Bride sues runaway groom

And I thought this thing happened only in Filipino movies.
According to the Philippine Star report:

As soon as the priest reached the point for the exchange of marital vows and asked the couple to exchange their “I do’s,” the groom, who was supposed to answer first, was not able to do so after a woman appeared in the aisle and shouted for the wedding to stop.

“Upon hearing the voice of the lady at the back, defendant was not able to answer ‘I do’ and without any hesitation or saying anything, he (the groom) turned his back and walked very fast towards the lady. They then hugged each other and went outside the church together,” the bride stated in her complaint.

The priest used a microphone at full volume to repeatedly call for the groom to come back but the groom immediately left the church with the other woman on board a taxicab.

The report goes on:

Twenty minutes after, the jilted bride proceeded to the prepared wedding banquet at the Royal Concourse with their visitors and the supposed wedding sponsors.


Too bad. I guess the couple spent too much time preparing for the wedding banquet, rather than preparing for the marriage itself. At least the wedding banquet pushed through.

Practicality vs Morality

Yesterday, my wife and I attended this parenting talk sponsored by my son’s high school PTA, where a well-known ad agency was sharing some of its findings regarding a 2005 study they made on Teen Attitudes and Trends in the Philippines. The ad agency made the study purportedly to help them devise strategies in selling soft drinks and other consumer goods, but found some revealing data which they decided to share with academe for educational purposes. My hat tip to this ad agency. They promised to issue a public copy of the survey, and I will be more specific when I get to that.

Their study revolved around a survey of various age groups about many areas of preferences, which were garnered by posing these two questions:

1. Which ones are right or wrong?

2. Which ones are acceptable to society?

Among the areas surveyed were the following:

- Casual Sex

- Hazing

- Gambling

- Pornography

- Abortion

- Taking something without paying

As of the year 2005, around 50% of the teen group (aged 20 and below) generally found the above items more “right” than “wrong”, and found these items more acceptable to society. That is certainly a revealing insight into our teen group’s perceptions. What is more revealing though is that the next age group (21-30) were even more - shall we say liberal, in that more numbers in this age group thought the items in question were “more right than wrong”. This led the presenter to surmise that, contrary to common views, older people tend to be more liberal than their teen-aged counterparts, and that as we grow older, we tend to loosen up on personal values.

It was surmised further that young people increasingly go for what they deem are “practical”. For instance, it was noted that abortion might be deemed more practical for a teenager with an unplanned pregnancy, considering in large part the practical avoidance of consequent disruption in studies and preparations for a career.

All of which says that a significant portion of our population is taking on a more amoral stance - something of a variance in a country comprised of 85% or so Catholics. It may be said here that objective morality does not hold sway over notions of practicality. This is certainly something that psychologists, sociologists, educators, religious moralists, and of course –soft drinks and other consumer goods manufacturers, should further look into. I am not sure how it goes, but somehow I am seeing the connection with the corruption scandals we are seeing in our country right now.

Sunday morning at the park

Clear sky, fine weather, moist grass, lush trees, good company...












...and a happy child.











Perfect.

The Church and Political Turmoil in the Philippines

Bishop moves

The current restive political climate punctuated by the ZTE-NBN corruption scandal has brought to the fore the Church’s role in the Philippine political sphere. Friday’s protest rally in Makati brings to a boil the simmering unrest of activists in civil society. At this juncture , there are renewed calls agitating for the Church to take on a more decisive stance. With the political situation in turmoil, many anti-administration groups have hoped that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) would rally the citizenry in calling for the resignation of President Arroyo, along with key government officials. Thus far, the CBCP has released an official statement detailing the socio-political ills afflicting the nation, while calling for a “Communal Conversion towards a Social Conscience”. More recently, CBCP president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo said in a more strongly worded statement that

“Truth hurts. Truth liberates. But the truth must be served. The truth will set our country free. Only the truth, not lies and deceits, will set our country free. This truth challenges us now to communal action.”

CBCP has stopped short of fully opposing the administration with the calls for Arroyo’s resignation, to the dismay of oppositionists who had hoped that the bishops take on a leadership role in a confrontational stance against the government. Yesterday’s Inquirer editorial goes to the extent of rebuking the bishops in its perceived abdication of its pastoral duty:

“The people may not be marching in the streets now, but it is because they’re waiting for the clarion call of our bishops. But the bishops seem to have jettisoned their moral and pastoral duty.”

The editorial certainly draws an obvious allusion to People Power 1, when the late Cardinal Jaime Sin enjoined the masses in a move that eventually led to the ouster of strongman Ferdinand Marcos’ rule in 1986. There is that expectation that the bishops would similarly assume a prominent activist posture against the government.

The question now is that whether the current prevailing conditions demand an equally activist intervention by the Philippine bishops in the political affairs as supposedly mandated by its pastoral duty. In our situation, perhaps we need to look back to 1986 and prior events to draw parallels. But since politics is as old as society, it is well worthy that we look even much further back - and draw the parallels from Scriptures itself.

The key scripture on the topic is Romans 13:1-7. It tells us why we need government, who gives its authority, and what is its rightful role. …

“Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. “...

How did Jesus himself relate to political authority? While Jesus refuses the oppressive and despotic power wielded by the rulers of the nations (Mark 10:20) , he does not directly oppose the authorities of the times. His pronouncement (Luke 20:22-25) on the paying of taxes to Caesar was that which was echoed by Paul. We remind ourselves that when Paul wrote his letters to the believers in Rome, they were living under the powerful and often immoral Roman rulers. Although Roman law was admirable in many ways, it was under Roman rule that Christians were to suffer some of their most severe persecution.

Where then do we draw the line?
The Apostle Peter drew the line when he said : We ought to follow God rather than men, when he was being forced by the Roman forces not to speak publicly about Christ. John the Baptist spoke out against the immoral lives of King Herod and his wife, even though he faced prison.
Along these lines, let us take off from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

The right to resist

400. Recognizing that natural law is the basis for and places limits on positive law means admitting that it is legitimate to resist authority should it violate in a serious and repeated manner the essential principles of natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas writes that "one is obliged to obey...insofar as it is required by the order of justice. Natural law is therefore the basis of the right to resistance."
There can be many different ways this might be exercised; there may also be many different ends that may be pursued. Resistance to authority is meant to attest to the validity of a different way of looking at things, whether the intent is to achieve partial change, for example, modifying certain laws, or to fight for a radical change in the situation.

Social Doctine and the inculturation of faith

523. This Christian anthropology gives life to and supports the pastoral task of inculturation of the faith, which aims at an interior renewal, through the power of the Gospel, of modern man's criteria of judgment, the values underlying his decisions, the way he thinks and the models after which his life is patterned. “Through inculturation the Church, for her part, becomes a more intelligible sign of what she is and a more effective instrument of mission”. The contemporary world is marked by a rift between the Gospel and culture, by a secularized vision of salvation that tends to reduce even Christianity to “merely human wisdom, a pseudo- science of well-being”. The Church is aware that she must take “a giant step forward in her evangelization effort, and enter into a new stage of history in her missionary dynamism”. The Church's social doctrine is situated within this pastoral vision: “The ‘new evangelization', which the modern world urgently needs, ... must include among its essential elements a proclamation of the Church's social doctrine”.

Acting with prudence

548. Prudence makes it possible to make decisions that are consistent, and to make them with realism and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one's action. The rather widespread opinion that equates prudence with shrewdness, with utilitarian calculations, with diffidence or with timidity or indecision, is far from the correct understanding of this virtue. It is a characteristic of practical reason and offers assistance in deciding with wisdom and courage the course of action that should be followed, becoming the measure of the other virtues. Prudence affirms the good as a duty and shows in what manner the person should accomplish it. In the final analysis, it is a virtue that requires the mature exercise of thought and responsibility in an objective understanding of a specific situation and in making decisions according to a correct will.

Therefore, considering the the Church's social doctrine and its Scriptural basis, the CBCP's posture in the current political turmoil might be taken in the proper perspective. For our bishops to point out a specific political option as the Gospel choice, it has to be consistent with the tradition of social doctrine as it goes back to its foundations in Scriptures, consistent right down through Pope Pious XIth's Rerum Nevarum, Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, and now up to Pope Benedict's Spe Salvi. A recurring theme all throughout is that while the Church advocates social action for the common good, the ultimate goal is for the conversion of hearts. This social doctrine is now called to bear down upon the current Philippine situation - a hotbed of conflicting opinions, emotions, and blurred facts. We take into account for example, that the Ombudsman is still in the process of initiating an investigation. Amidst such circumstances, and against the backdrop of the Church's Social Doctrine, we may very well get an insight behind the bishops' prudence.

It must be said that government - even good government - does not hold the ultimate answers to our social and personal needs. Thus the CBCP, while it highlights the social ills and recommends its closure through "communal action", eventually emphasizes conversion of the hearts and the scriptural admonition to Reform and Believe in the Gospel (Mark 1:15).

What to hope for

Thus while we work towards a communal conversion of hearts, it does not preclude our duties as conscientious citizens to fight for the common good, within the realms of the Church's social doctrine. In redeeming society and the individual, the frustration that we usually inflict upon ourselves in a highly secularized world is when we rely solely on the application of science or political structures. In the words of Pope Benedict: ...Certainly we cannot “build” the Kingdom of God by our own efforts—what we build will always be the kingdom of man with all the limitations proper to our human nature...our daily efforts in pursuing our own lives and in working for the world's future either tire us or turn into fanaticism, unless we are enlightened by the radiance of the great hope that cannot be destroyed even by small-scale failures or by a breakdown in matters of historic importance...

We pray for true reform.

Abstaining from Meat (2)

My response on the subject elicited a rejoinder, here goes:

"Good to hear from you again, Willy.

During the old testament, the law only prescribed fasting on the Day of Atonement, that's once a year. All other fasts were supposed to be voluntary, for specific reasons such as penitence and earnest prayer. Fasting is good, but when required, it becomes legalistic. People tend to do the law by the letter and not by the spirit. Jesus rebuked the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-18) who did more than is required by any biblical standard. Legalism is commanding what should be voluntary. Not even the Holy Spirit forces one to be spiritual let alone the church with its own canon laws. The passage in First Timothy should put this pagan practice to rest.

Regards,
xxxx"

My reply:

xxxx,

How I wish people learned laws by themselves without anyone commanding them, that they learn to assume doing what is right voluntarily - "by the spirit and not by the letter". This reminds me of the time when I was a kid. My father (now deceased) used to enact a lot of strict rules around the house. I never fully understood most of these rules and so I deliberately disobeyed some of them. After a few run-ins with those rules my father made me understand he meant business, and I toed the line grudgingly. With respect to discipline, he left no rooms for options and volunteerism. I resented some of them, although initially, I followed most of them anyway in fear of consequences. One gets used to rules later on in life, and eventually I followed all of my father's rules out of understanding, respect, and love. I realized those rules were meant to protect me and to mold my character as a person, in preparation to being a responsible individual in the larger sphere of society. Now, being a parent myself, I have enacted similar rules for my own kids. The family is where one first learns to interact, to love, to know God, and yes - to recognize authority and follow rules. Now I know why the family, the basic unit of society, is also called a Domestic Church.

Regards,
- Willy

Abstaining from meat

Here again is my (born-again) old schoolmate sending an email which challenges abstinence from meat. He challenges Catholic practices in our yahoogroups once in a while. Here he goes:

"This is what the new Code of Canon Law (which is binding to all Catholics only) brought out in 1983 says about eating meat on Fridays:

Canon 1251

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Don't you think this canon is so ridiculous, knowing that this was carried over from a pagan practice, and a direct violation of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 ! This is no longer interpretative but legalistic - legislating what the bible gives us freedom to do. The bible even calls it a doctrine of demons."

Regards,
xxxx

And here goes my reply:

Hi xxxx,

When I was younger I was likewise confused by this meat abstinence, because I loved seafood more than meat. If my intention was abstinence, and then lets say I ate lobster (yummy!) for example on Fridays instead of meat, indeed that would be ridiculous. Thus xxxx you have a point there, that is, IF your premise in reading that canon law is technically "legalistic" instead of spiritual. But Catholics don't read it that way.

Who was Paul referring to? In verse 3 of that passage he was referring to priests of an obscure religion who were then teaching that sex and certain foods are intrinsically evil. He refutes them in the next sentence by saying that everything God created is good...

Sex and all kinds of nutritious food are good, provided you use them according to the natural law. That is why it is fitting to give up some of these good things temporarily as a part of spiritual discipline. In the biblical times it is customary to rejoice through feasting on meat and wine, that is why meat is an example of a good which satisfies basic physical desire. Spiritual discipline involves mastering our physical desires. If meat is given up in that context, towards cultivating spiritual discipline, then we read the canon law correctly. You are likely aware that Daniel abstained for three weeks (Daniel 10:1-3). Certainly, he was not then practising the "doctrine of demons". And Paul was certainly not against abstaining from meat (1 Cor 8:13), what he was against was a false doctrine that says there is an intrinsic evil in a good that God made.

Regards,
- Willy

My First Lessons with Jollibee

I am heartfully grateful for the makers of this CD from Jollibee. Great job guys.
It is entitled "My first lessons with Jollibee - myself. my Family. my Community" produced by Star Recording Inc. It is an entertainment, instructional, musical video targeted for little tykes. Now I have this precocious 2 year, 10 month-old who spends a lot of gleeful periods enjoying this video. I myself have patiently watched it for the nth time, since he demands that I accompany him around the house most of the time. I am not complaining though, since it takes time off him wreaking havoc all over, and when he dances along, it is a priceless moment. Turn down the volume a bit, as I have never perfected this art of video capture.