A Sick Mind

This (i.e., report on illegal elephant tusk trade) is related to Church’s championing life against RH bill. The present government desires to weaken all institutions that defend our country from being oppressed by foreign powers. But I know they will not succeed,’ (Bishop) Arguelles said.

So the ‘good’ kuno bishop accuses the Aquino government of manipulating events in favor of the RH Bill’s passage.

This is the MOST STUPID statement I have read from a supposedly respected person of the Church hierarchy.  First off, anong pakialam ng National Geographic sa affairs ng Pilipinas?  The said article is about wildlife conservation.   It is about the abuse of man on the environment that God commanded us to protect. That and nothing else.

If one would read the article, there is a discussion regarding ‘Buddhist monks, Chinese factories and Japanese experiments’.  Nothing was mentioned about the RH Bill.

The problem with the Church hierarchy is that it has become a paranoid, that when controversies like this arises, it immediately accuses the government of dirty tactics.

I would not be surprised if the Church hierarchy would accuse the government of such if developments involving the money laundering activities in the Vatican is reported on the radio… or if Fr. Groeschel’s infamous statements on the sexual misconduct of clerics get broadcasted on local TV news.

So what does the Church hierarchy want us to do?  Ignore this incident and all other suspicious incidents involving bishops and priests simply because they hastily conclude that these could be concocted by the government?  Hello!  Hindi kami tanga!  

That goes to show how SICK the bishop’s mind is. 

A Reaction to the Homily

Last night, at the feast day mass of a saint, our parish priest hit a sour note during the homily.  He charged devotees who support the controversial bill as a grave scandal to the Church and to the saint himself.  He added that their mere support for it contradicts the unfailing obedience of the saint to the Church. I believe that such an accusation was uncalled for.  I doubt very much if he is a reader of souls and knows the intentions of the said devotees hearts. Based on the reader reactions on virtually ALL news articles on the Internet, one would observe that the very reason why most people would tend to support the bill is that they are affected by the number of hungry street urchins wandering on the streets.  They further observe that it is the urban poor who bear more children that they could support that would benefit from this measure.  The second most glaring observation is that they believe that the Holy Mother Church is doing virtually nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the urban poor. No matter how flawed their reasoning may be in the eyes of the parish priest, I for one would not think of these people as a scandal of the Church.  Tell me, is it a scandal to believe in all sincerity that this could be the only solution to the problem of poverty?  Or perhaps it is more a scandal that despite being raised as a Catholic, one is not convinced of its teachings?  If such is the case, who is to blame for the mess? A few blocks away from our house is Baranggay Sulokan.  A favorite ‘immersion site’ of religious congregations, it is a slum area where people live and breed like dogs and rabbits.  Based on a study conducted by missionaries a few years back, people living there never go the nearby religious institutions to attend Mass or attend Catechism. Except for ‘immersions’, which last of a few days, the people living there rarely get visited by the do–gooders of the Church.  If ever they get visited, they are treated as objects for a study in Missiology.  They DO NOT know anything about God, and Christianity to them is just fiesta time where they get free dole–outs and food boxes.  To them, life is revolves around begging and living like rats. Now then I ask you, and the parish priest, WHO IS THE SCANDAL TO THE CHURCH?

A Letter to a Confessor

Dear Father,

Just this lunch break, my close friend here at the office, asked me this question:  His cousin, is finally having her first baby in her forties.  She and her husband were unsuccessful for many years or decades and now have one.  Unfortunately, the child in her womb is a product of IVF.

I told him the Church’ usual stand based on the CCC.  I told him that his cousin and her husband were guilty of a mortally grievous sin.  Even if such an act brought life!  They should have instead adopted a child no matter how problematic it would be or they should have engaged in charitable works in the name of the Holy Mother Church. 

Imagine, how could they do it?  So what if they are so desperate?  So what if the child would make them complete, be a bundle of joy who would either resemble the father or the mother? So what if the child would grow up into a responsible person some day?  As long as the commandment of the Holy Mother Church is violated, they did a condemnable act!   For all we know, the child the mother is carrying is soulless or worse, is the devil incarnate since it goes against infallable Church’ law, ergo, against God’s holy will!

Then again…

Deep in the very core of my being, I know that there is a loving God who looks beyond our ridiculous laws.  I know too that God created a world that is not just black and white, but made up of different shades of gray.

Deep in the very core of my very being, in the silence of my heart, I believe they did not sin.  I believe that what they did is good in the eyes of God.

For what I believe, I am condemned.

Culture

Filipinos are a hopelessly irresponsible lot.  After multiplying themselves like rabbits, they live their lives with wreckless abandon, scattering refuse all around the way, only to clog the drainage systems and rivers.  When the floods come, they demand to be lodged in Grade A evacuation centers, and be given royal treatment.  And all they do is curse the government, shouting, ‘Hoy, kailangan naming ng pagkain!’

The hopeless romantic churchgoer quickly grabs her handkerchief to dry a shed crocodile tear and says in her heart, 'They are God's children! How pitiful!'  The hypocritical parish priest, sporting the best imported clothes and sportswear, grabs a bottle of cheap cough syrup and gives it to a shameless twenty-two year old mother saying to himself, 'God will surely reward me for this!'  

The said mother, on the other hand, sees the opportunity to put on an obviously artificial teary-eyed look.  

Not far–off, a self-righteous, bigoted bald guy goes around saying the floods are a sign of God’s wrath, 

as if he has been rubbing elbows with the Omnipotent. 

Heck we are all part of this rotten culture that lives on fatalism, neglect, exploitation, hypocrisy and superstition. What do you do with a people with a rotten culture to begin with?

According a sociologist, the only way to end such a culture is to kill it.  As to how it should be done is up for grabs. As for me, my opinion to solve the problem remains a secret, lest my big brother finds out and excommunicates me, or worse, condemns me to die at the stakes.

My Stand

This is an article written by Joaquin Bernas, SJ on his stand on the RH Bill.  This, too, is my stand on the controversial bill.

***
A little over a year ago, or on May 22, 2011 to be exact, I wrote an article for the Inquirer titled “My stand on the RH bill.”  With the vote on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill approaching, people have asked me whether my stand on the bill has changed.  Let me restate the salient points I made then.

First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that  the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do.  I know that some people consider me a heretic and that at the very least I should leave the priesthood.  But my superiors still stand by me.

Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception, which is very much at the center of the controversy. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief, nor may churchmen pressure President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community (like the Catholic Church) might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups”; and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members 

of the community, including the minority.”

Third, the obligation to respect freedom of religion is also applicable to the state. Thus, I advocate careful recasting of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents.  (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, in addition to the free exercise of religion, there is the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12)

Fourth, the duty to care for sexual and reproductive health of employees should be approached in a balanced way  so that both the freedom of religion of employers and the welfare of workers will be attended to.  In this regard it may be necessary to reformulate the provisions already found in the Labor Code.

Fifth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution.  Thus, for instance, it may be legitimately spent for making available reproductive materials that are not abortifacient. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.

Sixth, we should be careful not to distort what the RH bill says.  The RH bill does not favor abortion. The bill clearly prohibits abortion as an assault against the right to life.

Seventh, in addition, I hold that abortifacient pills and devices should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. 

However, determining which of the pills in the market are abortifacient is something for the judicial process to determine 

with the aid of science experts.  Our Supreme Court has already upheld the banning of at least one device found to be abortifacient.

Eighth, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication!  I find this to be irresponsible.

Ninth, I claim no competence to debate about demographics.

Tenth, I have never held that the RH bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can.  I hold that the approval of the RH bill today will not end all debate about it.  It will only shift the arena for  debate from the raucous and noisy rally fields to the more sober judicial arena where reason has a better chance of prevailing.

Finally, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles that are desperately needed especially by poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved even if we must litigate later about those that we disagree on.  In other words, let us not burn the house just to roast a pig.

SHAME ON YOU...

Here is an interesting comment from one reader.  He makes a lot of sense.  Don't you agree?

+++

These bishops can't say anything sensible nowadays.

BISHOPS SAID, ‘RH BILL IS AN OPEN WAR AGAINST THE CHURCH’. YOU ARE SO NARROW-MINDED BISHOPS. THIS IS AN OPEN WAR AGAINST POVERTY, NOT AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATIONS OR ENTITIES.’

It looks like that your mind is blanketed with insecurities that every time the government comes up with sensible steps towards alleviating poverty, you think, it is a step against you. You can be compared to an insecure wife who has to question where her husband is going every time he steps out of the door.

You better study economics bishops before you say faster growth population translates to a booming economy. It depends on the situation and surely, your statement does not apply to the Philippine conditions at all at the present time.

The Philippines is a very small country with very large population, one of the highest in the world with very limited resources. We are a third world country, which relies on economic aid from other countries and the OFW. Our educational system is one of the worst in the world and the schools that provide satisfactory education are Catholic schools like the Ateneo, De la Salle, UST that impose fees far beyond the reach of the lowly Juan dela Cruz. If you, bishops, would try to lift your little finger alleviate the burden of high tuition fees so that students from the most impoverished areas could attend such schools, then I would support you. 

Go to squatter areas.  Go to the provinces.  Go to remotest barangays.  You will see NOTHING but numerous barefooted, half–naked to naked children playing in the streets, walloping in poverty. Is this what you want? To see nothing but poverty?

The present economic conditions need immediate and hard–line solutions.  Chief of them is to reduce the population growth that is projected to reach unmanageable proportions in few years to come. This is a long–term solution that has been studied and recommended by economists and experts long before Pnoy's administration came into being because of limited and dwindling resources.  And yet, here you are talking garbage, not offering any help to alleviate poverty.

You are becoming this nation's biggest problem, worse than corrupt politicians, the Abu Sayyaf and the NPA combined. Pnoy is doing the best he could to see a progressive country, but it is a pity that he has to hurdle the biggest obstacle to succeed – you, the bishops.

SHAME ON YOU BISHOPS!!! ANG KAKAPAL NINYO!!!....

Lady Gaga Concert in Manila

So, the Lady Gaga Concerts have come and gone.

All the noise generated against the concerts have fallen into silence.  Not quite unusual and expected.

Days before the concert began, many church groups spoke against the rocker.  Text messages called for her deportation.  Prayer rallies called for her damnation.  I even remember a rather outspoken bishop from down south calling Lady Gaga demon possessed, and even if given the opportunity to talk to her, would rather keep a distance, because, as he says he 'does not talk to demons.'  A modern-day pharisee indeed.

Personally,  I am not a fan of Lady Gaga and I do not actually know any of her tunes, except for 'Bad Romance' only because it has been used in production numbers on TV.

I, however, consider it 'pa-epal' for some church moralists to ask that she be 'kicked-out' and that reparation be done at parish churches to 'ask for God's mercy, that His wrath would not fall on us' due to the blasphemes the rocker made.  Please!  There are more blasphemous things being done everywhere, with or without Gaga.  Way back in the 80s, we had Madonna and Cyndi Lauper.  Did God destroy the world?  Hello!  I am now a in my mid-40s, feeling the effects of aging, but still alive. 

Ang mahirap eh, those hypocritical moralists so good in damning others as demons and seeing God in man's own image, yet they fail to see the scandal of sin that lies within themselves.

Pa-epal talaga.