FOREIGN FUNDING TO PUSH RH BILL: No surprise here

(Reposted from The Catholic Position on the RH Bill)

What we've been saying all along: foreign money funds pro-RH activities

A pro-lifer's speculation on what the people in this anti-Catholic protest might actually have been thinking.

An article published on December 2 of this year by Philippine Daily Inquirer brought to a wider audience some of the details of a state of affairs that has been known for a long time to the pro-life movement, and which many activists of the "pro-RH camp" have been denying without success. I am, of course, referring to the continued infusion into our country of money from foreign countries and institutions, earmarked for the propagation of the RH Bill and of other similar bills that espouse the Culture of Death and the anti-values of sexual anarchy.

In particular, the Inquirer article "No delay but RH bill won't be passed this year - Enrile" showed that the pro-RH camp has been practicing the age-old tactic of corrupt politicians: the "hakot" (paid) crowd:

Early this year, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) received P4.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund to push for the passage of the RH bill before the end of 2011. Dr. Junice Melgar, RHAN secretary general, admitted that her group solicited the amount because it “has no ongoing funding.”

Based on RHAN’s budget proposal, the amount was to be spent on activities such as “education and mobilization” program. One item worth P2,837,500 was to go to organize “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.”

The group scheduled the “peak” of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of “at least 5,000 people.” Each participant was supposed to receive P350.

In response to this report, Filipinos for Life has published an official statement delving in greater detail and with many proofs into the foreign funding that has been propping up numerous anti-life initiatives in the Philippines:

Official Statement: Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

***
CBCP for Life also published the following article regarding the Filipinos for Life statement linked above:

Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

MANILA, Dec. 2, 2011–Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed.

Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow.

“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable war chest from pro-abortion groups,” it said.

Documents revealed the following financial grants for RH lobby groups:

* $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);

* $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);

* $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;

* $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);

* $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);

* $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and

* $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009).

This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said.

F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs.

“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L pointed out.

Where are the millions going?

Meanwhile, the Philippine Daily Inquirer today ran a story containing a more detailed breakdown of RHAN’s budget earmarked for a more aggressive push for RH. According to the article, the millions in pesos provided by the UNFPA were to be spent on “education and mobilization.” Based on the same document, nearly P3 million was allocated for “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.”

“The group scheduled the ‘peak’ of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of ‘at least 5,000 people.’ Each participant was supposed to receive P350,” the article further stated.

F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it.

“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said. (CBCP for Life)

PNoy on same-sex marriages this time

Does he understand?

If one still has any doubts that the current sitting President, Benigno Aquino III Jr, has firmly decided to alienate himself from his Catholic identity, then his recent pronouncement should leave no more doubts. His defiant attitude towards the Church by his unabashed support of the RH bill is now firmly reinforced by his recent pronouncement in apparent support of same-sex marriage.

President Noynoy Aquino, who prides himself in being Jesuit-educated, says in response to a query on same-sex marriage:

"Gay marriage—I don’t think I’m ready to tackle that fight right now. But the perspective... it is their choice. Normally I would say, you’re adults, you should be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn’t harm anybody else...."

One wonders whether PNoy's "principled" stand is simply contingent on whether or not he is ready to "tackle that fight". One further wonders whether his principle is simply dependent on his targeted mass popularity by kowtowing to the liberal public. His perspective on placing individual "choice" over and above an essential principle in Catholic doctrine clearly puts himself in direct contradiction to a "non-negotiable" in the public sphere which is clearly spelled out by the Catholic Church of which he claims to be a follower.

Pope Benedict XVI emphasizes that the Church is consciously drawing particular attention to three principles which are non-negotiable, wherein the second non-negotiable goes as follows:

[The] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

Yet perhaps the president is a devout advocate of the principle of "Separation of Church and State", which is pretty much interpreted these days as equivalent to saying that just about anything the Church says should be altogether disregarded and repudiated in these modern times. Pope Benedict XVI in his recent address to the German Bundestag shreds such a positivist approach to nature and reason as being opposed to true human freedom, but then again it may be too much to expect PNoy to train his ears towards the Holy Father's words. Perhaps his ears may have been too much attuned to the proclamations of the self-proclaimed "messiah": President Obama of the United States.

Be as it may, with regards to Church-State separation and its misguided interpretations, we may yet look into what the State - specifically the Philippine State - has to say on the matter. It is no secret that the Philippine Constitution enshrines the principle in Article II Section 12:

"The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution"

Unless the Philippine president has purposely ignored this fundamental constitutional provision with the same nonchalance he has shown to fundamental Catholic teachings, it would be at least charitable to say that his phalanx of presidential advisers have taken a vacation - since day one of his presidency. Perhaps even with the same strange stance on PNoy's part, it is worth remembering that his own mother (God bless her), the late President Corazon Aquino was the very person who in 1987 promulgated the Family Code of the Philippines, which in Article II states to wit:

"No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female"

Note: must be male and female. In supporting same-sex marriages, PNoy has chosen to contradict the Church, the State, and his own mother in his dalliance with his own shadow. Let it be said that today's Gospel is about obedience, even if one does not understand fully. Apparently, PNoy's dillema is more about not being able to understand more than having the virtue of obedience. But maybe, perhaps both.

Senator Santiago's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

Miriam's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

The Reproductive Health Act (Sponsorship speech part 2)

The meat of Senator Miriam Santiago's RH Sponsorship speech (Parts 2 and 3) rests in claiming that the enactment of the RH bill will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. According to her since there is no clear constitutional prohibition, the passage of the bill would amount to a "legislative construction" of Article 2 Section 12 which is at the heart of the constitutionality issue.

I am not about to argue Senator Santiago's legal opinion point by point, for that is well beyond my reach. I would just like to point out that at least three legal luminaries do not share her legal constructions, and in fact flatly goes against them.

Here are the key passages of Senator Santiago's sponsorship speech.

There are a number of constitutional provisions that underlie the RH bill. But the most salient is what I would call the “Sanctity of Life” Clause found under Article 2, as a declaration of state policy:

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

This provision does not mention the term “reproductive health” or any of its affiliate vocabularies. This is in the nature of a constitution. As explained in the 1930 case ofLopez v. de los Reyes,[1] speaking of the Constitution:

It is an instrument of a permanent nature, intended not merely to meet existing conditions, but to govern the future. It does not deal in details but enunciates the general principles and general directions which are intended to apply to all new facts which may come into being, and which may be brought within those general principles or directions.

The Constitution should not be read like a newspaper story, on the basis of which each reader can feel free to express his own interpretation. Instead, to discover the intent and meaning of the Constitution, we have to turn to a process called “constitutional construction.”
...
The Constitution, directly or indirectly, does not prohibit the RH bill. Therefore, in constitutional terms, this Senate is free to enact this bill. It is now well accepted in our jurisdiction that under the “rational basis” test, so long as an act of Congress bears some reasonable relationship to the grant of power to the national government and it is not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, a reviewing court must find the law to be necessary and proper.

If the Senate passes the RH bill, our action would amount to a legislative construction of the Constitution. The rule is that a practical construction by Congress of a provision of the Constitution is entitled to great weight and should not be lightly disregarded. Hence, if we pass the RH bill, it will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality if it is questioned in the Supreme Court.

In other words, Miriam says the Constitution does not prohibit the RH bill, and that the intention of Article 2 Section 12 may be constructed by the legislature.

Here I note that Fr Joaquin Bernas - a noted constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission - clearly says otherwise.

The unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization of the zygote. Although the constitutional provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach. For this reason the Constitution commands that protection be given from conception, that is, from the fertilization of the zygote.

This is reflected in one of the exchanges during the debate. Since the protection of the unborn was to begin from conception, Reverend Cirilo Rigos asked when the “moment of conception” was. Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, who was the principal sponsor of the provision, answered that the conception took place with fertilization since “it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.” When Commissioner Fely Aquino observed that at that point there would only be biological life, Bishop Teodoro Bacani did not contradict her but said that there would already be biological human life even if there was as yet no “person.”

From this it can be seen that the intention is to protect the “life” even before implantation in the uterus, that is, from the moment biological life begins. The constitutional intent, in other words, is to play it safe lest human life be destroyed and to impose the protection even before implantation in the uterus.

This brings us to the question whether the reproductive bill allows or even prescribes the use of birth control methods which have the effect of blocking a fertilized zygote from being implanted in the uterus or of expelling a fertilized zygote before implantation. This is a question which, while it has constitutional, religious and moral implications, must first be answered by medical science. Has this question been sufficiently explored in the course of the debates over the reproductive health bill? My impression is that it has not. And if the law is passed as proposed, the question will most certainly reach the Supreme Court.

Dr. Bernie Villegas, likewise a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and the actual sponsor of the said constitutional provision, is more specific.

In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino. This majority decision was made after the most thorough debate...

Thus it is evident that Miriam Santiago's legal opinion on the Rh bill does not square with the legal positions of two prominent members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. In fact they contradict her and so it is incumbent for us to take Senator Santiago's opinion with a healthy dose of skepticism. At any rate, she avers that the Supreme Court would be tolerant of the passage of the RH bill in the event the ball is passed on to it. Now, if only she had come across Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona's earlier statements on the matter...

...The chief magistrate added that there are legal questions that will surely be brought before the SC once the bill becomes law.

If such questions were presented to the High Tribunal, Corona pointed out, it would be the court, not Congress , which will decide on the fate of the RH measure.

The SC could even inquire into pieces of legislation passed by Congress under its power of judicial review.

Such legislation [according to the Chief Justice] will include cases that are justiciable for “grave abuse of discretion or amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

Again if only Miriam paid attention to other notable but contrary legal positions...she might not sound so self-assured. Before that time comes, I guess hell will freeze over first.

Complaint vs CCP filed by Ang Kapatiran Party Chair

Complaint vs CCP filed by Ang Kapatiran Party Chair Manuel Dayrit

...for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, among others...
Scribd

Reflection on the Controversial Exhibit by CCP Trustee, Fray Paulo Casurao

CONGREGATIO S. FRANCESCO PEREGRINORUM
(PILGRIM BROTHERS OF ST. FRANCIS)

THE MODERATOR GENERAL

REFLECTION REGARDING THE CONTROVERSIAL EXHIBIT “KULO”AT THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES

I am writing this reflection as a response to Dr. Florangel Braid’s observations on the forum which occurred shortly after the CCP Executive Board Meeting on Friday, August 5, 2011, convened by Dr. Raul Sunico, CCP President, to discuss the brewing controversy spawned by the exhibit KULO, and also to reiterate some points I raised during the said meeting.

Present in that meeting were Dr. Raul Sunico, CCP President, Mrs. Emily Abrera, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Trustees Dr. Florangel Braid, Mrs. Isabel Caro Wilson, Ms. Nedy Tantoco, Ms. Carol Espiritu, and myself. I was provided a copy of Mr. Nick Lizaso’s letter of objection to the exhibit and Mr. Antonio Yap’s email with the same objection. Mr. Nick Lizaso called me earlier to remind me to put his objection on record, which I did, at least, two times during the deliberations. To my recollection, there were six trustees who were opposed to the exhibit: Dr. Raul Sunico, Ms. Nedy Tantoco, Mrs. Isabel Caro Wilson, and I, who were present, and Mr. Nick Lizaso and Mr. Antonio Yap, who sent their objections by email. Those who were in favor of the exhibit were CCP Chairman Emily Abrera, Dr. Florangel Braid, and Ms. Carol Espiritu.

At the end of the meeting, the presiding office, Chairman Abrera, said she was not calling for a vote, but only to consult with the board members, and that the exhibit could not be closed due to the contract that provided for the use of the venue until the third week of August.

Of course heated exchanges were made during the board meeting. I, for one, restated my own expression of freedom of speech, which I sent by email at the very start of the uproar occasioned by the exhibit, in an equally dramatic fashion: May the families of those who rejoice in the insult against heaven be cursed for seven generations and may their households be consumed with misery for the same length of time. I added that it should not disturb those who do not share my faith and should it ever happen, they can shrug it off as mere coincidence, since the connection cannot be proven empirically.

The Plenitude of Life - John 10:10

I subscribe to the Liberal Humanism of Pope John Paul II, of revered memory, specifically with regards to culture and the arts. The gospel passage “…they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly,” has always been the reference of my involvement in cultural work since the 1970s as we battled Martial Law through theater and all through the years, even as a founder of one of the first arts councils affiliated to the CCP from 1988 onwards. That the CCP has accorded us, the Ibabao Arts Council of Calbayog, Inc. the PILAK HONOR in 2004 is a distinct recognition of our enduring work in the cultural transformation of our country. I believe this is also the principal reason why I was appointed to the CCP Board of Trustees in 2009.

The freedom that must come from this frame of reference is the freedom of expression with an important caveat - it must not harm others. That freedom is based on one preeminent task, as secular humanism would passionately argue - the founding of a just and peaceful society.

I submit, therefore, that the exhibit “KULO” is an incendiary attack against Christian Faith, as whole, and the Catholic Church, in particular. As all art exhibits are founded on the so-called creative intent of the artists, the counter-discourse cannot be dismissed by the claim to the so-called freedom of expression and hide behind the perceived constitutional guarantees, for the freedom of religion is also a paramount guarantee of a civilized constitution. The unjust vexations suffered by Christians, Catholics in particular, occasioned by the exhibit at government-funded Cultural Center of the Philippines might even give the wrong impression that the ruling political powers have let loose their hounds against the Catholic Church.

Into the “Devil’s Labyrinth”

In the debate that ensued during the CCP Executive Board Meeting, I asked the presiding officer, whether she would allow an exhibit that would feature a frame of the president treated in the same way at the debauched face of Jesus Christ in the exhibit. She answered that the President Benigno Aquino’s effigy has been burned in the street. I said that I am not referring to anywhere else but the CCP. I asked the question again whether she would allow an exhibit, at the CCP, of the President’s image being defaced in the same manner. Yes, she said. Then, I wondered aloud: How would the Aquino family feel if there was an exhibit at the CCP that defaced Cory Aquino?

When the officer in-charge of the Visual Arts was invited in, I asked her if she would have allowed another exhibit, God forbid, that blasphemed the revered Islamic prophet. She could not answer. She found the question difficult to answer; but, she seemed not to have any qualms about giving permission to an exhibit that mocked Christianity.

It was suggested that the exhibit also referred to the National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who was a UST student and who attacked religious institutions. I protested that Rizal never hurled an insult at God. He was not expelled by the Dominicans from the university. To connect the exhibit to him is to abuse and dishonor his memory.

When Ms. Espiritu wanted to dismiss the voices of protest as coming only from the Catholics, I told her that no God-fearing Christian will not consider the exhibit offensive - Catholic or not. I hastened to remind her that the CCP is funded by taxes which Catholics also pay. A trustee retorted that the Bishops do not pay taxes. I argued that millions of Catholics like me pay taxes, directly or indirectly. At that point, I realized that the debate was pointless, even as Dr. Braid and I concluded that the debate at large on the matter should continue. I felt that the prejudice by some trustees against the Catholic Church precluded any further discussion.

Aftermath: You Reap What You Sow

If we argue for freedom of expression by allowing the “blasphemous” exhibit at the CCP, do we have the right to deprive those who were aggrieved or maligned by it to express their indignation as passionately and as strongly as the artists by their “artistic expression.” Are we not guilty of bigotry, if we want the Catholics to shut up because they are just Catholics. Would such attitude invite the millions of Catholic faithful to take us to task?

It seems that it is now “open season” against the Church that paved the way for another Aquino to ascend the presidency via the much televised funeral where he was endorsed by his younger sister to the grieving nation. It is ironical that the Church that offered sanctuary to Mrs. Corazon Aquino, in life and in death, should be the object and subject of attack by those who want to curry favor with the presidential palace.

The tragedy is, that in allowing an exhibit that would occasion such repulsion, the more important discourse on Art and National Transformation, as Dr. Braid would suggest, or Culture and National Development as I would advocate, has been overshadowed along extemely “partisan” lines.

Dr. Florangel Braid, who holds my utmost respect, even wrote in her e-mail: “I was just wondering that while we are witnessing many abuses of human rights (on children, vulnerable minority groups, etc.), which certainly are more shocking, these holy defenders of our morals have gone out of their way to spew insult to "betrayers of public trust" like us who certainly had no malicious intent. They even showed distrust by saying that this may have been timed with the Reproductive Health and Divorce bills. Which is farthest from the mind of Karen and our board...(I just wanted to get this out of my system too). .”

The inference that the Church has been remiss in fighting for human rights is unfair and cannot be sustained, considering the broad-involvement and advocacy by Church people on social issues. Lay people and priests have lost their lives in standing up for their commitment against human rights violations and even in campaign to save forests. (I also want to get this out of my system, too).

The greater tragedy is the chasm between the Church that stood-up against Martial Law and the Liberals who would want the Church to gobble-up whatever is served to it. The recent abuses heaped upon the Church by the operatives of the “Liberal” agenda now encourages disengagement from cooperation with government and distance from greater dialogue with liberal humanism, which is an essential element in the pursuit of the so-called UN Millennium Development Goals.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bukova, during her address at the dinner in the San Agustin Church grounds, hosted by the NCCA and the ITI Philippine Center in her honor, reasoned for what she called as “New Humanism.” The “Kulo” affair hardly contributes to this cause.

Redress of Grievance

I concurred with the lawyer present that the matter should go to court, so as to define the limits to the constitutional guarantee on the freedom of expression. I also told the trustees present that I would counsel the Catholics to write to their House Representatives and the Senators to voice out their concern regarding such policies by the CCP, which is a government institution. Furthermore, I said I would to bring the matter to Civil Service Commission so that accountability by civil servants, in this case those in the CCP, could be determined.

Other recourses can include a boycott of companies and products that sponsor CCP programs and events. These recourses are more preferable to other more violent responses that the fanatic may have in mind.

On my part, I am tempted to take the challenge to every parish and in every church of the Catholic faith in this country and bring the discourse to the attention of every tax-paying Catholic to the Chair that our Catholic voices matter and that the President of this Republic would do well to continue securing the cooperation of everyone, Catholics included.

There is an intensified clamor for the CCP Chair and Board to resign. Perhaps, it is the more honorable and decent way to deflect the arrows that will be aimed at the Presidency; an institution we are duty-bound as citizens to uphold and preserve whether we sympathize with the current occupant or not.

Even if I was indignant and opposed the exhibit, I have no qualms about resigning my CCP seat since I also feel marginalized as an appointee of the past administration. I spend congregational money when I have to travel from Cebu to Manila and back to attend the monthly board meetings. I have refused the paltry honorarium given to trustees. I even refuse the food served during meetings, hoping that I might be able to contribute to the Outreach Division that have been apportioned an almost token budget. I have been slandered too as every man and woman of good will and dedication to the welfare of this country have been slandered and maligned by their mere association with the past president.

The CCP that I have served, largely for free, since 1988 as a cooperator and advocate from the regions, has taken from me an enormous amount of joy in recent memory.

Fra. Paolo Maria Diosdado Granados Casurao, CSFP
CCP Trustee

Chairman, Pasundayag Cultural Network
Chairman, Institute of Drama for the Development of Peoples
Executive Board Member, ITI International Monodrama Forum
Executive Board Member, ITI Philipne Center
Chairman, Dulaang Laksambayanan
Chairman, Alsa Balutan Monodrama Festival

Copy furnished:

The President of the Republic of the Philippines
The Senate of the Philippines
The House of Representatives
The Papal Nuncio
The Catholic Archbishop of Manila
The Catholic Archbishop of Cebu
The UNESCO Director General
The Franciscans at the United Nations
The Conferenza Francescana Internazionale
The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines
/

Artists defend controversial exhibition, Palace refuses to comment

The Concerned Artists of the Philippines (CAP) has rallied behind artist Mideo Cruz, whose work Poleteismo has become the subject of criticism by Catholic groups. According to the group the condemnation of art exhibit of Jesus mixed with symbols of pop culture "smacks of religious fascism".

“We believe … that this demand to suppress the show smacks of the religious fascism of the friars … and is certainly unacceptable in the 21st century,” said the statement issued by the CAP.

The exhibition features images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary adorned with objects not related to Christianity. One work includes a crucifix with a condom. Another features a Christ the King figurine with rabbit ears.

"The bishops and the lay leaders … are within their rights to speak … and they are free to admonish the Catholic faithful regarding what they find objectionable," the artists’ group statement said.

Neil Doloricon, CAP secretary general, said criticism of the art work is "part of the artistic process and contributes to the growth of the artist".

"We caution critics, however, not to resort to intimidation and defamation that threaten the artist’s freedom of expression," he added.

When the CAP secretary general was asked whether they would approve of a similar affront to the image of Islam's Mohammed, Doloricon responded by saying "Erm, ah.. next question please".

The CCP on Friday appealed for respect following the vandalism of the exhibit on Thursday. The statement said the exhibit was protected by right to free artistic expression.

The artists have the right to insult Christians anyway they want, please show the artists some respect, the CCP statement said, even as the CCP board scheduled a special meeting to deliberate the meaning of "double standard".

The offended Christians were dumbfounded: "huh???"

Meanwhile, Palace refuses to comment on the blasphemous CCP art exhibit.

"At this point, we refuse to comment on this issue precisely because the Palace was never consulted by CCP, which was acting through its own board, who decided to put on the exhibit", deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte told state-run radio dzRB.

When spokesperson Valte was further asked whether Malacañang would comment if a similar affront was made to the image of Islam's Mohammed, she responded by saying "Erm, ah.. next question please".
/

Miriam's "encyclical": The primacy of conscience says the RH bill is great and all the Popes were wrong after all

Senator Miriam Santiago delivers Part 1 of her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill.

In so many words, Santiago attempts here to justify her dissent of a key teaching of the Catholic Church. Mainly, she cites the primacy of conscience as the primary justification for her support of artificial contraceptives.

She hinges her dissent on a "historically conditioned", "liberal progressive", personal appreciation of Vatican II. With her selective quotes of Vatican II passages and piecemeal excerpts from encyclical sources, she might indeed present a seemingly acceptable case to the gullible reader. Such is the case that adroit lawyers are wont to present their cases. It is commonly perceived that lawyers can easily portray the innocent as guilty or vice-versa with the crafty turn of words and selective citations. This reminds me of the joke commonly told about lawyers. You can always tell when they are not telling the truth: their lips are moving.

Senator Santiago's idea of progressive theology is that where one does not have to follow KEY traditional Catholic teachings. In this particular case, her dissent ranges herself against the constant, perennial teaching of the Catholic Church against contraception - from the earliest Church Fathers all the way to our present Pope Benedict XVI.

She rejects Humanae Vitae with her explication on the supremacy of her personal conscience. Even as she makes her case for "progressive theology" that sees "fellowships" held together in essentials by their "recognition of papal primacy", her research fails to uncover the fact that her supposed recognition of papal primacy falls flatly in stark contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI clearly says. It was on the very occasion of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, that Pope Benedict XVI clearly spells it out: "The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does NOT change. Quite the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more relevant and stimulates reflection on the intrinsic values it possesses.". Clearly, Miriam Santiago's "primacy of conscience" is at odds with her "recognition of papal primacy" on the moral issue of contraceptives. Even as she liberally references Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, she conveniently fails to note that the same document speaks of the "right conscience" guided by the "objective norms of morality". Senator Santiago on the other hand clearly proposes moral relativism: "what may have been perceived as morally wrong in one set of circumstances would be regarded as morally justifiable in another situation." In other words her definition of morality is: it depends on your own fallible conscience, period.

Here, one who values primacy of conscience should now carefully discern ("after proper study, reflection, and prayer" as Santiago recommends) who is right in this instance: Senator Miriam Santiago or Pope Benedict XVI with the whole weight of Catholic Tradition behind him? I take it to mean that when Senator Santiago says "after proper study", we don't confine our study to her speech alone for that would be far, far from proper. For starters, the early Church Fathers had much to say that Santiago contradicts. Pope Pius XI had much to say likewise. Pope Paul VI of course, as well as the Magisterium throughout the ages. One has to wonder what "historical" theology Miriam is referring to.

Particularly offensive is the part where Senator Santiago downplays the authority of the priests and bishops in emphasizing her dissent. She states: "The priest is not a special person, just because he performs strictly cultic tasks, such as presiding at the Eucharist and administering the sacraments.".To Santiago, the source, summit and very apex of our Catholic faith is reduced to a strictly cultic task that a priest presides over. This is not an attack on the identity of priests anymore, who has been ordained - not of their own power - to pronounce: do this in memory of me. It is an appalling, stunning irreverence of Christ himself - something I never expected even from the dissonant senator. It is a very sad and pathetic testament as to how far she has veered away from the faith.

Even as we should pray for her conversion, the thought most disconcerting is the likely possibility that her piece could be able to sway a considerable number of the flock to her own misdirected way of thinking. That is the very intention of her speech, make no mistake about it. It goes beyond just having the RH bill passed. It seeks to undermine the very fabric of the Catholic Magisterium for it leads us to follow our own conscience regardless. Jesus himself has some grave warnings in leading believers into sin in Mat 18:16 - whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Incidentally, in today's scripture the first reading portrays the namesake of the feisty senator: Miriam the brother of Moses and Aaron. (Nm 12:1-13). Moses' sister Miriam was equally feisty as she and Aaron questioned the divinely-inspired, primary authority of Moses and criticized him roundly: "Is it through Moses alone that the LORD speaks? Does he not speak through us also?". The Lord took grievous offense that his anointed leader was grossly disrespected. The narrative goes... "so angry was the LORD against them that when he departed, and the cloud withdrew from the tent, and...there was Miriam, a snow-white leper!"

We do not know whether Senator Santiago realizes she is practically asking to be turned into a leper or to be thrown to the depth of the seas with a millstone tied around her neck. Miriam the sister of Moses actually suffered only seven days, with the intercession of Moses. Senator Miriam Santiago looks pretty incorrigible but if only she would undergo a similar conversion experience, there is probably hope. Perhaps it would do good for Senator Miriam to be afflicted with leprotic lesions all over her body, while she is sent adrift on a tiny barge in the midst of the ocean, with a millstone around her neck, no food and water, and only a copy of Gaudium et Spes to read over and over again until she gets it right.
/

PNOY'S SONA 2011

State of the Nation Address: President Benigno Aquino III

‎(initial reaction to PNoy's SONA)

"Naglalatag po tayo ng pagbabago upang mas mapatibay ang pundasyon ng maaliwalas na bukas para sa lahat."

I think this statement pervades the whole theme of PNoy's SONA. It is not such a bad idea to stick to such a theme under the circumstances. He stuck with the good points, played those up, and evaded confrontational issues. He highlighted results against corruption, cited data to back it up (those ones will need to be validated still). He obviously avoided mentioning controversial legislative agenda - this will not be consistent with his SONA's theme. Any mention of the RH bill would be out of place, though it should not mean he has abandoned support for it. The reference to the bishops is tasteful I must admit. Overall the tone is upbeat. I must say PNoy's speechwriter did quite well (who's the guy?), considering there was really not much to report in terms of strategic direction. The Pro-RH crowd will definitely be disappointed and I doubt they will understand. What's new.

on the good effects and bad effects of contraceptive pills

"all medical products have good and side (bad) effects" - ex-DOH chief Cabral



(update: here's some more from the wacky guys at FilipinosForLife)

After you, Japan

China census shows population aging rapidly
(philstar.com) Updated April 28, 2011 10:38 AM

BEIJING (AP) - China's latest census shows that the world's most populous country is aging rapidly, and half the people now live in cities.

Results of the census released Thursday showed that the number of people under the age of 14 accounted for 16.6 percent of the country's 1.34 billion people, down 6.3 percentage points from 10 years ago. The number of people over the age of 60 was now 13.3 percent, up nearly 3 percentage points.

The rapid aging has fueled worries that China will soon not be able to sustain its fast economic growth of the past three decades.

The census carried out late last year also showed that nearly 49.68 percent of the population lived in cities, up from about 36 percent in 2000.
/

Me: No further comment, your honor.

Let them eat condoms, (3)

HEADLINE: Aquino warned of rice crisis

The impending rice crisis is a monumental tribute to our country's misdirected economic policy over the years. But what are we doing now?

Why oh why have we come to a point where we cannot even produce our own rice when we undoubtedly have untapped resources in labor, land, and expertise. The report says NFA recently ordered from Vietnam 200,000 MT at a cost of 4 BILLION, even as plans are in the offing to buy and additional 800,000 MT to compensate for the local production shortfall. Why are we allowing a shortfall to happen? We even taught Vietnam how to plant rice and yet we now find ourselves importing from them. In an agricultural country like ours, rice production can the largest employer of unskilled labor in the rural economy. This can lead to countryside development. We can also save our money by not importing rice. It can also be an engine of economic growth. It is a no-brainer. Instead we allow our agricultural lands to be converted with impunity. We allow our fertilizer funds to vanish into thin air. We allocate billions to dole-outs. All these and more, even as we do not invest enough effort and funds in the rice self-sufficiency program.

The rice self-sufficiency program suffers pitifully from attention and lack of funds, but guess where our legislators and top officials want to spend billions of our taxpayer's money instead. Hint: You can't eat rubber.

The major cause of maternal deaths, really

Group to bishops: Deal maternal deaths issue

MANILA, Philippines – A women’s group backing the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill called on the Catholic bishops to deal on the issue of maternal deaths in the wake of their opposition in the hotly-debated bill.

In a statement, the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) hit the Catholic bishops for issuing statements protesting the bill but none on arresting maternal deaths.

“Our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services,” said DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco.

“The nation loses if we do nothing and allow the death of 11 mothers every day, due to pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications,” she added.

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die,” she pointed out.

The statement came after the CBCP vowed to relentlessly fight against the passage of the measure, even urging President Benigno Aquino III to veto the bill if it pass in Congress.
/

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die”.

Really?? What a preposterous claim. This kind of sneaky argument has been going around for a quite a while and I guess there must be a law penalizing "malicious disinformation", irony intended.

Official DOH figures (here) shows that the leading cause of maternal mortality is post-partum hemorrhage, followed by retained placenta, eclampsia, etc. Nowhere in the top 10 causes does it even remotely say that the CBCP's stubborn rejection of the RH bill is the major reason (!)

Ah, I see. Direct inference. IF contraceptives were freely available, then these mortality deaths WILL BE avoided (GUARANTEED!) because ALL those who suffered maternal deaths, in the first place, had unwanted pregnancies (yes, all of them) AND they sought out absolutely EFFECTIVE and SAFE contraceptives which were inaccessible, AND the root causal and direct culprit being the CBCP's stubborn opposition to the RH bill. It is giving me a migraine just trying to wrap my head around this convoluted cause-and-effect analysis.

A pregnancy happens because two people engage in sex, irresponsible or otherwise. The AFP, NBI, KofC, CWL, and CBCP for that matter, is not a causal that these people decide to engage in sex. Health complications arise out of pregnancy simply because of a lack of professional medical care. The DFA, DOH, AirForce, DSWP, and CBCP for that matter, is not a direct causal if there is a lack of maternal care. Wait...maybe the DOH is. Maternal and Child health is already an existing mandate of the DOH, and it must see to it to the best of its ability that there are accredited medical professionals that provides care to pregnant women.

In relation to this, there is this study made by NCSB-NSO (circa 2002) investigating the "Factors Affecting Maternal Health Utilization in the Philippines". According to NSO statisticians Elaine B. Rogan and Virginia R. Olveña:

"The use of professional assistance during delivery is generally low for the Philippines. Only sixty percent of women who delivered in the last five years preceding the survey were assisted by a health professional for their most recent pregnancy while seventy percent of women received postnatal care. Utilization of maternal care is lowest in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only eighty-five percent for prenatal care, twenty-one percent received professional delivery assistance and forty-eight percent obtained postnatal care. Meanwhile, the National Capital Region (NCR) accounts for the highest percentage of maternal health utilization with ninety-seven percent for both prenatal and delivery care and seventy-six percent for postnatal services..."

The study concludes in part:

"The quality of health care remains wanting in many areas. Some health facilities have deteriorated and poor quality services exists. Low quality drugs and medicines are present in the market. These have been attributed partly to the weak enforcement of health regulations..."

So it appears there is severe lack of accredited health professionals, and that utilization of maternal health services is very, very low (only at an average of 60%). It means 40% of pregnant women were not attended to during their deliveries, the high figure attributable to the rural areas.

And that, my dear DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco, is what should get your goat when you say "our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services". Eksakto yun. If there was a law right now which penalizes "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation...", you could be in trouble...

Odds and Ends 3/2/2011

Singson resigns from Congress

...He said he was quitting “not because I am succumbing to the pressure of the noisy few among my honorable colleagues; rather, my resignation is a fulfillment of my promise to my father who had all the right to make the first and loudest protest because it was his name and honor that was mercilessly dragged into the tempest of my own undoing.”

He thanked his colleagues “who kept their peace” while he was being tried in Hong Kong. He also expressed his gratitude to other people who gave him moral support.

"In like vein, I would also like to thank the noisy minority who demanded my ouster even before my plea of guilt and the final verdict. Let me thank them as the Lord Jesus preached, ‘If they throw you stones, throw them bread’,” he said.

Man, I think there will be a whole lotta bread coming, probably much more than the "noisy minority" can eat.
/

House suspends RH bill sessions

MANILA, Philippines - The much-awaited plenary debates on the controversial Reproductive
Health (RH) Bill were called off yesterday after the centralized air conditioning units of the plenary hall of the House of Representatives broke down.

...Gonzales said the session was canceled upon the approval of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and also after consulting House Minority Leader and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, the main
author of the RH bill.

Lagman, for his part, described the suspension as a “fortuitous delay” for the RH bill that is strongly opposed by the Catholic Church and pro-life groups.

Fortuitous delay? I'd call it divine intervention, hehe.
/

550 Filipinos Out of Libya...

The Filipinos travelled in a convoy of 55 vans and buses headed by Secretary del Rosario towards the Tunisian border. Another set of vehicles will take them from there to Djerba, the first Tunisian city after the border.

Secretary Del Rosario and Foreign Affairs Undersecretary for Migrant Workers Affairs Esteban Conejos also visited the Philippine School in Tripoli, which has served as a relocation site for 87 Filipinos awaiting transit out of Libya.

Meanwhile, the Department of Foreign Affairs Office of Migrant Workers Affairs DFA-OUMWA) said that 72 overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) arrived Sunday evening from Cairo on board Etihad Air.

Now that is what I call public service.. and LEADERSHIP. God bless you Mr. Secretary.
/

Remembering EDSA 1: Have we come a long way?

Or should I say: are we there yet? 25 years have gone by. Today the Philippine Inquirer has bannered its front page with the momentous replica of its Feb 25,1986 edition: Marcos Flees! A curious thing I noticed however is one tiny but interesting detail. The newspaper costs two pesos at the time, now it is at 18 pesos or an increase of 900 percent. Just where has the "spirit" of EDSA 1 gotten us? Maybe the power people has an idea.The SWS has been tracking self-rated poverty (SRP) levels for quite a time, and its data shows an SRP of 66% in May of 1986.

Now, The same organization says that the SRP annual averages during 2001-2009 ranged between 49 and 63. Hmm.

The crisis in Egypt: all about bread?

Bread Is Life: Food and Protest in Egypt

"...Whoever ends up seeing the nation through to its next phase would do well to keep bread high on their list of priorities.

In the last few days, soaring food prices have been cited as one of the proverbial straws that led Egyptians to take to the streets in frustration over Murbarak's 30-year rule. It wouldn't be the first time that food has been a catalyst for social upheaval in the northern African nation. In 1977, what came to be known as the Egyptian Bread Riots broke out after the state ended its subsidies of basic food staples. Hundreds of thousands of poor Egyptians took to the streets; scores were killed and hundreds were injured. Thirty years later in 2007 and 2008, as food prices soared and food riots swept cities across the globe, panic over a disruption in the supply chain of flour and bread in Egypt again unfolded into deadly protests."
/

Here is an interesting comment by Vasumurti:

...According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources at present to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet at American middle class standards.

The Institute for Food and Development Policy has shown that there is no country in the world in which the people cannot feed themselves from their own resources.

Moreover, there is no correlation between land density and hunger. China has twice as many people per cultivated acre as India, yet less of a hunger problem. Bangladesh has just one-half the people per cultivated acre that Taiwan has, yet Taiwan has no starvation, while Bangladesh has one of the highest rates in the world.

The most densely populated countries in the world today are not India and Bangladesh, but Holland and Japan.

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around. But as Frances Moore Lappe' and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.
/

You can say that again.

Don't judge my Lancer

Aquino: Don't judge my Porsche

MANILA, Philippines - President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III is proud of his new toy, but he just does not want to "flaunt" it.In an ambush interview, Aquino dismissed reports this recent purchase will affect his government’s austerity measures. Aquino bought a "third-hand" 2007 Porsche using his own money, according to Palace spokesman Edwin Lacierda. He ditched his old BMW in exchange for the more attention-grabbing Porsche. He supposedly paid P4.5 million for it.

/
President Noynoy is receiving a lot of flak for being so "insensitive" as to buy a P4.5M Porsche in the face of grinding poverty in the Philippines. It is a price you pay when you are in the spotlight -- people will be watching your every move and ascribing all sorts of motives. In Noynoy's case: his choice of residence, cars, even girlfriends, and just about anything from day one since he assumed the presidency. He should have understood that close scrutiny comes with the job. It's all part of the game. Personally, I don't care. He can buy all the fantastic cars he wants, the houses, (he can't buy girlfriends, no?) and just about anything that takes his fancy -- as long as the money comes from his own pockets. Most important, as long as he does his job as President and fulfills all his campaign promises. I will leave him alone to his private fancies.

Now I suppose the Porsche (did I spell that right?) does not blare sirens (wangwang), shame if it does. I suppose further that Noynoy will abide by the speed limits on our roads. Come to think of it, even our expressways have a maximum speed limit of 100km/hr, while the Porsche is easily capable of 300+ kph. With the perennial traffic congestion, the actual driving experience hereabouts averages at about 12 to 50kms/hr, including at the expressways. Every motorist around down to the last person can attest that the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) should be renamed as South Luzon Turtleway. I bet I could race Noynoy's Porsche with my vintage '96 Lancer on the whole stretch of SLEX and we would end up about even-steven, as long as we play it fair and square under the same road conditions. But if he's happy with his new toy, let him be.
/

Religious superiors join call to reverse SC decision on Webb acquittal

Religious superiors join call to reverse SC decision on Webb acquittal

MANILA, Philippines—The Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), through its chairperson Sister John Mananzan, asked the Supreme Court to reverse its decision acquitting Hubert Webb and six others in connection with the Vizconde massacre case.

In her petition-in-intervention, she told the high court that it should take a second look at the case because it cannot simply disregard the findings of the Paranaque City Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals....Mananzan said the high court should have given weight to the findings of the lower courts. “It was the Paranaque RTC that observed the behavior of principal witness Jessica Alfaro during her direct and cross-examination,” she said, pointing out that based on such observation, it could determine if she was lying or telling the truth.
/
With due respect to Sister Mary John Mananzan, her reasons for asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision does not hold water. She says the Supreme Court "cannot simply disregard the findings of the Paranaque City Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals....the high court should have given weight to the findings of the lower courts.". And why not? This is not the first time that the Supreme court has overturned lower courts' decisions. To remain consistent with her reasoning, Sr Mananzan would have to petition for reversal every single case that the Supreme Court overturns. Of course each of us are entitled to their own opinion with respect to the appreciation of the SC ruling. However, Sr Mananzan questioning the SC ruling in her official capacity as head of the AMRSP is another thing. Sr Mananzan is no legal expert, neither is the AMSRP an organization of law experts who possess training to engage the Supreme Court justices on the intricate points of legal jurisprudence. Neither is questioning SC decisions their true calling as nuns. The SC is well within its right and the purview of the law to reverse the lower courts in this case. Whether the decision is fair or not in the Vizconde case is not a matter of faith and morals, it is a prudential judgment that is best left to the secular court hierarchy.
/

antediluvian hyperbole...what?

Back to regular programming...

RH Bill advocate hits CBCP for 'church terrorism'

In his Christmas message, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines President Nereo Odchimar said “the threat of war, political unrest, and armed conflicts put nations in constant fear…And the most glaring among others is that unpeace in the mother’s womb. With the approval of RH Bill, a woman’s womb can be a ferocious threat to those who are yet to be born."

Several prelates also made use of issue to further strengthen their cause. Many of their followers heard this, of course, on Christmas morning.

Not to be brushed aside, however, an RH Bill advocate lambasted the Catholic church for equating the RH bill to acts of terrorism.

In a statement, House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman said “it is the height of antediluvian hyperbole for the leadership of the CBCP” to connect the RH advocacy to such.

Lagman noted the history of the church is “so engulfed in terrorism” that any development not in accordance with its dogma is “conveniently labeled terroristic.”

“These acts of church terrorism extended to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period which was dominated by the Church and are perpetuated today with threats of excommunication against perceived religious dissenters like RH and pro-women advocates,” he said...

/
Antedeluvian hyperbole? Why, I had to scramble for my dictionary to look up the meaning. Roughly it means a primitive exaggeration, with a pointed reference to antiquated ideas that properly belonged to a period before the Great Flood as depicted in the book of Genesis. It is interesting that Lagman references a biblical event to lambast the president of the Bishop's council. Bishop Odchimar says the approval of the RH bill "can be a ferocious threat to those who are yet to be born" while Lagman shot back by charges of "church terrorism...against religious dissenters". Anyway Bishop Odchimar's statements were quoted from his Christmas message, and it is also an interesting discovery to find out that Lagman is an avid listener of Christmas messages from CBCP. As far as I see it, Bishop Odchimar's message was directed to the faithful.

At any rate I can't see any shadow of a threat of excommunication in that Christmas message. I am not sure why liberal dissenters who ignore church teachings would make a big production out of a CBCP Christmas message anyway. I expect a liberal dissenter to completely ignore it and say: who cares? Maybe Lagman is suffering from a postdeluvian hangover.
/

He who laughs last

Catholic Church, groups call for cuts in Dolphy’s movie

The Catholic Church and various church organizations called on the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), on Monday, to delete scenes from Dolphy's comedy flick "Fr. Jejemon" deemed as offensive and disrespectful to the Catholic faith.

One of the scenes that sent the Church and other groups fuming was a priest, portrayed by the King of Comedy, Dolphy, accidentally dropping a host to a woman's cleavage as the latter took communion during Holy Mass.

Another scene in the movie -- an entry to the 36th Metro Manila Film Festival -- that offended Catholic groups showed a host getting stuck on an old woman's false teeth while also receiving communion.

"The MTRCB should delete that portion and other elements in the film that are disrespectful to human beliefs,” said Fr. Francis Lucas, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Episcopal Commission on Mass Communications and Mass Media.

No move to pull out Dolphy comedy from film festival —MMDA chief

MTRCB lauds Dolphy outfit for voluntarily censoring ‘Father Jejemon’

MANILA, Philippinies -- The chair of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has lauded comedy king Dolphy’s film outfit for voluntarily excising scenes from his latest movie, "Fr. Jejemon," which had offended the Catholic Church.

MTRCB chair Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares related in a statement to the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the film’s producer RVQ Productions, Inc., “upon learning of the public’s sentiments against some scenes in the teasers, immediately exercised self-regulation and voluntarily deleted those evoking scenes.”
/
It was good of Dolphy's RVQ Productions to voluntarily excise the offending scenes. Reports have it that Dolphy is unequivocally Catholic, as quoted from Zsa Zsa Padilla (Dolphy's partner and RVQ's producer) who said: “Initially, I found the scene ‘cute.’ We didn’t have any malicious intention to offend any religion, not especially Catholicism, because Dolphy is sarado Katoliko.”. It seems strange therefore that Dolphy consented to shoot those scenes in the first place, which indicates that the king of comedy is out of touch with the utmost reverence that Catholics are supposed to accord to the Holy Eucharist. I grant however, that Dolphy (as well as Zsa Zsa) "didn’t have any malicious intention to offend any religion, not especially Catholicism". I grant further that if there is anything that they are surely guilty of, it is absolute cluelessness on the exalted reverence that is due to the sacred Host, even if they do only a mock representation. Sarado Katolikos should know better.

Another thing that could pose discomfort for faithful Catholics is the plot of the film, and what messages they impart. Being a comedy, would it mock priests and Catholicism in its attempt to be funny? Here is a short synopsis from the entertainment section of the Inquirer:

‘Father Jejemon’

In this comedy flick, Dolphy plays Fr. Jeremiah Jerome Montes, or Father Jejemon. He endears himself to the people of the fictitious town Parmbil because of his modern and offbeat ways. He plays rock music and organizes talent competitions. He even calls the members of his parish’s all-women group as the Lady Nga-Ngas, inspired by the pop singer Lady Gaga. Things take an interesting turn when the priest gets accused of child molestation. Dolphy, whose movie is up against other surefire block-busters in this festival, said he is not after topping the box-office. “Gusto ko lang masayahan ang manonood,” he declared.

It has been classified as General Patronage, and kids would get to watch it with their families. I am not about to judge the overall film at this premature point, although I would say it would be a disaster if those two offensive scenes (and perhaps more like it) are not deleted. This could be Dolphy's last film, and it is pitiful if his entire film legacy gets tainted by this grossly insensitive scenes. Even though it is meant as a comedy film, it is certain to impart values among its gullible audience, sarado Katoliko or otherwise. I sure hope there are authentic values to be learned from the film, even though Dolphy's main aim to to make people laugh. Nothing wrong with that, and I hope he succeeds. He is truly funny and a living legend in Philippine cinema. "Gusto ko lang masayahan ang manonood", he says. I hope the One watching from above appreciates this funny movie, or else the one down below will be the one laughing out loud - and that would be very, very bad for Dolphy. I wonder who laughs last. Dolphy's time is running short and when the time comes for this sarado Katoliko, baka sarado pinto.
/

Update: Dolphy asks for forgiveness

The Vizconde Massacre puzzle

SC acquits Hubert Webb, 6 others in Vizconde massacre case

Hubert Webb, 5 others freed

MANILA, Philippines – Hubert Webb and five others convicted in the massacre of a family in 1991 walk out of prison after spending 15 years in jail.

Aside from Webb, the Supreme Court also acquitted Antonio Lejano II, Michael Gatchalian, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez.

The sixth was Gerardo Biong who was released recently after serving 15 years in jail.

How the SC justices voted

The votes for acquittal-dissenting-inhibits:
7-4-4

No, I wouldn't dwell on the merits or demerits of the decision for or against, whether the decision reveals the truth or not. What strikes me is the fact that some of the most educated, most intelligent people in the land see the case differently, and come up with contrasting conclusions. Same evidence, varying appreciations, contrasting conclusions. It doesn't give me any comfort in the fact that a majority decision prevails. I am more concerned that a decision was promulgated in a lower court; that decision was challenged yet was affirmed by the appeals court by the slimmest of margins (3-2); all of which was eventually overturned (after 15 long, long years) by a vote of 7 to 4. In essence, the 7 Supreme Court Justices say that the trial court judge was wrong, the appeals court was wrong, and the 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices are wrong, and all those topnotch lawyers in one way or another, are all wrong. Grievously wrong. How come all these people under those circumstances, with the same hard facts before them, with the same rules of procedure, experience and jurisprudence behind them... disagree mightily in an epic manner? It is a horrible miscarriage of justice, regardless of whether one is for or against the decision.

A sober reminder that we live in an imperfect world, and that true justice can be found elsewhere.
/