Does anyone else find it odd that we're still in October, comming up on Haloween, and already we find Christmas decorations in every shopping centre and supermarket?
It's the tendrils of Consumerism stretching forth with the hidden message: "time to start spending again". While the world considers the survival of Mankind, Haiti fights colera, Brazil decides between authoritarianism and democracy and while we ponder the truth behind every new scandal in the Church, shouldn't we also pause a moment to think what Christmas really is?
I find it distasteful that Christmas has been turned into a purely commercial holliday. IT'S NOT! It is supposed to be the celebration of the good news of our redemption through Christ. It is Christ's birthday party. Shouldn't He receive the gifts then?
I've entered a family-wide pact not to give presents a couple of years ago, and it feels great. Instead, we work on making a joint banquet, sharing it in the family and going to mass together. We look onto ourselves and the things we have pursued througout the year, and then we vow to correct the wrongs we've perpetrated and improve on the good that we've done.
I wish governments would do so.
Friday 29 October 2010
Thursday 28 October 2010
Friday 22 October 2010
On Abortion
Defining the moment of conception is the semantic excuse of lawyers and legislators. If this type of talk is to your taste, here's some objective ammunition for you:
Fertilization (biological term for conception) can be internal or external, depending on the species. Whether internal or external, it results in the fusion of gametes and completes the DNA code to generate an embryo for a living organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
For me, the naked truth is this: An abortionist is someone who does not want to bear the consequences of an act that is voluntary 98% of the time, and wants instead to impute that responsibility on the product of his sexual encounter. It is less important to understand the exact moment of conception when you realise that 1 unborn innocent pays with his/her life for the irresponsible conduct of 2 adults.
Fertilization (biological term for conception) can be internal or external, depending on the species. Whether internal or external, it results in the fusion of gametes and completes the DNA code to generate an embryo for a living organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
For me, the naked truth is this: An abortionist is someone who does not want to bear the consequences of an act that is voluntary 98% of the time, and wants instead to impute that responsibility on the product of his sexual encounter. It is less important to understand the exact moment of conception when you realise that 1 unborn innocent pays with his/her life for the irresponsible conduct of 2 adults.
Monday 18 October 2010
On BioTechnology Research
Who, in their right mind, would doubt the inherent danger of abuse of a newly developing technology by parties seeking to obtain financial gain and/or power?
I was discussing the issue with a lawyer friend, who is studying the legal implications and the existing conflicts of Biodiversity Protection laws as opposed to Human Artificial Insemination laws and the laws concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in agriculture and cattle farming. Our talk went past the moral and ethical altercations of the subject and quickly into the sphere of the pragmatic implications.
In this day and age, it is inconceivable that any thinking person would hesitate for a millisecond to accept as truth that any new technology that had military or political application would instantly be put to use; especially one that can be researched under the banner of medical and socioeconomic development.
Such is the case of biotechnologies. The warnings that are screamed to the four winds are quickly quieted and buried under criticism from the interested parties, who in financial alignment with the secularist extremists in the general media, manage to promote carefree research in controversial fields. Those who raise red flags are instantly branded as “retrograde” or “religious fanatics” or even “anti-scientific” and “superstitious”. Yet, even scientists have to concede that they cannot fathom the ripple effects of interfering with the process of natural selection.
We, in our arrogance, allow ourselves to believe we already control the knowledge and the technology necessary to manipulate the genome of living organisms. We, who can’t see into tomorrow with sufficient clarity to foretell the weather, feel that we can account for the myriad variables involved in meddling with the Ecosystems of our faintly mapped abode, the Earth, by promoting certain desirable traits in our crops and in our cattle over those already selected by millions of years of natural selection.
It is true that we have been doing it for centuries by cross-breeding cattle and crops, and with already measurable impact on natural balance. However, it is one thing to give Nature a push and a completely different one to bypass Nature altogether. Now we are changing the DNA of certain crops and animals, and we are making new organisms that are bound to break the balance of our ecosystems beyond what's already history.
Why do we do it? We do it for money. We do it irresponsibly in order that some corporations may profit and fund presidential campaigns. We do it, claiming that we are doing it to satiate the hungry, but the fruits of the research are not aimed at that goal, are they? We do it, claiming we are healing the ill, but the cure comes at steep prices. Let’s not kid ourselves that such advancements are meant to be altruistic. We do it for money.
And in the name of profit margins and presidential campaigns, we pursue this research without sufficient pause. We don’t wait for important impact research results. We don’t give ourselves the time to evaluate whether the fact that there is something we can do with science necessarily means that we should do it. We don’t stop to think that there can be irremediable adverse impacts that could affect the very survival of the Human Race. We don’t question the inevitable possibility of abuse from parties wishing to employ these advancements in promoting social segregation or other political agendas. And then we pay for our collective folly.
I was discussing the issue with a lawyer friend, who is studying the legal implications and the existing conflicts of Biodiversity Protection laws as opposed to Human Artificial Insemination laws and the laws concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in agriculture and cattle farming. Our talk went past the moral and ethical altercations of the subject and quickly into the sphere of the pragmatic implications.
In this day and age, it is inconceivable that any thinking person would hesitate for a millisecond to accept as truth that any new technology that had military or political application would instantly be put to use; especially one that can be researched under the banner of medical and socioeconomic development.
Such is the case of biotechnologies. The warnings that are screamed to the four winds are quickly quieted and buried under criticism from the interested parties, who in financial alignment with the secularist extremists in the general media, manage to promote carefree research in controversial fields. Those who raise red flags are instantly branded as “retrograde” or “religious fanatics” or even “anti-scientific” and “superstitious”. Yet, even scientists have to concede that they cannot fathom the ripple effects of interfering with the process of natural selection.
We, in our arrogance, allow ourselves to believe we already control the knowledge and the technology necessary to manipulate the genome of living organisms. We, who can’t see into tomorrow with sufficient clarity to foretell the weather, feel that we can account for the myriad variables involved in meddling with the Ecosystems of our faintly mapped abode, the Earth, by promoting certain desirable traits in our crops and in our cattle over those already selected by millions of years of natural selection.
It is true that we have been doing it for centuries by cross-breeding cattle and crops, and with already measurable impact on natural balance. However, it is one thing to give Nature a push and a completely different one to bypass Nature altogether. Now we are changing the DNA of certain crops and animals, and we are making new organisms that are bound to break the balance of our ecosystems beyond what's already history.
Why do we do it? We do it for money. We do it irresponsibly in order that some corporations may profit and fund presidential campaigns. We do it, claiming that we are doing it to satiate the hungry, but the fruits of the research are not aimed at that goal, are they? We do it, claiming we are healing the ill, but the cure comes at steep prices. Let’s not kid ourselves that such advancements are meant to be altruistic. We do it for money.
And in the name of profit margins and presidential campaigns, we pursue this research without sufficient pause. We don’t wait for important impact research results. We don’t give ourselves the time to evaluate whether the fact that there is something we can do with science necessarily means that we should do it. We don’t stop to think that there can be irremediable adverse impacts that could affect the very survival of the Human Race. We don’t question the inevitable possibility of abuse from parties wishing to employ these advancements in promoting social segregation or other political agendas. And then we pay for our collective folly.
Monday 11 October 2010
Considerations on Media Cover of Sex Abuse Scandals
In a world where the news media has become more reality show than news reporting, it is refreshing to hear a little bit of truth and common sense every now and again.
The following are words quoted from and address by John Thavis, Rome bureau chief of Catholic News Service, given Tuesday last, during a roundtable presentation on "Ecclesial Communion and Controversy," at the World Press Congress organized this past week by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.
"In 2001, CNS broke the story of Pope John Paul's motu proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," which reserved sex abuse cases to the doctrinal congregation, and set up strict new procedures to deal with offenders. We worked for weeks on the story, and we had to squeeze information out of Vatican officials. And this was not a "bad news" story; this was a "good news" story about the Vatican taking action, taking these sins more seriously. You would think they would want the world to know; but they didn't. Today, it's completely different. As you know, the Vatican has made so much information available about sex abuse policies and procedures that I bet there are very few in this room who have read it all. They have a Vatican Web page dedicated to the issue. The Vatican today is proactive.
In terms of information, in terms of journalism, these are hard-won battles. In recent months, as we all know, the re-emergence of the sex abuse scandal has drawn coverage by Catholic and secular media. And I think this time around, Catholic media share in the disappointment felt by bishops and the Vatican at the way the mainstream media has reported the issue. Here are some distinctive traits that I think Catholic media have brought to this coverage, traits that are often missing among secular journalists:
1. Context: Because Catholic media are familiar with what happened in 1993 or in 2002, they know the church has already responded with some very good steps and programs.
2. Time frame: Catholic media know that most cases of clerical abuse are from past decades, with very few occurring today -- something that I think most readers of newspapers still don't understand.
3. Fairness: There has been, I think, a "gotcha" mentality in efforts to somehow lay the sex abuse scandal at Pope Benedict's doorstep. Catholic journalists know that this is simply not how it happened, and that the current pope took many steps as head of the doctrinal congregation to deal with the problem. As with many things, he was methodical and determined and patient. In the eyes of some critics, perhaps too patient and deliberate. But certainly he was moving in the right direction. The portrait of Pope Benedict as an architect of cover-up is a false caricature, in my opinion.
4. Perspective: Catholic media have resisted, by and large, the trend toward hammering one big story incessantly, almost to the exclusion of anything else. For the first six months of this year, if you read a story about the Vatican in a major US newspaper, it was probably about sex abuse. This is a hallmark of the cable-news mentality that seems to have invaded every newsroom: a big story is established and then fed daily, like a beast. The essential storyline is never questioned. Details, subtleties and ambiguous information all fall by the wayside. You keep the big story going: this is the gospel of the modern mass media, I think largely for economic reasons. And fortunately, the Catholic press has managed to resist this and keep a perspective, reporting on sex abuse as a painful failure, but not as if it were the only aspect -- or even the main aspect -- of contemporary church life.
What worries me is that Catholic communicators, with all their perspective, context and fairness on the sex abuse story, have not really had much impact beyond their own limited audience. We feel frustration at times over how the mainstream media treats the church; but this frustration is often translated into a kind of closed-circuit discussion among ourselves. There's a risk of becoming too self-congratulatory. We need to ask: how well do we really communicate with the modern world, the wider world, beyond our own ecclesial borders?"
Objective and true, as a true media newsman should be. He only forgot to point out that less than 1% of reported child abuse comes from the Clergy. If only 1% of abuse is related to the priesthood, what happened to the objective reporting on the other 99%?
The following are words quoted from and address by John Thavis, Rome bureau chief of Catholic News Service, given Tuesday last, during a roundtable presentation on "Ecclesial Communion and Controversy," at the World Press Congress organized this past week by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.
"In 2001, CNS broke the story of Pope John Paul's motu proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," which reserved sex abuse cases to the doctrinal congregation, and set up strict new procedures to deal with offenders. We worked for weeks on the story, and we had to squeeze information out of Vatican officials. And this was not a "bad news" story; this was a "good news" story about the Vatican taking action, taking these sins more seriously. You would think they would want the world to know; but they didn't. Today, it's completely different. As you know, the Vatican has made so much information available about sex abuse policies and procedures that I bet there are very few in this room who have read it all. They have a Vatican Web page dedicated to the issue. The Vatican today is proactive.
In terms of information, in terms of journalism, these are hard-won battles. In recent months, as we all know, the re-emergence of the sex abuse scandal has drawn coverage by Catholic and secular media. And I think this time around, Catholic media share in the disappointment felt by bishops and the Vatican at the way the mainstream media has reported the issue. Here are some distinctive traits that I think Catholic media have brought to this coverage, traits that are often missing among secular journalists:
1. Context: Because Catholic media are familiar with what happened in 1993 or in 2002, they know the church has already responded with some very good steps and programs.
2. Time frame: Catholic media know that most cases of clerical abuse are from past decades, with very few occurring today -- something that I think most readers of newspapers still don't understand.
3. Fairness: There has been, I think, a "gotcha" mentality in efforts to somehow lay the sex abuse scandal at Pope Benedict's doorstep. Catholic journalists know that this is simply not how it happened, and that the current pope took many steps as head of the doctrinal congregation to deal with the problem. As with many things, he was methodical and determined and patient. In the eyes of some critics, perhaps too patient and deliberate. But certainly he was moving in the right direction. The portrait of Pope Benedict as an architect of cover-up is a false caricature, in my opinion.
4. Perspective: Catholic media have resisted, by and large, the trend toward hammering one big story incessantly, almost to the exclusion of anything else. For the first six months of this year, if you read a story about the Vatican in a major US newspaper, it was probably about sex abuse. This is a hallmark of the cable-news mentality that seems to have invaded every newsroom: a big story is established and then fed daily, like a beast. The essential storyline is never questioned. Details, subtleties and ambiguous information all fall by the wayside. You keep the big story going: this is the gospel of the modern mass media, I think largely for economic reasons. And fortunately, the Catholic press has managed to resist this and keep a perspective, reporting on sex abuse as a painful failure, but not as if it were the only aspect -- or even the main aspect -- of contemporary church life.
What worries me is that Catholic communicators, with all their perspective, context and fairness on the sex abuse story, have not really had much impact beyond their own limited audience. We feel frustration at times over how the mainstream media treats the church; but this frustration is often translated into a kind of closed-circuit discussion among ourselves. There's a risk of becoming too self-congratulatory. We need to ask: how well do we really communicate with the modern world, the wider world, beyond our own ecclesial borders?"
Objective and true, as a true media newsman should be. He only forgot to point out that less than 1% of reported child abuse comes from the Clergy. If only 1% of abuse is related to the priesthood, what happened to the objective reporting on the other 99%?
Friday 8 October 2010
Brazil at a Crossroads
In a society of violence, one does what one can to avoid trouble. Though Brazil isn't all bad, far from it, it is true that big cities like Rio and Sao Paulo have gone down the drain because of organised crime.
Legally speaking, impunity filtered down from government embezzlers to petty criminals and resulted in chaos. Socioeconomically speaking, Brazil has yet to learn how to disperse public money. For all practical purposes, life in the big metropolitan areas of Brazil is becoming more and more unbearable.
As with everyone else, Brazil has a problem with greed in certain governmental circles. A greedy public official is nearly always a corrupt one waiting to be bribed into selling out another piece of the country or the welfare of its people.
What Brazil needs is to forgo what Brazilians call "jeitinho" and start thinking of how to put the house in order for future generations.
Legally speaking, impunity filtered down from government embezzlers to petty criminals and resulted in chaos. Socioeconomically speaking, Brazil has yet to learn how to disperse public money. For all practical purposes, life in the big metropolitan areas of Brazil is becoming more and more unbearable.
As with everyone else, Brazil has a problem with greed in certain governmental circles. A greedy public official is nearly always a corrupt one waiting to be bribed into selling out another piece of the country or the welfare of its people.
What Brazil needs is to forgo what Brazilians call "jeitinho" and start thinking of how to put the house in order for future generations.
How Difficult is It to Tackle Poverty?
I've arrived at the conclusion that the reason why it is so difficult to understand the works of economists and sociologists towards expressing their understanding of the reasons for underdevelopment and their suggestions on how to promote a way out from poverty and famine for modern society is simply that most economists and sociologists also don't understand the dynamics of real social development.
In my view, overcoming the interests of a few greedy groups and demolishing consumerism/materialism as a social paradigm are the REAL problem behind underdevelopment. Figuring out how to tackle these without stepping on the toes of the rich & powerful is the dilemma that prevents practical solutions. After all, western societies' power matrix is currently founded on renewed consumption of goods.
No modern tycoon and no modern government is willing to forgo financial power to save global society (or the environment) without at least the promise of an immediate alternative profit margin.
As Sir Winston Churchil once eloquently put: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
In my view, overcoming the interests of a few greedy groups and demolishing consumerism/materialism as a social paradigm are the REAL problem behind underdevelopment. Figuring out how to tackle these without stepping on the toes of the rich & powerful is the dilemma that prevents practical solutions. After all, western societies' power matrix is currently founded on renewed consumption of goods.
No modern tycoon and no modern government is willing to forgo financial power to save global society (or the environment) without at least the promise of an immediate alternative profit margin.
As Sir Winston Churchil once eloquently put: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)