to conclude, to remember and to argue, to reason out, to prove disprove something, to distinguish between truth and falsehood, between reality and falsity – plus other tasks seemingly without limitation – these are some of the more common intricate and impressive functions of the human mind.  So it is that science is null without the workings  of the human mind.

Among the more commonly known and invoked  causes of Personality Disorders – erratic behavioral manifestations that are unexpected of ordinary individuals as they interact in society from the personal to the community levels – are usually the following, be they the actual provenance or not, of given mental malady:  Inter-marriage between close blood relatives.  Dysfunctional domestic environ.  Experiential trauma.  There are certainly other factors considered causative of Personality Disorders but the aforesaid three origins are the ones most commonly invoked.  Following are the usually listed Personality Disorders:

1.  Anti-Social Personality Disorder
2.  Avoidant Personality Disorder
3.  Borderline Personality Disorder
4.  Dependent Personality Disorder
5.  Histrionic Personality Disorder
6.  Narcissistic Personality Disorder    
7.  Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
8.  Paranoid Personality Disorder
9.  Schizoid Personality Disorder
10.  Schizotypal Personality Disorder

Wednesday, June 22, 2016


“Child labor... constitutes a kind of violence that is less obvious than others but it is not for this reason, any less terrible.” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Lib. Ed. Vat. 2004)

While the same Social Doctrine of the Church formally and emphatically teaches about the “Necessity of Work”, the “Right to Work”, the “Promotion of Work” and other concerns, the said body of teachings gives special concern to Child Labor usually covering teenagers.  Yes, work is imperative for adults in general such as at home and in their fields, in markets and factories, in offices and companies, and the like.  But Child Labor is not acceptable much less commendable.  So it is that:

1.  When a child with the proper age is tasked “to work” in terms of having his/her things arranged, of cleaning his/her room and other usual children agenda, this is  not Child Labor really.  Such agenda are instead meant for his/her character building, value formation and proper discipline.  In this case, it is certainly not the work itself that really counts but the character formation of the child, the latter’s value system and the like – all in preparation for the child’s adulthood.

2.  Child labor in its strict sense means downright manual work such as in the realm of business, in the sphere of production and the like.  The ultimate rationale of such ventures is for the child to earn not only for his/her own subsistence but also for the latter’s family – and even others, possibly.  So it is that a  “Working Child” is neither standard nor normal.  In fact, such a phenomenon is a big shame not only to the parents but also to country as a while.  So it is that “Child Labor” is a big contradiction.

3.  The truth of the matter is that no child is born into the world without the consummate complementation  of his/her parents.  In the same way, no child would grow  by his/her own self but only through the nurturing support of his parents and/or elders.  Much less can a child educate himself/herself.  Parenthood is essentially meant for the upbringing and education of children.  So it is that the principle of “Responsible Parenthood” came to fore as a basic element of marriage.

So it is that among the elementary and fundamental features of childhood is dependency – in food, clothing, and shelter in addition to the love and care of the couple who authored its coming into the world.  Husband and wife incapable of nurturing a child, have no right to bring him/her into the world.

And so it is that child labor is a big and clear expression of inhumanity if not downright barbarism.  That is why such a detestable phenomenon is usually found among uncivilized peoples with uncouth cultures and consequent distorted value systems.  Child labor is indefensible.

Drugs and criminality are big problems in the Country – but not the only problem.

Monday, June 20, 2016


This is a pleading – an appeal, an entreaty, a supplication – in favour of those burdened by Gender Identity Difficulty (GID).  This plea in  no way comes from them, much less done at their demand.  The Pleading  is made in the name of those belaboured with gender ambivalence who are not exactly rejoicing for it and who therefore have a rightful claim for the respect of all others free from the  Difficulty.  They have a rightful claim to the understanding and compassion of those spared from gender ambivalence.

It is not hard to know the pain and to realize the predicament of those with the said sexual predicament.  The burden of having GID is definitely not their own choice, much less their own preference.  It is not at all improbable that they themselves are perplexed how come they are bearers of the Difficulty, what have they done to deserve such a sexual orientation.  Most of all, why are they ridiculed and despised even for something they have not really chosen to be.  Making them objects of ridicule precisely because they are afflicted with GID – this does not make sense.

This pleading then is premised on the personhood and dignity of all those saddled with GID.  None of those without the Difficulty are necessarily good persons or honourable individuals.  Human sexuality does not necessarily make individuals have less or more human dignity, with a more or lesser right to human understanding and consideration.  As those with GID can and do  at times misbehave, so too  those without GID can and do antisocial acts.  The plain and simple truth is that sexuality itself does not make someone equal, above or below others in their personhood which is very much more than mere sexual orientation.

In other words, just as men are not necessarily above women and vice versa, so it is that those with GID are neither necessarily below men and women without it.  Sexuality alone does not make people unequal in their objective worth and pursuant dignity.  In times long past and in certain beliefs still existent to these days, the thinking and acting that men just by being men are automatically  above women – are not acceptable as it is contrary to objective truth.  Neither is it reasonable to belittle or ridicule those afflicted with the Difficulty in their  sexual identity.

Those thus concerned, might not even know why they have the Difficulty, where did this come from, how come they apparently could not get rid of it.  This is why they definitely do not need ridicule but compassion, not rejection but understanding.  It is said that stepping down on someone already laying on the ground  -- so to speak – is nothing less than cruelty.  It is the same when precisely those already with GID are belittled, ridiculed, and scorned even.  That there are those with GID who debase their persons, who make people ridicule themselves and the like – this is their own call, their own intention, their own design.  But let them know however that they are the shame and problem of all other afflicted with GID who simply want to live with integrity and decency.

Friday, June 17, 2016


The mere fact that man has a right to live together  with all those dependent on him for food, shelter and clothing, so is it too that he has the right to work as an elementary consequence of his won right to life plus those dependent on him.  So it is said that those who are able in mind and body yet do not want to work, let them also not also eat.  And so it is that to work is considered both a right and an obligation for able-bodied men in particular.  Let it be clearly stated however that it is man who is the purpose of work, viz., “Work is for man.” – not “Man is for work.”  And so it is  that work is eventually for the good of the worker, for the benefit of his family, and eventually for the welfare of society.  At his juncture, it is good to take note of and to remember the following principles that bring to fore the proper nature and import of human labor and material capital:

1.  The right relationship between labor and capital finds its proper expression when workers have some kind of a participative role in the management and profit of capital.  In other words, labor may not be left to the mercy of capital whose profit precisely comes from the sweat of labor.  So it should not be “Capital vs. Labor” nor “Labor vs. Capital”.  When such is the case, both become losers as time experience readily prove.  Labor and capital are not enemies but companions.  The more unity and harmony bind them, the better they both become in terms of profit for capital and earning for labor – along the significance and implications of the well-known saying “Together we stand, together we fall.”

2.  The same proper, friendly and collaborative relationship become even  more pronounced when workers are in fact given their reasonable advisory input in the management of capital – considering that they work not only for the stability but also for the continuous growth of capital.  So it is that the closer capital and labor are, the more harmony there is between them.   the more they establish some kind of a joint venture – and the more they earn together and become a real asset to one another.  The opposite is sad and pitiful whereas then labor and capital eventually become both losers  So it is that the so-called  Strike” on the part of labor is in the last analysis, the loss of both capital and labor themselves.

3.  The truly fair and equitable relationship between labor and capital brings about the propriety and desirability of such a noble and inspiring practice when workers bring home their “Family Wage” that funds the needs even of their domestic communities.  In other words, both capital and labor in effect become beneficiaries through some kind of a “Joint Venture” .  In other words, while it is true that the said wage – that benefits not only the worker personally but also the members of his or her family as a unit – is neither commonly known nor practiced, it is not hard to see its bilateral beneficial impact on both capital and labor.  With the observance of the truly inspired and inspiring “Family Wage”, the worker becomes more energized and dedicated to his work while capital likewise becomes more benefited by inspired  workers.  While the said qualified wage is either not well appreciated or altogether ignored in this Country, there is no reason why is reality should not be more and more studied and subsequently observed.  

Wednesday, June 15, 2016


In the realm of truth, in the sphere of justice and in the domain of peace, marriage is nothing less than a really serious and truly sacred pact between a man and a woman whereby they establish between their two selves, one and only spousal  partnership for a lifetime.  By its very nature, the said unique  bonding is ordained for the good and well-being of the spouse themselves plus the procreation, upbringing and the formation of the children they brought into the world.  The said triad – man and woman, marriage covenant, children – equals the human family.

So it is that  marriage is definitely very much more than a mere contact – plain understanding, a mere agreement, a simple consensus – no matter how elaborate, how sincere and pleasing it could be.  It has the spirit and implications of a Blood Compact between a man and a woman thus making marriage some kind of a really serious and truly noble bonding for a lifetime between two individuals who emerge as but one consummate and hallowed pairing.  In fact, marriage is not only two-in-one but also many-in-one with the emergence of a family.

Being thus more noble than but just being a mere contract or an agreement, much more serious than simply an accord or a conformity, marriage is thus nothing less than a “Covenant” i.e., a sacred vow, a solemn oath, a lifetime bonding.  It is thus insoluble not simply because it is a oneness, it is a union but also a communion between a man and a woman as husband and wife and eventually as father and mother, as grandfather and grandmother until one or both of them are gone to an even better life hereafter and beyond.

So it is that an honest to goodness marital bonding between a man and a woman does not accept someone else, much less other parties that in effect means one with someone else or two  with others that simply means and rightfully spells adultery – breaking the bond, doing away with the union and communion, junking the marriage as an inconvenience.  The husband and the wife are two, with each other giving his/her whole person to the other that thus makes them united in thinking and acting.  It is a one-to-one relationship that makes an exclusive composite of two-selves into one whole.  The moment the said exclusivity is done away with, then the Compact is betrayed, the Covenant is violated, the Communion is dissolved.  And when this comes about, the husband, the wife and the children are in effect all losers.

The reality and implications of bonding applied to marriage in effect mean a consummate and life-long unifying phenomenon – neither simply putting up a relationship nor merely setting up a loose partnership.  So it is that getting married without really wanting it, getting married in but one’s own terms, getting married when either or both parties is/are precisely incapacitated for marriage intents and purposes – anyone of such a liability ipso facto equals non-marriage.  Let it be openly said wherefore in all sincerity and candor that the Marriage Covenant is not meant for all – in the same way that not all are meant for marriage.  So sad yet so true.