Monday, August 23, 2010


For a start, what on earth is wrong with “Sex Education”? Answer: Truth to say, there are certain major things wrong with it. Strictly speaking, to put “Sex” and “Education” together neither jibes, clicks nor sticks – so to speak. For one thing, animals do not get “Education” but they do “sex” – naturally and responsibly even. Then there is the reality that the subject matter of “Sex” goes beyond mere knowing which comes from “Education”. Instead, the question of “sex” is the concern of learning which is obtained through formation – considering that the value system has much to say about “Sex”.

Simply knowing “Sex” without the necessary right and proper value system learned through pursuant formation, is not only incongruous but also dangerous. Reason: Incongruous because “Sex” merely becomes but an object, and dangerous whereas it comes about simple as a piece of meat. And such are the core implications and implications of “Sex Education” in its strong innuendo and naked connotation. And woe to school children and youngster who thus get “educated” in “sex”! The truth is that a big number of this young people are now in effect “over-educated” in “sex” from certain movies they see and some “dirty” comics they read – plus the world of internet pornography at their command.

Even if only for the above reasons, the now already on-going “Sex Education” in so called “selected” Public grade and High Schools – to say it bluntly and with regret - -is in fact experimenting with the students concerned. This is neither right nor just. By simply knowing about sex – its distinct looks and functions, its difference between boys and girls plus their distinct particulars one from the other – what do they do with the such a knowledge thereafter. And could their teachers and schools wherefore guarantee that they would be better teenagers and adult? Would such a knowledge about “sex” effectively make them more ethical individuals and more moral persons?

“Formation in Human Sexuality” – this is what the Church affirms and promotes in accord with Natural Law, what the said Church persists and insists about parents having the natural and grave obligation to impart to their children. The same Church teaches fathers and mothers that they do simply not have the natural right to have children but also the natural obligation to feed, house and form them. Such is the intrinsic natural relationship between the said right and obligation that parents unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligation, neither have the right of having children. By the way, it is worth nothing that right and obligation constitute an essential paring, viz., one cannot/may not be without the other. This is but one of the more basic reasons in the Order of Natural why some people abhor or even hate the Church. Why? They want the right – without obligation! (Then, what?)