Letter Reply to Tom Borromeo

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

53-090629

Letter Reply to Tom Borromeo

From: Ed Olaguer

To: Tom Borromeo

Monday, June 29, 2009

cc: Paul Horrigan ; Tony Roxas ; Manny Amador ; PV Beley ; Dicky Boncan ; "gooseling2002@yahoo.com"

Fr. Christian Saminal ; Fr. Greg Gaston ; Fr. Joey Paras ; Fr. Jun Bermejo ; Fr. Paulo CRS ; Fr. Ramon Merino ; Fr. Renato Oliveros ; Fr. Cayo Estrada ; Fr. Richie Santos ; Fr. Ted Milan Torralba ; Fr. Zen Taufik ; "tingsdb@yahoo.com" ; rodney hart ; "lruthocampo@yahoo.com" ; "riveral_b@dlsu.edu.ph"

Subject: 26 U.P. Law Professors Support RH Bill

Dear Tom et al:

There you go again dear Tomas Borromeo, disturbing my peace and ­­­­­­­­­equanimity this fine Monday morning of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul…

Levity aside, yes I was already much disturbed upon reading the same news article last weekend, considering that I am a post jubilarian U.P. graduate, circa that historic period of Jesuit Father John P. Delaney’s chaplaincy at Diliman as the icon par excellence for our U.P. Students Catholic Action (UPSCA) and faculty community.

The RH Bill and the Philippines of today is I believe, mirrored in microcosm by our UPSCA’s running battles in Diliman against the U.P. Board of Regents in their definition of academic freedom and separation of Church vs. State, all of which smacked of liberal utilitarian humanism laced with anti-clerical motives.

Upon reflection on those seemingly halcyon days of my youth, in comparison to today’s national moral confusion worse compounded and confounded everyday, let me share with you Father Delaney’s battle plan so to speak, for UPSCA in those days.

Yes he constantly taught us through his daily homilies, lectures and weekly campus newsletter (U.P. Chizmiz), how to use every available logical and faith-based argument vis-a-vis the faith-and-moral issues confronting us in those days, e.g. hazing, loyalty to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, love of country, cheating in class, premature frequent dating leading sooner or later to physical intimacies between boys and girls, and of course many issues related to U.P.s much vaunted “academic freedom” for its professors and overall policy of liberal utilitarian humanism…

For the superficial minded observants of Father Delaney’s activities as Catholic Chaplain at the Diliman campus, his often fierce and uncompromising yet elementary logic with Catholic faith-based arguments, with some isolated acerbic asides, (e.g. the “pachydermic” sensibilities and lack of “cerebral capacity” among his habitual critics), must have seemed to be his only albeit effective weapon offered to us UPSCANs for our arsenal as young and militant Catholic defenders of and witnesses to our Catholic Faith.

And yet for every hour he spent arguing against his adversaries, he must have spent a thousand times more time, unrelenting energy and wisdom while exhorting us his flock to be always “centered in Christ” to the level of “heroic virtue”. Thus he urged us to concentrate more on “being” in Christ, not only as much but even more than “doing and working” for God, through Jesus Christ as God, and particularly for the poor and oppressed because they were truly “our brethren in Christ”.

Thus he used every formal and informal opportunity, even during our person-to-person chit-chats, to urge us to begin our days and live the rest of the day with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, through our conciousness of the “Holy Eucharist in us” and devotion to Our Lady and Her Rosary. And so John Delaney even counted the number of daily and Sunday consumption of the Sacred Host. These numbers rapidly increased throughout the eight years of his chaplaincy, such that more than a dozen other Jesuit Fathers from Chabanel Hall (Jesuit refugees from Red China) and from the Ateneo, were eventually required to help him out regularly. Yes, the young Fathers Reuter, Gough and Horacio de la Costa were among those 5-star Jesuit priests assisting Father Delaney, particularly in distributing Holy Communion to vast numbers of Holy Mass participants, and hearing Confessions everyday.

Reading Tom’s email early this morning, I must confess, momentarily depressed me. For I was again reminded that we lay Catholics who are publicly and consistently opposed to the RH Bill are pitifully so few.

And yet Tom’s message soon nudged me back to a decent level of resurgent courage. For it reminded me once again of the spiritual and supernatural essence of Father Delaney’s battle plan for us UPSCANs some sixty years ago. It also brought back today’s Gospel to my attention.

In today’s Gospel reading, Christ pointedly emphasized to Peter, that it was not “flesh and blood” (e.g. mere human reasoning, much less liberal utilitarian humanism) that led Peter to profess who Jesus truly was (i.e. the true God and true man) but “my Father in Heaven” who gave Peter that gift of faith in Jesus.

But I must however ‘blame’ Tom Borromeo for also reminding me, even if indirectly, to plead with our clergy, especially our Bishops and particularly those in Metro Manila who have the prime duty and jurisdiction in enforcing Ex Corde Ecclesia on our so-called ‘Catholic’ schools, universities and seminaries, thusly: “To preach continuously, discuss, reiterate, edify, be at the disposal of everyone – it is an enormous responsibility, a great weight, an immense effort.” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 339, 4)

And so albeit belatedly, thank you most sincerely, dear Tom Borromeo!

Ed Olaguer

P.S. Here below is the subject “highly disturbing” e-mail from our pesky Tom Borromeo

FW: ABS-CBN News: 26 UP Law Profs Support RH Bill

Tomas Borromeo

Dear Frs., all,

Now we know the ‘slippery slope’ of heterodoxy our dear departed Bro. Andrew at DLSU
and Frs. Tanseco, Genilo (Genovesi) et al, got their ‘Catholic’ institutions into.

They mask all of these abominations w/ terms like ‘loyal dissent,’ ‘informed choice,’ and
their most favourite, “ACADEMIC FREEDOM.”

To paraphrase Bro. Andrew: “What is keeping De La Salle from being a ‘world-class’ institution
of learning is her being Catholic!”

DLSU accepted a Ford Foundation grant and thus ‘sold her (Catholic) soul...’

Let us move that ALL PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITES, COLLEGES, SCHOOLS FOLLOW: (Ex Corde Ecclesiae document attached)

“EX CORDE ECCLESIAE”
‘FROM THE HEART OF THE CHURCH’

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
ON CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES

“WHAT DOES IT PROFIT A UNIVERSITY

IF IT GAINS THE WHOLE WORLD

BUT LOSES THE SOULS OF IT’S STUDENTS.”


------ Forwarded Message

Subject: Re: ABS-CBN News: 26 UP Law Profs Support RH Bill

Dear Everyone,

Here are some historical tidbits that could shed light on how and why the UP professors so easily lent their endorsement to the RH Bill. You see, PLCPD is not the only black hole in the RH constellation. Some of you will remember "REPROCEN" from way back 1996.

The "Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics Center for Studies and Training" was the pioneering work of Prof. ALFREDO F. TADIAR , who in 1996 "undertook extensive research into the legal and constitutional provisions on reproductive rights and abortion. His work provided the legal basis for the promotion of women's reproductive rights, of which he was a firm advocate". He started out as Director of a Ford Foundation-funded, 3-year project to set up and make operational a centre that "focused on questions of legal and medical ethics related to reproductive health". He served as the first Executive Director of the pioneering Center for Research, Studies and Training on Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics (REPROCEN) as a joint project of the UP Colleges of Law and Medicine. Like Dr Juan Flavier, he had received extensive support from the UNFPA and the USAID and other US/EU front orgs and foreign interest groups for projects on family planning, population control, population management, reproductive rights, "IEC/M", etc. It is not surprising that REPROCEN very rapidly acquired an international character. He was designated as International Adviser to the Board of Trustees of the International Women's Health Coalition based in New York. Since the 1980s, he has served at various times as Chairman or Member of the Board of Directors of two other Philippine NGOs—the Women's Health Care Foundation and Institute for Social Studies and Action. His wife FLORENCE TADIAR is a household name in Philippine abortion advocacy. [ NB: All this was happening during the pro-abortion Clinton Administration (1993-2001), but continued well into the Bush years. ]

In collaboration with Ex-Cong. NEREUS ACOSTA (of PLCPD & AFPPD ), Prof. Tadiar was able to infiltrate his redefinitions of reproductive ethics into Catholic institutions and universities like AdMU and DLSU through 'academic' conferences and seminars on ethics and law. For example, Tadiar worked closely with DLSU sociology Prof. PILAR RAMOS JIMENEZ , then coordinator of the Task Force on Social Science and Reproductive Health. The overt aim of Prof. Jimenez' (likewise Ford Foundation-funded) task force to coordinate NGOs for the promotion of RH; the covert aim was to advocate the legalization of abortion in the Philippines . The RH task force held office in the DLSU Social Development Research Center, Behavioral Science Department where she was Dean.

Upon Tadiar's retirement, Prof. ELIZABETH AGUILING-PANGALANGAN , wife of ex-Dean Raul C. Pangalangan, assumed Chairmanship of REPROCEN. She authored "Reproductive health, rights, and their progeny: norms in case and statute law" and masterminded the filing of charges against former Manila Mayor Atienza. She is the central RH advocate in UP Law today. MORE .

REPROCEN began in Malcolm Hall at UP Diliman, but it has now gone "global", with its main offices in Wall Street, New York City.

=====================

Here is a sampling of landmark academic papers pushed during REPROCEN's early years in the Philippines:

Tadiar, Alfredo F. The Limits of Protection to the Life of the Unborn. Quezon City, Philippines: Institute for Social Studies and Action, 1993.

Ramos Jimenez, P., and Yadao, P.M.P., eds. Participatory Research in Sexuality and Reproductive Health. Manila: Social Development Research Center, De La Salle University, 1993.

62:30303 Tadiar, Florence M.; Robinson, Elizabeth T. Legal, ethical and regulatory aspects of introducing emergency contraception in the Philippines. International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 2, Jun 1996. 76-80
pp. New York, New York. In Eng. "This article describes the complex influences of regulatory laws, religion, politics and ethics on the provision of emergency contraception in one large developing nation -- the Philippines, which has no law specifically governing the use of emergency contraception. Although emergency methods are little-known in the country, several factors suggest that they may be well suited to the Philippines."

Correspondence: F. M. Tadiar, University of the Philippines, College of Public Health, Manila, Philippines. Location:Princeton University Library (SPR).

=====================

The strategy we see here is a standard component of Planned Parenthood social engineering ops. It involves taking and holding the academic high ground by invoking academic freedom. They can mess around like magicians every which way behind the academic wall -- before the show begins. In the end, there's nothing true. It's all sleight-of-hand. Or perhaps we should say sleight-of-mind, intellectual conjurements.

The UP Profs are Tadiar's peers and proteges. They are professors of (supposedly) the most prestigious college of law in the Philippines, but who appear to be betraying Philippine sovereignty by allowing themselves -- through REPROCEN's influence -- to be utterly beholden to foreign institutions and governments. They tout the Philippine Constitution, but have not the diligence to read the proceedings thereof in order to grasp what it truly contemplates. They should have exerted due diligence before signing their pro-RH manifesto, for in doing so, they have given a very bad name to UP Law, which is now downgraded in the minds of many to no more than a school of sloppy investigation, sophistry and subterfuge.

Eventually, magic's greatest secrets will be revealed!

Z

PS: These are the enemies we are called to love. The first step is understanding who they are and where they are coming from.

LINKS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Flores_Tadiar#Advocacy_for_reproductive_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereus_Acosta
http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/fis/faculty_info.asp?fac_id=103921503
http://plcpd.org.ph/about.asp
http://www.afppd.org
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.67/pub_detail.asp
http://law.upd.edu.ph/new/index.php/faculty/regular-faculty/aguiling-pangalangan-elizabeth-a
http://reproductiverights.org/en/our-regions/asia/philippines?more=1
http://reproductiverights.org/en/contact-us



2009/6/26 Melvin Castro fr_melvin@yahoo.com

Most certainly, we cannot let our guards down. We may have won this round, but we will never know what they might come up with Congress resumes session after the SONA.

We ask our lay faithful most especially to form "core family groups" in your areas to continue the formation and education (or re-education). On our part, the priests would continue to strengthen the Family and Life ministries.

We beg our Family and Life groups to consider, really consider, entering into the mass media apostolate. Contemporary families and contemporary generation are greately and/or gravely influenced by mass media.

And of course, we pray, begging Our Lady, Mediatrix of All-Grace, to obtain true conversion for all.

And please do not forget to pray for us priests, it's the Year for Priests...


Fr. Melvin

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Manny Arejola <angatingkanlungan2010@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Manny Arejola
Subject: Re: ABS-CBN News: 26 UP Law Profs Support RH Bill
To: "Rosie
Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 7:14 AM


Dear Rosie:

I do not know any of this people, so I do not know how to tell them that they endorsed a deadly formula to destroy our women. But if you know any of these people, kindly transmit this note to them.

Thanks.

Manny
=================================

To these 26 UP Bigots, isang tanong lang: BINASA BA NINYO ANG HB 5043?

I bet you, none of you ever did! I bet you nagtiwala lamang kayo sa paglulubid ng buhangin ni San Pascual!

Nakoryente kayo ni San Pascual tulad ng pagkakakoryente niya sa mga Obispo at mga Pastor na Evangelical!

Sayang. Isinugal ninyo ang inyong pangalan para sa isang panukalang batas reminiscent of the years of Martial Law!

Pati ba naman kayo sasali pa sa kabalbalan ni mercenary San Pascual? How much did San Pascual promise you of the P5B Lagman is trying to suck out of the system?

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Rosie B. Luistro <rbluistro@gmail.com > wrote:

26 UP Laws Profs support RH Bill
26 UP law profs support RH bill
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Created 06/24/2009 - 15:44

Moves to pass House Bill 5043 or the "Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2009" continued to gain momentum as 26 faculty members including former deans of the University of the Philippines College of Law issued a statement in support of the proposed measure.

The faculty members who recently signed the position paper, are expressing their full support for the passage of the controversial legislation.

"We believe that the bill supports Constitutionally guaranteed State obligations to protect and promote the right to health of the Filipino people. It brings to life the ideals of equality, justice, and respect for human dignity that lie at the core of our fundamental law by guaranteeing that all Filipinos have access to quality information and services in reproductive health," the statement read.

"Amid pervasive socio-economic inequality, the availability and accessibility of reproductive health care is an indispensable step towards improving the quality of life of millions of Filipinos," it added.

The 26 UP College of Law professors are Froilan M. Bacungan, Merlin M. Magallona, Raul C. Pangalangan, Marvic F. Leonen, Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, Araceli Baviera, Eduardo A. Labitag, Myrna S. Feliciano, Domingo Disini, Carmelo Sison, Rowena Daroy Morales, H. Harry Roque, Ibarra M. Gutierrrez III, JJ Disini, E. Leo Battad, Florin T. Hilbay, Rommel J. Casis, Tristan Catindig, Jose C. Laureta, Concepcion Lim Jardeleza, Antonio M.Santos, Carol Ruiz-Austria, Rafael Morales, Rowena V. Guanzon, Alfred Molo III and Stephanie Gomez-Somera.

Ramon San Pascual, Executive Director of the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD) lauded the law professors, who in the face of heavy opposition of Catholic hierarchy against the bill have bravely acknowledged not only the constitutionality but also the very humane character of this proposed measure.

"Despite what happened on the last days of Congressional session where the RH bill was bypassed by other less important issues, particularly by ConAss resolution, we remain confident and steadfast that this bill will become a law soon. And we find inspiration from people who continuously express their support and clamor for the passage of the bill," he said in a statement.

He said advocates of HB5043 are pushing for the bill's passage once the 3rd regular session starts in July.

"Activities to make lawmakers understand the urgency of passing the bill are already lined-up, RH advocates are still holding on to Speaker Prospero Nograles' promise that they will vote on this bill under this Congress," he said.

Below is the full statement from the UP College Faculty of Law

STATEMENT AND POSITION PAPER OF THE U.P. COLLEGE OF LAW FACULTY IN SUPPORT OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL (HB 5043), AN ACT FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER PURPOSES

We, the undersigned faculty members of the University of the Philippines College of Law, in our capacity as lawyers, educators, and citizens, express our full support for the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 5043) currently pending in the House of Representatives.

We believe that the bill supports constitutionally guaranteed State obligations to protect and promote the right to health of the Filipino people. It brings to life the ideals of equality, justice, and respect for human dignity that lie at the core of our fundamental law by guaranteeing that all Filipinos have access to quality information and services in reproductive health. Amid pervasive socio-economic inequality, the availability and accessibility of reproductive health care is an indispensable step towards improving the quality of life of millions of Filipinos.

The bill likewise serves to empower Filipino women in making informed choices about their health – decisions which ultimately affect the lives of their families and communities. Ensuring their right to equality before the law is not only crucial to the health and wellbeing of women and their families, but is also essential to assuring their effective participation in national development.

Similarly, we assert that the bill's adoption of the human rights framework in dealing with reproductive health is a welcome and long-overdue initiative that more appropriately reflects the emerging international consensus that treats the issue as one that principally involves fundamental rights, free and informed decision-making, and women's empowerment.

Contrary to the contention by some groups that the bill encroaches on religious freedom, we maintain that it does precisely the opposite. By providing citizens and their families with adequate information and a variety of options on reproductive health, the bill empowers them to make sound decisions. By enabling choice, the RH bill neither compels individuals nor families to resort to family planning methods or health interventions but rather empowers them to make sound decisions and access information and services for their health and wellbeing. This is fully consistent with the principle of mutual respect for religious differences enshrined in our constitutional order.

Apart from being fully in accordance with the precepts of our own Constitution and the principles established under international conventions, recent surveys have also indicated that the bill enjoys the support of the majority of Filipinos. There is therefore no further reason, whether legal or political, for our elected representatives in Congress to stand in the way of the bill's enactment into law, despite the continued protestations of certain interest groups.

We hereby call on both houses of Congress to immediately pass the Reproductive Health Bill and for those who have stood against its passage to summon up the wisdom to act, not on the basis of faulty assumptions or in the service of vested interests, but for the common good of the Filipino people.

Signed by 26 faculty members of the UP College of Law including former Deans Froilan M. Bacungan, Merlin M. Magallona, Raul C. Pangalangan and Dean Marvic F. Leonen, Professors Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, Araceli Baviera, Eduardo A. Labitag, Myrna S. Feliciano, Domingo Disini, Carmelo Sison, associate professors Rowena Daroy Morales, H. Harry Roque, Ibarra M. Gutierrrez III, JJ Disini, E.Leo Battad, Florin T. Hilbay, Rommel J. Casis and professorial lecturers Tristan Catindig, Jose C. Laureta, Concepcion Lim Jardeleza, Antonio M.Santos, Carol Ruiz-Austria, Rafael Morales, Rowena V. Guanzon, AlfredMolo III and Stephanie Gomez-Somera in May 2009, Quezon City, Philippines.
as of 06/24/2009 6:06 PM
__._,_.___

------ End of Forwarded Message

ON PADER REYOOTER

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

52-090528

ON PADER REYOOTER

In today’s OPINION page article of the Philippine Star is the following “love story”:

'I love you, Father Reuter'

MANILA, Philippines – I was 12 when my mother divorced my father. He was a tall, golden haired, blue eyed American, who had left California to serve in WWII and returned home proudly flourishing a delicate souvenir from the Philippine Islands.

My tiny mother, observing this new world through almond shaped eyes, saw the rest of tall, white America bending down to look at her. They would speak slowly and loudly at her, remarking to each other, “Isn’t she cute?” My mother had a PhD in English literature and did not like to be referred to as cute. After two painful decades of having to buy her shoes in children’s stores, she broke the law and with two half white daughters, escaped back to the city of her own youth: Manila.

I was not yet a teenager when we stepped off the President Wilson Ocean Liner. The intense heat, the bugs, the constant swirl and hum of laughing people was overwhelming. My mother moved quickly to hide us, and within a few weeks, my younger sister and I were installed in a Philippine Catholic girl’s school: St. Paul’s College of Manila.

It was confusing to us. We were barely religious, maybe only very slightly Catholic… at Christmas. Who was St. Paul? We were children, why were we going to a college? Ah, the confusion was only beginning.

Both of us came equipped with English and Spanish. The lingua franca was Tagalog, which we could not read, write or understand.

Both of us were much larger than the Asian girls our age. My sister was a blonde. I had long masses of curly hair. Like a slow motion dream, we were buried alive in a landslide of shimmering, pitch black tresses that flowed from the heads of tiny, graceful nymphs. These girls didn’t guffaw their laughter, they giggled demurely. They didn’t argue a point; they pursed their lips and lowered their eyes. They didn’t push or shove, they pouted and turned away slowly, lifting high one perfectly curved eyebrow. We were wildflowers blown into a hothouse of exotic orchids. They wanted to talk about love. They looked us over and asked …did we have a brother? We had no brother. Ohhh, tooooo baaaaad.

We also didn’t have the right shoes. The right socks. The right book bags.

This was the 1960’s and we’d been raised by bohemians who had encouraged us to speak our minds, ignore our appearance and argue both sides of the communist take over of Cuba.

We were American peasants in bad need of a full spa make over.

To make matters worse, we had no father. Not only had my mother married a white man, she had divorced him and come back home with two fatherless girls. This information produced a wave of deep shock that washed over everyone around us. Where is your father? Will he come to get you? Will you ever see him again? Doesn’t he love you? Does he have another wife?

My sister being younger took it more in stride and prospered, artfully winning friends with her honeyed locks and dimpled smile. I closed and toughened. My mother had managed to escape imprisonment on the wrong planet and one day, I would do the same. I was an alien who would never, ever paint her fingernails.

Then, one morning, studying alone on the stone steps of the school chapel, my life was changed forever. I looked up to see a tall man in a white cassock crossing the quadrant, Sister Nieves and Sister Joanna hurrying to keep up with him. He was talking in the loud voice of the white man, not hushing his tones for propriety sake. He was striding along purposefully like the white man, not mincing his step to accommodate the women. The bright sun on his golden, white man hair haloed him, making his approach akin to that of a brilliant comet. Was I dreaming? Was this a saint? Was I dead but didn’t know it yet? He came straight towards the chapel and hypnotized by my approaching destiny, I could not move. Looking down at me, a homeless animal crouched on the stone steps, he smiled and said; “you must be the fatherless girl”. His eyes were blue, blue, blue. This was the first white man I had seen since I’d come to the Philippines. In coloring and shape he looked startlingly like my father, whose memory had begun to evaporate within me … except for his coloring and shape.

Sister Joanna said; “her name is Lotis”.

Sister Nieves said; “Lotis, this is Father Reuter”.

I was paralyzed, like the kitten before the tiger that will consume it. Father Reuter put his large, white gold hand on my curly head and said; “come, talk to me, I’ll hear your confession”. Confession? What was that? What should I confess? That I felt ugly and stupid? That I hated this place? That I hated myself? Ignorant of the concept of personal sin, unaware of what confession was supposed to consist of, these were the things I told him.

I talked to Father Reuter that day and many, many more days over the years to come. He heard my “confession” in person every week or so, and the rest of the time I talked to him in my heart, in my dreams, in my prayers. In reality he did not treat me any differently than any other little girl. I was no special pet or favorite. I don’t know if he even thought of me at all outside the confessional. I am unaware if I ever made any particular impression on him. No. It was him who made the impression on me.

Father Reuter had been sent by the Jesuits, to the Philippines, just before WWII and wound up interned by the Japanese. At wars end, the Jesuits asked him to stay on for a bit and he did…returning to the US for a visit only once in the next 60 years. There was nothing of the effeminate about this priest. Nothing soft or flabby or repelling. His love was not vague, distant, or carefully guarded. A gruffly practical, quick tempered, get to the point! kind of priest, he could grab you by the back of the neck, give you a shake, stare you down and demand immediate love and obedience in the same instant. He was a steely eyed, unflinching priest, who rarely whispered when he could shout, loved with an iron fist, and was simultaneously feared and adored by all who knew him.

In this day of gross immorality, I don’t know if anyone can understand how, without the slightest hint of sexual impropriety, a little girl can love her priest and find her salvation through him. But it is true. Father Reuter was more than a man or a priest. He was a father.

Before I knew God in the personal way I do now, I knew Father Reuter in place of Him. Before I could accept God as my Father, Father Reuter was there to create that role for me. I was a lost child who would have been lost forever if not for this celibate male taking me for one of his children. He encouraged me to speak and communicate my thoughts. He pushed me to develop my voice. He made me understand that even if I didn’t fit in I was valuable and gifted.

After high school I went on to a life filled with many elaborate diversions. I did foolish things and I was pushed by my curly, wild nature to adventures that sorely tried all around me. I can remember times I would pause for an instant and think; “I should go to Father Reuter for advice”, but pride mixed with shame, would erase the impulse. In my heart nestled a deep fear he would be so angry at things I had done, he would no longer love me. Anyway, I was an adult now, capable of dealing with life.

I no longer needed a father of any kind.

I finally did go to see Father Reuter, but only recently, some 40 years since I had last seen him at my graduation. I am not taller than I was in high school, but bent over with age he is now shorter than I am. His slightly trembling hands and feet are misshapen with arthritis. His golden hair is gone. He was seated in a wheelchair wearing his white cassock, and when I entered he struggled to rise and kiss me. I looked into his eyes and they were blue, blue, blue. I was twelve again and struck dumb with love. I could not talk much and in his fatherly way he understood and did the talking for me. Nothing important really, just making enough sound to ease the tension and let the ghost years slip away. As time dissolved between us; the feeling of his strength, the powerful force of his love, the intensity and vigor of his fatherhood, coiled and wrapped itself around my heart, pulling me to my knees before God, in the very deepest gratitude for this man.

Dear, dear man of God. I have never said this to you but I have always wanted to: I love you Father Reuter and I always will. — Lotis Key-Kabigting

[Source: The Philippine Star (Opinion) Thusday, May 28, 2009]

There is nothing else I can truthfully add to Ms. Kabigting’s soul-stirring account of her own personal “love story” starring James B. Reuter S.J., except to say a thousand times over, “AMEN!”

EDUARDO B. OLAGUER

Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate

of the Philippines

www.catholicxybr.org

cxaphil@yahoo.com

HOPING WE WILL BE ONE, FOREVER

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

51-090527

Fr. Reuter has written his last column on "The Philippine Star" newspaper today. For those who have not seen it - read on . He has written such a beautiful prayer in the end. He is waiting to be called, please pray for him.

HOPING WE WILL BE ONE, FOREVER

I am in Our lady of Peace Hospital , on the Coastal Road , and it is really 3:00 A.M . The planes coming and going from the airport are roaring over my head.

Everything is peaceful and quiet. Even the roaring planes add to the feeling of peace and quiet.

I am ten days away from my 93rd birthday. God has been kinder to me than I deserve, giving me such a rich life, in such a beautiful country, among such gentle people. He has blessed me with so many kind, affectionate, generous loving friends.

I found that the best time for me to write was 3:00 A.M. My mind is clearer, my heart is warmer, and I am overwhelmed with the goodness of the people God sends to me.

In this column I have always tried to be positive - presenting the goodness of people, and the wisdom of God's Providence as I saw it.

I have tried to give.... to give the only thing I have to give ... Myself. I have tried to share my thoughts, my feelings, the wonderful holiness that I see in the simple, gentle people that God sends to me.

As soon as I came to the Philippines I realized that the Filipinos were the loveliest people in the world. It was a gift of God, a special blessing, that He sent me here.

I have been thanked for giving my life to the Philippines.... But whenever you give, you always get back more than you have given.

Thank you .

* for your gift of friendship through these many long years

* for reading "At 3:00 A.M.." from the time I started writing my column

* for your reactions through letters and phone calls when you liked or did not like what I wrote

* for sharing your stories which inspired me to write them so they could inspire others

* for your love and concern

*for your prayers which comfort me and which I need.

I have tried to be a priest. A priest is a bridge ...a bridge between God and man.... a channel of God's love, peace and joy.

What I have found in the Philippines is union ....union of hearts and minds... It is marked by sharing.... The simple, gentle Filipino is willing to share all he has, with everyone.

That is holiness ... That is sanctity ... That is being like God.

In heaven we will all be one - united in heart and soul .... Loving each other.

In this column written at 3:00 A.M. that was my only message ...give...give yourself.... love.

And when I presented this, I discovered what it meant, myself.

Being strong, sometimes, means being able to let go. I know that now is the time to " let go". I have been up at 3:00 A.M. to write my column for many many years. It is now time for me to stay in bed until the sun comes up and the birds start to sing.

This is not goodbye. Wherever I am, whatever I do, you are always in my heart and in my prayers. All of you.

God bless!

The song is ended ... but the melody lingers on .. and on ... and on.

I love those who have read this column...And I hope that they love me.

* * *

For those who are interested, here is my prayer that I would like to share with you.

Lord God,

Look down upon us, this day, this hour.

Regardless of what has gone before,

or what will come after,

give us the grace to consecrate this time entirely to You –

all the actions of our body and soul.

May all the thoughts that come to us be true

May all the things to which our hearts go out

be beautiful, with the beauty of God.

May all the things we want be good.

Give us the light to see Your Will,

the grace to love it

and the courage and strength to do it.

We ask you this through Christ Our Lord.

Amen.

MY REPLY: To Colonel ARIEL O. QUERUBIN’s Letter

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

No. 50-090525

MY REPLY:

TO COLONEL ARIEL O. QUERUBIN’s LETTER

NOTE: Ariel Querubin is a former Marine Colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Eight years ago he was recognized by the Philippine Military as most deserving of its HIGHEST POSSIBLE award for valor and leadership in the field of battle, the Medal of Valor, He is now however, languishing in a very cramped and unhealthy detention cell at Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City, for having publicly rallied his troops and subordinate officers in support of their Marine Commanding General’s protest against corruption in government.

Recently he announced that he is running for the Senate. His handwritten letter to me is as follows:

May 8, 2009

Dear Sir Ed,

May the Peace of Christ be with you!

I have no doubt in my mind that the Lord has all the while been preparing me for public service. I was left for dead in 1989, and he allowed me to spring back to life. I have been imprisoned as a soldier, but I fully regained the honor and right to wear a soldier’s uniform after having been awarded the Medal of Valor in 2001. As my military career was very much back on track, I was again challenged to choose between right and wrong, between honor and injustice, between good and evil.

Even as we all work for a vibrant and prosperous Philippines, my dream is for every Filipino to enjoy the essence of freedom from poverty, fear, and injustice, to feel the tangible benefits of good governance, and to live comfortably in a society that fosters the unity of the family, protects human rights, and upholds the dignity of all.

I have not had an easy life. My life story has been replete with vivid encounters with injustice, poverty, corruption, and war. These painful experiences have shaped this dream. I never succumbed to the lure of material wealth. The physical, mental, and emotional hardships have been painful, but I never sold my soul.

I am fully aware that some people would insist that men in uniform should stay away from politics; that we would serve best our nation if we were fighting wars in Mindanao; that we have no business in meddling with the affairs of the state as we have been formed and trained in the rudiments of war, and not in the civil service, much less in politics. I agree but that assumes that the people who have been entrusted with the public trust have been sincere, honest, and have been true to their pledges.

As a young soldier, armed with idealism and the fire of youth, I have offered my life to defend this country from all its enemies. I have suffered long and hard for the principles that I hold dearly. Many of my loved ones have suffered with me – maybe not physically, but certainly have shared in the misery and hardships that I have endured. The fire of idealism still burns in me, but I have been wiser not to engage fire with fire.

With a lot of circumspection, I have decided to run for the Senate in 2010. I have no political pedigree. I have no political machinery. I have no financial resources. But I do have honor. I do have principles. I do have courage.

I believe I am ready to take on this new role, (and) with your prayers and support this dream is not too far-fetched. It takes the collective effort of every member of this society to make things improve for a country in disarray… a country that has been plundered… a country whose hope is running dry…

All I can do on my end, is to make the best effort possible to make society better, stand by my principles, and fight for what is right. There is hope for this country and our people; all we have to do is believe.

This I will do, if not for myself and our generation, then at least for our young children and their children. My warmest regards and God bless us all.

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

Sincerely yours,

(Signed)

ARIEL O. QUERUBIN

Email: querubinariel@yahoo.com

Here was MY REPLY to him:

Dear Ariel:

May the Lord God, of whom you say that you have no doubt in your mind, “has all the while been preparing (you) for public service”, BLESS and INSPIRE YOU even more so. But above all, may the Lord grant you the grace to keep in your heart and follow HIS Gospel’s words and instructions FAITHFULLY ALL THE TIME, not only during your forthcoming election campaign but above all, if and when He graciously allows your truly successful election as a Senator of the Philippines.

For your trials and temptations if and when you will become a Senator, particularly those involving lust for power, money, adulation and flattery - - aside from that of the flesh – will be exponentially far more intense than whatever you may have already experienced as a Catholic Christian soldiering for the Philippine Marines.

As you well know yourself, many other prominent Catholics and/or Christians who have been so elected, or are still the top officials of our country, probably had the very same highly noble thoughts, and motivations when they first pursued their public service ambitions. But to our Nation’s collective grief and near despair, most of them have UTTERLY BETRAYED their own souls -- and more so our people, time and time again, particularly when they were already occupying the highest seats of power and influence in our government.

I dare say that you too will probably end up just like them, IF YOU WILL HAVE STRAYED AWAY from the Lord’s Gospel, into mere mouthings of seemingly pious platitudes and hypocritical public speeches.

However, ever since the few times I have visited you in prison, you have led me into again being hopeful despite having been fooled a number of times into believing other politicians or at least very disappointed with their selfish partisan antics, to say the least. I shall therefore continue to pray for you and help you to pursue your noble objectives, modest as my contribution will be in the estimation perhaps of our very materialistic society. And so, I wish and pray that HEAVEN HELP THE PHILIPPINES through Ariel O. Querubin, in one way or another…

Again, may God bless you, your loving wife Bong, your dear children as well as your loyal, sincere friends and political supporters.

Yours in the Lord,

EDUARDO B. OLAGUER

Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines

To Light A Fire

“Ed Olaguer”

In Pursuit of Love or Perdition?

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

49-090331

In Pursuit of Love or Perdition?

Vincent J. Genovesi, S.J. is the relatively unknown Jesuit author of the moral theology reference book entitled “In Pursuit of Love”. It is apparently a favorite textbook on sexual morality used by Jesuit professors especially for priests and nuns studying at the Loyola School of Theology and at the Ateneo itself. As its sub-title indicates, the book presents itself as a seeming authority on Catholic moral teachings on Human Sexuality. As of last week however, Genovesi has become no longer an obscure person, at least within the confines of Metro Manila Catholic schools of theology of whatever kind.

Aside from having studied at those ultra-liberal-modernist-theology oriented Jesuit schools such as Fordham in New York City and Woodstock in Maryland and being a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Genovesi’s seeming authoritativeness as a teacher on sexual morality, appears to be due to the fact that he is a veritable mouthpiece of the much more wellknown and original core group of DISSENTING Catholic theologians. They have long fulminated against official Catholic teachings on premarital sex, contraception, abortion, ordination of women, clerical celibacy among others.

And so from start to finish, the book is rife with footnotes ascribing such seeming authoritativeness and intellectual gravitas to the similar earlier opinions of those original and media glorified modernist DISSIDENTS. Thus Charles E. Curran the ordained Catholic priest who was disqualified from teaching Catholic Theology by the Vatican as early as 1986, and Jesuits Richard A. McCormick, S.J. (died 2000), Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Karl Rahner, S.J. (died 1984), to name a few, compose the core group of this Jesuit dominated “footnote-periti” of the book In Pursuit of Love.

And so too in the wake of our nationwide controversy on the Reproductive Health Bill, it was not surprising why the Internet’s local chain of interlinked e-mail addresses among rival Catholic school faculties and alumni intelligentsia, was filled with criss-crossing comments and counter-comments soon after someone had posted the original critique with its palpable outrage over the Ateneo Jesuits having the gall to publish the book for local distribution through their Jesuit Communications Foundation.

I confess that I too received a fair amount of those comments about Genovesi’s book, most probably because the e-mail senders still remember that on July 31, 2005 (Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola) I must have shocked a good number of personalities within my own Jesuit and Ateneo alumni circle of friends, as a result of my hardhitting comments and shocking revelations in my autobiography Light A Fire II , about the “neo-Jesuit rebellion” against the Roman Catholic Papacy.

In truth I received enough of those Genovesi-related materials via the Internet to prod me ASAP into looking for and buying the book immediately! And also, to revive my long dormant Blog by writing this commentary.

With all due respect to everybody, thus I submit that from a truly Catholic conviction, Genovesi’s treatise should be considered as in pursuit, NOT of LOVE, but of moral PERDITION and CONFUSION – whether willy nilly or not, but certainly because of the author’s non-Catholic point of view!

There is no other conclusion logically possible for authentic Catholics, for the simple reason that Genovesi’s In Pursuit of Love (GIPOL, henceforth for brevity) is based on philosophical propositions, factual allegations and definitions of terms which are obviously contrary to the perennial and authentic teachings of the Catholic Church Magisterium. And more particularly in fact, GIPOL directly contradicts the most recent Papal encyclicals on the subject matter, i.e. Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor and Vatican II itself, in a manner and tone which suggest as if these magisterial teachings were written by doddering old-fashioned clergymen and ignoramuses on the Catholic Theology on faith and morals.

On Authentic Catholic Teaching

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium or Light of the World) has already emphatically re-affirmed the 2,000 plus years old doctrine, that our Catholic bishops united with the Pope are the Catholic Church’s “authentic teachers”, that is, teachers endowed with “the authority of Christ.” GIPOL however repeatedly manifests in no uncertain terms, that the late 20^th century albeit contrary opinions of Genovesi, Curran, Sullivan, McCormick, Rahner et al are at a superior level of logic, as well as moral and theological authoritativeness.

Furthermore, in Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) it is ALSO RE-AFFIRMED that “the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted EXCLUSIVELY to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (DV10)

And yet according to GIPOL: ( page 67, Chapter2 )

“To speak, then, of authentic teachings of the Church does not mean that such teachings are always or necessarily true or accurate. Rather, the authentic teachings of the Church are those that are official or authoritative because they are proposed by the hierarchical magisterium.” (page 67, ibid with emphasis added)

And thus by GIPOL’s convoluted logic such “authentic” teachings, despite being “official” or “authoritative”, are supposedly “NOT always NOR necessarily true or accurate”. Therefore, GIPOL has clearly yet arrogantly laid down their self-serving basis for Church-wide disobedience to the Magisterium. For the unavoidable conclusion from GIPOL’s grossly faulty logic is that the authentic teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are NOT reliable, may even be erroneous, and thus surely non-infallible… while their own dissenting views are presumed to be reliable, and even supposedly consistent with the opinions of a majority of Catholic theologians.

And yet in Genovesi’s singleminded attempts to convince his readers that the Catholic Church Magisterium is allegedly teaching outmoded and erroneous moral principles, particularly on sexual morality and contraceptives, the author merely succeeded in highlighting the monstrous features of GIPOL’s mainly neo-Jesuit road map to perdition. Thus for example, the following:

Morally wrong but still supposedly okay!

Second; intercourse outside marriage might be seen as an objective moral wrong but subjectively not sinful in the following scenarios: (1) after dating steadily for three years, two young adults become engaged with plans to be married within a year. After prayerful reflection and careful discussion, they honestly believe that given their mutual love, intercourse would not be wrong for them; this is their sincere judgment. Objectively, they may be mistaken in their evaluation and an objective moral wrong may be involved, but there would probably be no serious sin on their part; (2) two teenagers, who have been bombarded by the sexual fireworks of our society and who find themselves pushed to false sophistication, may wind up in a relationship that stirs their feelings far more than they understand or can cope with; their passions prevail and become their masters, leading the couple into periodic episodes of genital involvement. Here again, objective moral wrong exists, but if there is truly a curtailment of the couple’s freedom, the reality of serious subjective guilt or sin seems unlikely. Pastorally, of course, these teenagers need to be informed of the human and spiritual harm associated with their activity. It is to be hoped, too, that they can be brought to a change of behavior.” (GIPOL, page 175 with emphasis added)

Twitting Church Teaching

“…After recognizing that it is morally permitted to engage in sexual intercourse while maintaining the desire and intention to avoid conception, we must then ask whether any means other than periodic abstinence may be used morally to achieve the intended goal of not procreating.

The answer offered both by Humane Vitae and by the long-standing Catholic tradition is no. The argument offered is that contraceptive intercourse is against the natural order of things as intended and established by God, who wills that the procreative and unitive dimensions of the conjugal act be kept inseparable. (NOTE: Hence contraception is an intrinsic evil!) As suggested earlier, however, this line of reasoning appears flawed in that God and nature have seen to it that in no small measure the procreative and unitive dimensions of human sexuality are separable and separated – during a woman’s cyclic periods of infertility, after menopause, and in instances of biological sterility. (NOTE: Separate in time/space, but nevertheless inseparable in their purpose, by God’s sovereign Will!)

Two Wrongs Make it Right?

…As we shall see, any number (big deal!?!) of Catholic theologians now maintain that assuming spouses are responsibly motivated and are not acting out of selfish or materialistic contraceptive mentality, the use of artificial contraception does not constitute a moral evil or sin and is not even an objective moral wrong.” (page 201, ibid, with emphasis and comments added! )

“… adolescents, young adults, and anyone else who cannot be dissuaded from engaging in non-marital, pre-marital, or extra-marital intercourse, should be encouraged to a careful use of some kind of contraception. Moral responsibility would seem to demand this course of action.” (page 223, ibid) NOTE: Obviously their student priests, nuns and even bishops would be included among “anyone else” who are being “encouraged” by GIPOL to indulge in contraception in order to cover-up their illicit sexual activities!

GIPOL’s topsy-turvy hierarchy on moral authority:

Should it happen that a seemingly infallible teaching not be received or accepted as such by the body of the faithful, we are given some indication that the magisterium has failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for teaching infallibly and thus exceeded its competence to do so… But what can be maintained is this: while it is not the faithful’s acceptance or reception in faith that makes a particular teaching of the magisterium infallible, nonetheless, such acceptance by the believing community does certify or notarize that the teaching is in fact infallible. (page 71, GIPOL) NOTE: Thus according to these Jesuit dissidents, it is now the lay faithful in general, and NOT the hierarchy, who may certify that in fact any such teaching by the Magisterium is “in fact infallible!” And just who will they be? And what is their minimum number necessary so that such “faithful” lay people will qualify as a group to become some sort of super-magisterium, PRAY TELL!

In short, just because an inchoate number of DISSIDENT Catholics have rejected the Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV), then GIPOL presumes Pope Paul VI must have “failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for teaching infallibly and thus… exceeded (his) competence to do so”. And per GIPOL, only if and when this present selective rejection of HV by these dissidents will have turned into UNIVERSAL acceptance, would there be a “certification” or “notarization” that HV is in fact infallible! But that’s the same kind of veto power the Pharisses wanted to impose on Jesus Christ…

The most HIDEOUS of GIPOL monstrosities are from Rahner & Curran:

For now I propose we listen to some of the theological voices in the consensus that denies there can be (NOTE: in other words, there CANNOT BE) any infallible teaching when dealing with specific moral norms and questions. According to Karl Rahner, S.J., “apart from wholly universal moral norms of an abstract kind… there are hardly any particular or individual norms of Christian morality which could be proclaimed by the ordinary or extraordinary teaching authority of the Church in such a way that they could be unequivocally and certainly declared to have the force of dogmas”. A similar but perhaps slightly stronger position is taken by Charles Curran: “There has never been an infallible pronouncement or teaching on a specific moral matter; the very nature of specific moral actions makes it impossible, in my judgment, to have any infallible pronouncements in this area.” (page 72, ibid with emphasis added)

For us Christians, to be directed by a true moral conscience means that we are giving honest expression to our desire to live in the manner we think, (NOTE: To each his own truth!) best embodies the kind of love revealed in and by Christ for our imitation. (page 83, ibid)

NOTE: Charles Curran is the priest who was formally prohibited and disqualified by Pope John Paul II in 1986 from teaching theology in any Catholic institution! And Karl Rahner (died in 1984) among his many other dissenting propositions, questioned the validity of our Catholic belief in the REAL PRESENCE of Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament…

Obviously, these dissident Catholic theologians’ opinion in the preceding text (page 83, ibid), endorse a universal kind of moral relativism to be embraced even by Christians. It is a relativism where everybody has his/her own definition of moral truth, and is encouraged to behave as they see fit and “do his/her own thing” provided they themselves “think (it) best” to do so.

More of GIPOL’S most noxious dissident monstrosity: (page 232, ibid)

RESPONSIBLE (sic!) DISSENT FROM AUTHENTIC FALLIBLE TEACHING

Earlier in this volume we considered the essential role the magisterium plays in the articulation and explanation of moral teachings. We indicated that the Church clearly has a right and a duty to address any issue of personal or public morality. [CAUTION: Please note the cleverly camouflaged thus seeming concession to “the Church” having a clear right and duty to address moral issues. Consider however that “the Church” they are referring to is NOT the Magisterium, but the Church in general, thus certainly and self-servingly including themselves as dissidents! The following textual continuation makes this point more obvious….]

(continued) We noted as well that the clear theological consensus today maintains that with regard to specific norms of morality, the magisterium has never exercised its official teaching authority in an infallible way by means of any solemn definition issued either by a pope or by the college of bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council. [NOTE: Until the year 1996 when the 1^st Edition of GIPOL was first published by the Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota, therefore such a supposed “theological consensus” would like us Catholics to believe that ever since Christ ascended to Heaven, we never had the benefit of any official, infallible and specific Catholic moral teachings at all!]

But what about AFTER 1996?

Moreover, there is still some discussion about whether the magisterium could ever teach infallibly concerning specific moral norms. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. claims that most Catholic theologians (how does Sullivan know that for sure?) and moralists now judge that the particular norms of a morality based solely on the natural law are simply not proper matter for irreformable or infallible teaching. As Sullivan rightly observes, the judgment of these moralists “rules out not only the possibility of the infallible definition of such a norm, but also the claim that such a norm has ever been, or could be, infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. (page 232, ibid, with emphasis added)

In short, even the specific moral norms from the Ten Commandments, or its synthesis in the Two Greatest Commandments, supposedly have NEVER been and could NEVER ever be considered as infallible, according to GIPOL!

HOW DO WE REFUTE SUCH MONSTROUSLY HERETICAL PROPOSITIONS?

A point by point refutation of even just the most fundamental fallacies in GIPOL would surely require a much longer presentation. It would also probably be too tedious and too difficult for ordinary Catholics to understand much less to digest and remember.

There is a simpler yet equally logical way to prove that a proposition is FALSE. It is done by first assuming for the sake of argument, that the proposition is true. And if by proceeding arguendo, step by step from that assumption, you end up unavoidably in an obviously false or untenable conclusion, (Reductio ad absurdum!), then you will have logically proven that such a proposition was really and demonstrably FALSE.

And so assuming for the sake of argument that the teachings of ALL the Popes starting from St. Peter and the various Catholic magisteria united with these Popes during their lifetimes including the present one loyal to Benedict XVI, per these Jesuit dissident theologians Genovesi, Sullivan, McCormick, Rahner et al, yes -- ALL THOSE magisterial teachings -- should be “ruled out”, or DISQUALIFIED. Let us even presume that all these were invalid, not only as to the “possibility of the infallible definition” of any moral norm, but also the claim that any such norm has “ever been, or could be, infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium”, as is being claimed by GIPOL on page 232 thereof.

If we accept the foregoing assumptions, we will also therefore not be able to AVOID coming to the mindboggling and faith-shattering conclusion that: Any Tom, Dick and Harry’s claim for a moral truth will be just as valid or non-valid as somebody else’s! Also, there will be NOTHING which Catholics or any other religious group may claim to be a truly moral certitude! And so, nobody but nobody could truly claim any moral principle is absolutely true, much less impose that belief on the conscience of anybody! In short, its either moral RELATIVISM or worse, ethical NIHILISM! Reductio ad absurdum!

And here is what my old Webster’s College Dictionary has to say on NIHILISM.

1. Philosophy

a) the denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth

b) the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion etc. also ethical nihilism

And from Wikipedia: “the term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with ANOMIE, to denote the general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence when they realize there are no necessary norms, rules or laws (or are simply claimed to be destructively amoralistic).

Need we say anything more? Or shouldn’t we all exclaim with great sadness to be addressed even to ourselves, to these dissident Jesuit theologians, to their Jesuit confreres and their students at the Ateneo de Manila, and to local Church authorities who as shepherds of Christ are supposed to defend His flock from marauding wolves especially those disguised as sheep, or even as false pastors: “Ubinam gentium sumus?” For where and how in the world have we the supposedly loyal sons and daughters of numberless saints all of whom were absolutely loyal to the Church Magisterium, such as St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Robert Bellarmine, St. Benedict, St. Benilde, Thomas Aquinas or the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, and yet have sunk ourselves down to such disastrous depths of moral absurdity and permissiveness?

Post Script

Last week NBA basketball star Allen Iverson, (who was recently traded by the Philadelphia 76ers to the Detroit Pistons), was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to pay a hefty penalty of $260,000 to a certain Marvin Godfrey. The 3-judge Appeals Court ruled that Iverson was GUILTY of being NEGLIGENT in having done nothing to prevent nor to stop the bar-room brawl in 2005 initiated by Iverson’s own bodyguards, where the outnumbered victim, Marvin Godfrey, was overwhelmingly and severely beaten up.

At about the same time last week, this time at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana (where in 1952 I failed to join my late brother Valdemar in Notre Dame’s College of Engineering by not having met its academic requirements), the Catholic Bishop of Indiana, John D’ Arcy publicly announced over the diocesan Website, that he would no longer attend this year’s Commencement Exercises, as a result of U.S. President Barack Obama’s having been invited as its primary Guest Speaker, even without the Bishop’s prior knowledge nor consent.

Bishop D’ Arcy emphasized that he made his decision after much prayerful discernment, and that he intended no disrespect for the U.S. President. He did so simply because “a bishop must teach the Catholic faith in season and out of season”, and not only by his words - - but by his actions. He further added: “My decision is not an attack on anyone, but in defense of the truth about human life. The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. Indeed the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will NOT stand for”. (Ateneo Jesuits, please note!)

Some four years ago I was able to obtain from the Internet, a copy of a Jesuit priest’s letter written on October 25, 2001 to his Superior General. I had it reproduced in toto in Chapter 19, page 305 of my autobiography LIGHT A FIRE II. Here it is once again, for it is similar in substance to that of Bishop D’ Arcy’s objections about Obama.

Dear Fr. Kolvenbach,

Thank you for your letter of 3^rd September. I apologize for not replying sooner. These last few weeks have been traumatic, culminating in a collapse and my hospitalization at the end of October for four days. It was not life-threatening, just the result of the tensions of the last 30 years, as a result of which I will be retiring in the next few months.

In confirming your decision to refuse me permission to publish my book, Pope’s Men: The Jesuits Yesterday and Today, you say that you have no objection to my manifesting conscience on this matter; only to the manner in which I have made it, i.e., by a book of this nature. I accept this. My concerns can be briefly stated in this open letter. This will enable me to manifest that conscience most directly and ease the pressure on it.

That conscience has been under strain since 1968 when the Society as a whole, despite Fr. Arrupe’s exhortations on the matter, refused to support Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Since Ignatius founded the Society to campaign for God in faithful obedience to the Papacy, and to put aside all judgment of our own to obey in all things our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, our duty here was clear and our refusal to do it was scandalous.

Since 1965 four General Congregations have accepted that some of us have been remiss in our duty of obedience to the popes and the hierarchical Church and promised we would change our policies, but we have not. Too many Jesuits are still giving the opposite impression and going unchallenged. I was not so long ago told by a distinguished Catholic academic that he admired Jesuits because they “can say and do what they like in the Church and get away with it”. I pointed out to him that we are not all tarred with the same brush. He was more than a little surprised.

Fr. Arrupe warned that if three popes have called us to account, then it is Christ the Lord who expects something better of us. He also warned us that to fail in fidelity to the Papacy is to sign our own death sentence. Far from resenting John Paul II’s intervention in 1981, he saw it as an occasion for demonstrating that wholehearted obedience to the Holy See to which we are vowed. Our response generally has been quite different, doing the minimum necessary to ensure no further action was taken against us and feeling aggrieved that we have been wrongly treated.

You yourself have reminded us that fidelity to the Holy See is of the essence of our vocation, and when the 33^rd General Congregation asked you to look again at the rules for thinking with the Church in the light of the Council you said that they are as valid today as ever. My experience of the Society tells me that that is not the way Jesuits on the whole think. The general view is that we are an autonomous organization in the Church and should be allowed to proceed as we think fit.

Far from superiors generally giving us a lead in faithful obedience to the Pope and the Magisterium, too many (of these superiors) regard anyone who insists these are the essence of the Jesuit vocation, as stupid or malicious. I on many occasions have had to resist pressure from such men to abandon these ideals; this is a complete perversion of Jesuit obedience; to have been subject to such pressure is a form of spiritual and mental torture, a scandal that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

I write this letter on our patronal feast day, and I cannot help reflecting on Campion’s words, when on his capture he was taken before the Queen. His fidelity to the Papacy being challenged, he told his questioners that that was “my greatest glory”. Such is the tradition of the English Province. Not till we return to it will our work flourish. My prayers will continue to be that the day will come.

Yours in Christ,

Rodger Charles, SJ

--o--

Our children and grandchildren at the Ateneo de Manila and in other Catholic schools where these rabidly dissident yet supposedly “still Catholic” theologians’ PREDILECTION for moral relativism and/or ethical nihilism have been taught or promoted in one form or another, have therefore been morally and intellectually beaten up black and blue, since the 1960s. Thus in comparison, such INTRINSIC EVIL perpetrated on thousands of young minds, has been certainly far worse than the physical trauma Iverson’s bodyguards inflicted on just one person. As Fr. Rodger Charles, S.J. expressed in his letter, it is our “own death sentence” and a form of “spiritual and moral torture” and a “scandal that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.”

I shudder therefore over what the Divine Supreme Court will deem as a just and appropriate “millstone” type of sentence or judgment,* even on those who merely have negligently stood idly by and unconcerned, all the while that our innocent children and grandchildren and even theirs too, have been repeatedly scandalized, mauled and mutilated, morally and intellectually, for heaven knows how long!

And for those who have been actually teaching or deliberately abetting such monstrous falsehoods? Lord, PLEASE have mercy… ESPECIALLY on Thy REPENTANT sons and daughters whose souls have been uniquely consecrated to Thee, particularly as priests and bishops of Thy one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church…

EDUARDO B. OLAGUER

Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate

of the Philippines

www.catholicxybr.org

cc:

The Catholic Bishops of the Philippines

* Matthew 18: 6-7