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.
/

On the Immaculate Conception

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8
(repost)
Short history

Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when by the magisterium the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.

It was clear in the first centuries that only a perfect holiness, including absence of sin, was fitting in view of the dignity of her role. By the 8th century belief that Mary’s holiness was both flawless and immense was firmly established throughout the East, and it was in that century that the feast of her conception was first celebrated liturgically. In the West the belief grew more slowly, but by 1099 St Anselm could write: “It was fitting that she be clothed with a purity so splendid that none greater under God could be conceived.”

The belief in the Immaculate Conception was initially met with theological difficulty. If Christ was the redeemer of all, as the Scriptures affirm, he would have been the redeemer of Mary too. But then how was it possible that she was conceived immaculate and therefore was not in need of redemption? St Thomas Aquinas, unable to resolve the difficulty, concluded that Mary was conceived in original sin but was cleansed from it before her birth.

The decisive argument came from the Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1264-1308), who reasoned that Mary too was in need of redemption, but she was redeemed from the moment of her conception through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross many years later. Duns Scotus laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed.( more on Catholic Encyclopedia - Immaculate Conception) .

While theologians continued to debate the question for several more centuries, by the end of the 17th century there was practically universal agreement on Mary’s immaculate conception. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals.

The dogma

In the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

...Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
/
Update: Read Mark Shea's excellent post on the development of the Immaculate Conception dogma.

It ain't separation of Church and State if you agree with them

Council of Churches pushes passage of RH bill

MANILA, Philippines - A group of religious organizations has urged lawmakers to speed up the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill into law.

Rev. Rex Reyes Jr., secretary-general of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), said the bill is not just about the use of contraceptives but also the promotion of responsible parenthood.

“We should also look at the other (contents) or what is not being said in the RH bill. It’s not just about contraceptives. It’s basically about responsible parenthood and the responsibility of the State to see to it that all its citizens are given the benefit and the opportunity to lead decent lives as Filipinos,” Reyes said.

The NCCP is the largest group of non-Roman Catholic churches in the Philippines....

I respect the NCCP's stand on the RH-bill, even though I do not agree with them. But where are the wise guys who love to holler "separation of Church and State!" ? Hmm....

Double standard.

Odds and Ends 12/2/10

Holyfield to fight Denmark's Nielsen in March

COPENHAGEN (AP) — Former world heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield has been lined up to fight Denmark's Brian Nielsen in Denmark on March 5, promoters said Wednesday.
The bout will feature fighters with a combined age of 93 — Holyfield is 48, Nielsen 45.

The winner of the bout will get to challenge former heavyweight champ Smokin Joe Frazier, now 64 years old.
/
CBCP exec questions results of survey on RH bill

...“Our impression is that they are trying to influence the legislators. They have to discuss the merits of bill and not the number [of its supporters],” Fr Melvin Castro said.

They are trying to influence the legislators, though perhaps only the unthinking or conscienceless ones. But how many legislators can be influenced by surveys rather than sound reasoning? Need a survey.
/
P-Noy risks impeachment if RH bill is enacted into law

MANILA, Philippines – President Aquino could expose himself to a torrent of impeachment complaints if he enacts into law pending Reproductive Health (RH) bills in the House of Representatives without removing provisions that promote abortions, a lawmaker warned today.

Bacolod City Rep. Anthony Golez aired the warning at the resumption of the hearings on the controversial RH Bill in the House committee on population and family relations that stalled on the issue of agreeing on when life begins.

“Before we can even decide at all (on whether to pass or not the RH Bill), we have to decide whether or not this state, as enshrined in the Constitution, would protect the life of mother and unborn from moment of fertilization or conception? I think Mr. Chair, we should discuss that first,” Golez, a medical doctor, said.

Good point, as the President has sworn to uphold the Constitution. Legislators likewise. The RH proponents must first answer the question squarely: Does the bill unequivocally protect the unborn (as the Constitution asserts) from the moment of conception? Yes or No? Why is the pro-RH crowd fidgety with answering this question first?

The Promises of Christ

via CatholicFriends:
by Bill
============
"Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the Promises of Christ."

How often we have prayed these words! Let us stop and think about what His promises include. What comes to mind? How many are there? Is there a list? Or should we not be too inquisitive about them, and instead fortify our faith that they will be all we could ever want, truly unimaginable?
===========
One of my favorites is:

"And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It is so comforting that Jesus promised to be always with us, through thick and thin, now and forever. Of course it still depends on our free will because Jesus will never force us, we can still stray away. But where do we go? Peter in John 6:68 has the same question and answer at the same time: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”.

I have not found a list of Jesus' promises. There must be quite a number, but the really unique thing about Jesus' promises is that - he meant all of them. Jesus is the only one who makes many promises and intends to fulfill them all. The reverse is true for most politicians I know.

We must be careful though in reading the promises. We must keep in mind that in reading Scriptures, there is the literal sense and the spiritual sense, otherwise we are inviting undue confusion. I remember last Sunday's Gospel, Jesus promised the thief on the cross: this day you shall be with me in paradise. That is a literal promise. However, the Sunday before that, he promised his disciples: not a hair on your head will be destroyed. This other one is obviously spiritual-allegorical. I know of many holy men who went bald before their time, so the meaning can't be literal.

"Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the Promises of Christ."
AMEN.

Communications Fail

Clergy can't be more popish than the Pope - Palace

MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang welcomed yesterday the pronouncement of Pope Benedict XVI that condom use may be allowed to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS, and urged local Church officials to take the same stand because “they cannot be more popish than the Pope.” [what a charitable insult]

“That’s a good step. I think our own clergy should be informed by the views of the Vatican [they're not?] because they’ve always referred to the Vatican when they stated their position, now that the Vatican’s position [what position?] is such then I think that should result in a corresponding flexibility on the part of our Church,” Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ricky Carandang said. [the Vatican's position has a flexibility...where?]

Carandang said the Pope’s statement could “absolutely” boost support for the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. [Boost support? In short, separation of church and state is only applicable when the Church disagrees with you?]

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said a meeting on the RH bill between the Palace and the CBCP has been tentatively scheduled between Dec. 7 and 15.

President Aquino has said he is for responsible parenthood, including educating couples on how to plan their families and providing them assistance with artificial birth control methods such as the use of condoms.

“I don’t want to misquote the Pope. [You just did] I think he was very qualified in what he said [Of course. And you Mr Carandang, is very qualified in what?] but still what you can say [you mean what YOU can say] is the Pope has shown some flexibility [flexibility? Substantiate it then, Mr Theology expert] on an issue that is still controversial here. It’s not controversial in the rest of the world anymore,” [so what?] Carandang said. “I think the Pope’s position should inform the position of the local clergy [you mean they don't?]. Like I said, our clergy cannot be more popish than the pope.

[And like I said, people who can't understand the Pope's communications correctly should just shut up, especially if one is the head of Malacañang's Communications Department. Ironically, Carandang thinks is more capable than the bishops in interpreting the Pope. More popish than the pope eh? Does PNoy agree with your choice of words? Methinks Carandang wants to be more presidential than the president. This is a simple case of a super-lightweight in theology trying to interpret a super-heavyweight's statements on morality, and FAILS...miserably.]

Liberals pounce on "first step", trips and falls flat

Vatican Clarification on AIDS and Condoms

The Holy See Press Office has issued a clarification on the Pope’s comments on condoms and AIDS, according to Vatican Radio:

The head of the Holy See Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, has issued a statement clarifying passages of the book Light of the World, in which Pope Benedict discusses AIDS and condom use.

The statement says Pope Benedict states that AIDs cannot be solved only by the distribution of condoms, and, in fact, concentrating on condoms just trivializes sexuality, which loses its meaning as an expression of love and becomes like a drug.

At the same time, the Pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the Pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a “first step on the road to a more human sexuality”, rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others.

Father Lombardi’s statement clarifies Pope Benedict XVI has not reformed or changed the Church’s teaching, but by putting it in perspective reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

In other words, the Pope, when talking about the "first step", is talking about the first step to conversion. To state the obvious, any stairway has more than one step.

Janet Smith explains basically what the Pope is saying, and the extent of what he is saying (h/t Jimmy Akin):

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Funny. Those people who never bother read and understand the Pope's voluminous encyclicals and other official Magisterial acts now give a lot of weight
and attention (and their own twisted interpretations) to tiny tidbits of what the Pope said in a non-Magisterial interview.
/
(excerpt of Pope's interview here)