Catastrophic events worldwide have taken on an uncanny, unpredictable edge. From historic flooding in places that have rarely seen such rainfall to uncontrollable fires in lands that used to hold their own against nature’s whims, these disasters don’t fit neatly into the familiar seasonal cycles or natural patterns we’ve long used to gauge risk. As I see it, these “new-age” disasters aren’t merely flukes or unfortunate weather quirks—they’re likely a blazing siren call, warning us of deeper problems we’ve brewed ourselves, rooted in human-caused climate change.

One particularly shocking example that comes to mind is the summer of 2023, when wildfires raged across Maui, a place many of us would never associate with infernos sweeping through its iconic coastal towns. I still remember scrolling through pictures of the charred remains of Lahaina, a historic town with deep roots, scorched beyond recognition. This wasn’t just an unfortunate accident or a case of dry weather; it was something different. Experts blamed rising global temperatures and unusual wind patterns that fanned the flames in unprecedented ways, making what might have been manageable into something monstrous.

We’ve also been seeing record-breaking floods in unlikely places—like the severe flooding that hit Libya in September 2023. Thousands lost their lives in just a matter of days when Storm Daniel struck, collapsing dams and sweeping entire neighborhoods away. It’s horrifying to think that, with everything we’ve learned and all the technology at our fingertips, we’re still blindsided by extreme weather. Scientists are consistently pointing toward global warming as a cause for these intensified storms, where warmer air holds more moisture, amplifying rains far beyond what infrastructure can handle.

Then, there’s the deadly heat. Who would’ve thought parts of Europe, known for mild summers, would hit blistering temperatures of over 45 degrees Celsius, as they did in the summer of 2023? Places like Rome, Florence, and Athens were not only uncomfortable but downright hazardous. They’re not built for this kind of heat. It’s like the entire world has found itself in an oven, with a broken thermostat that no one can seem to fix. While such heatwaves aren’t entirely new, their frequency and intensity have reached disturbing new heights.

And it’s not just the fiery or the flood-like destruction that worries people. Even cold regions are feeling the bite of climate change, but ironically, that bite’s coming with melting glaciers and permafrost. In Alaska and Siberia, the thawing permafrost has begun releasing methane, a greenhouse gas that’s even more potent than carbon dioxide. It’s ironic: the cold, which used to shield us from these emissions, is now contributing to global warming as it warms up. If that doesn’t make you want to pause and think, I don’t know what will.
Now, some might argue these are just exaggerated interpretations, perhaps media hype. However, when you line up the evidence from various scientific bodies, it becomes hard to keep brushing off these events as mere coincidences. Climate scientists have been sounding alarms for decades, warning us that “unprecedented” will become our new normal if we don’t act. As inconvenient as it is, human activities—our factories, our planes, our very lifestyles—are loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases at a rate that nature can’t absorb.

It’s not hard to feel helpless, but at the same time, it’s frustrating because, deep down, we know there are solutions. Renewable energy, reforestation, and sustainable urban planning aren’t impossible dreams; they’re achievable goals that could start reversing the damage we’ve done. Yes, they come with challenges and upfront costs, but the longer we delay, the steeper the price we pay—financially and in lives disrupted, displaced, or lost.

I think it’s up to us to decide if we’ll keep ignoring these flashing signs. We can’t control nature but we can certainly control our contributions to the chaos. Perhaps it’s time we remember that we’re not above the planet, nor do we stand apart from it. Like it or not, we’re part of this whole dance, and if we don’t get our act together, we might find ourselves permanently out of tune with the world that sustains us.

THE problem of secularism is that it promotes a social order this is neither connected to religion nor critical of it. It denies the influence of religion in our social order. It simply wants to be guided by a certain consensus derived from what is considered practical in the present life itself.

But religion is not simply a private affair. God is the author and ruler not only of individuals, but also of societies. While the relation of Church and State depends on a number of circumstances which cannot be determined by a general rule, truth is religion is a social as well as an individual and personal duty. It cannot and should not be ignored.

The so-called separation of Church and State should not be understood in an absolute way. While it’s correct that the State should not have a state religion nor promote or condemn any particular religion or religious viewpoint, developing a relation between State and the different religions should be promoted. The State should also respect the views of non-believers.

But the Church cannot renounce her mission to teach the truths she has received from her Divine Founder. While fully recognizing the value of the present life, the Church cannot look upon it as an end in itself, but only as a movement toward a future life for which preparation must be made by compliance with the laws of nature and the laws of God.

For Catholics and Christians in general, their belief that the present life is a preparation if not a testing ground for an eternal life that is a supernatural sharing of the very life of God, should be respected. And because of that, their moral teachings should be respected too.

The government cannot impose something that is considered immoral by their religion.
Secularism gives an opening to certain ideologies like Wokeism, neo-Marxism, etc. that actually are harmful to social justice and order. That is why we should be careful of secularism. Rather, we should intensify our religious and spiritual life, our relation with God, so that the proper social justice and order can be obtained.

Of course, the Church cannot impose its teachings on anyone, but it should be given a free space to be itself, to evangelize, to celebrate the sacraments, and to do the works of education, charity, mercy and justice without undue interference from the government.
Besides, the Church asks—and if necessary, demands—that the State respect the “sanctuary of conscience,” so that the Church’s people are not required by law to do things the Church teaches as immoral.

It’s unfortunate, for example, that in the US there was this “Contraceptive Mandate” issued in 2012 that turned the Catholic Church’s charitable and medical facilities into State agencies that facilitate practices that the Church believes are gravely evil.

Indeed, this delicate issue of Church and State relation should be thoroughly studied by our Church and State leaders, and appropriate agreements should be made. The separation Church and State should not be understood as a mandate to ignore each other. There has to be constant communication and consultation between the two, because both work for the same people or constituents, though in different aspects of life.

Though there is autonomy in both of them, it should be acknowledged that “there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and His dominion.”

The list of candidates for the 2025 mid-term elections is done unless changes due to withdrawals and substitutions happen for the deadline set by the election commission. Very clearly, old politicians are back to regain their post or aspire for higher office. The trend had been as usual where family members are exchanging political positions after spending full terms and wasting taxpayers’ money at their disposal. The implementation of programs and projects are strategically done during the last stretch of their term to ensure public recognition of their deeds. The purpose is to clearly to sustain memory recall on the part of the gullible voters who are duped to forget the non-performance and irregularities during the greater period of their term. The practice puts a decided advantage over newcomers who could hardly cope with the propaganda by the incumbents.

The continued clamor for the passage of an enabling law on the ban of political dynasties had remained in the stranglehold of politicians in congress whose interest would be adversely affected if such law is passed. It would be noted that such anti-dynasty bills had been filed in congress over and over again but nothing had been done as the majority would easily suppress its passage. Only a few well-meaning legislators had been pushing for its passage but as the majority would brag, they have the numbers to prevail under our democratic setup. A constitutional delegate that crafted the 1987 Constitution expressed that the ban against political dynasties needs an enabling law which until now had not been passed.

Political dynasties are either committed simultaneously or successively. In the coming elections, we have three brothers, brothers and sisters running for senate seats. There too former senators making a comeback as if they have forgotten something during their previous terms. The same is true for local officials where family members are running for various elective offices as if the are the only ones with the right to such offices. The practice defeats the constitutional provision that affords equal access and opportunity to serve as elected officials. The situation is made worse by the commercialized nature of elections where votes are openly bought from voters who are too eager and willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

In some areas, elective political positions are negotiated among political clans as candidates run unopposed for positions had already been agreed upon. The practice deprives other persons to seek such elective office as they have already been cornered by the political clans in power. The voters have no choice but elect the unopposed candidate.

The strategy minimizes the expenses for vote buying as well as the violence that happen in contested electoral confrontations. As a consequence, vote sellers could not rake huge money unlike in opposed candidacies, especially when the aspirants are multi-party. But all such situations are inimical to the interest of the people and ruins the essence of democracy and the sanctity of the ballot. Clearly, the present crop of aspirants, chiefly those who are returning, are doing so not much for service but theirs is a return for gains.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com