Murder By Depoprovera et al

42-081030

This space has been empty for sometime now, due to the burden of other duties facing this blogger. Today however, the following piece has been provoked by Depoprovera et al, despite such other burdens.

As backgrounder, there is an on-going and raging controversy about the merits and demerits of a proposed Bill in the House of Representatives in the Philippines, which if passed by both Houses of Congress will appropriate state funds for the promotion, facilitation and distribution of contraceptives and related hospital services, and also making it a crime for professional health workers to refuse to supply such products and services.

And so the following self-explanatory piece was written.

COULD FAITHFUL CATHOLICS SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE?

Note: The full text of this article may be downloaded for free at <www.catholicxybr.org> in the Light A Fire blogfile, or from c/o Light A Fire.

This paper is written for the benefit of the truly Catholic faithful, specifically in order to refute a Position Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill, a 16-page opus submitted by 14 Catholic professors at the Ateneo de Manila University. Entitled Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience, it calls for the “immediate passage” of House Bill No. 5043, supposedly after having examined the Bill “in the light of Philippine social realities and informed by (their) Christian faith”.

Considering that the 14 authors have not explicitly claimed to be non-Catholics, I presume that they also consider themselves as faithful Catholics “in good conscience”. Thus my arguments will be mostly based on the officially published “core principles of Catholic social teaching”, which the 14 authors explicitly allege in the very first paragraph of their Position Paper, as having been “adhered to” by the RH Bill’s provisions.

1. Catholic Issue No. 1: WHETHER or NOT the RH Bill as claimed by a 14-member faculty group at the Ateneo University, headed by the Spouses/Professors Marita Castro Guevara and Roberto O. Guevara the former head of its Department of Theology, (Guevara et al for brevity), truly adheres to the “core principles of Catholic social teaching”, particularly among others vis-à-vis the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person.

1.1 The following, whether or not anyone agrees with its substance, are the Real Facts as to “the core principles of Catholic social teaching” according to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican Edition copyright 2004) Libreria Editrice Vaticana ISBN 88-209-7651-X and its Philippine Edition ISBN 971-8816-75-5 as co-published by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:

a) Section 38 thereof (with emphasis added) states: “The salvation offered in its fullness to men in Jesus Christ by God the Father’s initiative, and brought about and transmitted by the work of the Holy Spirit, is salvation for all people and of the whole person: it is universal and integral salvation. It concerns the human person in all his dimensions: personal and social, spiritual (soul) and corporeal (body), historical (here/now) and transcendent (life beyond). It begins to be made a reality already in history, because what is created is good and willed by God, and because the Son of God became one of us”. (NOTE: Thus for moral theological purposes a human foetus is considered in its entirety as “body and soul”).

That statement is consistent with the penultimate paragraph of Section 51 from Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, i.e. “Therefore from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care, whereas abortion and infanticide are UNSPEAKABLE CRIMES…..(Regarding) the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law”. (emphasis added)

b) Section 80 of the Compendium further states: “In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. Of primary importance is the universal Magisterium of the Pope and the Council: this is the Magisterium that determines the direction and gives marks of the development of this social doctrine. This doctrine in turn is integrated into the Magisterium of the Bishops who, in the concrete and particular situations of the many different local circumstances, give precise definition to this teaching, translating it and putting it into practice. The social teaching of the Bishops offers valid contributions and impetus to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. In this way, there is a circulating at work that in fact expresses the collegiality of the Church’s Pastors united to the Pope in the Church’s social teaching. The doctrinal body that emerges includes and integrates in this fashion the universal teaching of the Popes and the particular teaching of the Bishops.” (NOTE: Thus it is NOT JUST OUR LOCAL BISHOPS who by themselves reject putative laws such as RH No. 5043, but they do so in collegial solidarity with the entire UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM of the Catholic Church!)

“Insofar as it is part of (the) Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it”. (Guevara et al, kindly take note!)

Those are re-statements as well of the particular directives from Paul VI in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (3-5: 402-405) and paragraphs 2032 to 2037 (inclusive) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

c) Section 82 of the Compendium further explains that: “The intent of the Church’s social doctrine is of the religious and moral order. Religious because the Church’s evangelizing and salvific mission embraces man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being. Moral because the Church aims at a complete form of humanism, that is to say, at the liberation from everything that oppresses man and the development of the whole man and of all men”.

That section of the Compendium incorporates and synthesizes the 1931 Encyclical of Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (190), Gaudium et Spes (42:1079), John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis (14:284), and Paul VI in Populorum Progressio (42:278), Evangeli Nuntiandi (9:10), among others. (NOTE: Thus as His Eminence Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales has emphasized in a recent public statement, the Church’s main concern about the RH Bill is based on the ETHICAL and MORAL points of view, yet without disregarding its socio-economic and political ramifications – but always from the Christian outlook of faith in God’s infinite Wisdom and Mercy and His perfect Justice.)

d) And more to the point vis-à-vis the RH Bill controversy, Section 233 of the Compendium states: “Concerning the methods for practicing responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion…….. also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms. This rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality and represents a moral call to defend the true development of people”.

That section of the Compendium also paraphrases and adheres to the principles and guidelines contained in Humanae Vitae of Paul VI particularly with respect to its passages in sub-sections 14:490-491, 7:485, 16:491-492, 17:493-494; as well as with respect to Evangelium Vitae of John Paul II (72:484-485), Section 2273 of the Catholic Catechism and Gaudium et Spes (51:1072-1073)

1.2 Conclusion: The RH Bill includes the particularly OBJECTIONABLE sections 8 and 9, which Guevara et al explicitly trumpet on page 7, 2^nd paragraph of their Position Paper as unqualifiedly and supposedly acceptable “in good conscience” (kunó) even by Catholics, despite the fact that it mandates that ALL contraceptives and sterilization services such as tubal ligation and vasectomy, are “ESSENTIAL” medicines (kunó), including their related hospital services. Thus both of these, as products and services will be LEGALLY mandatory whenever demanded for, according to the RH Bill!

Obviously therefore, on the basis of the preceding quotations from authentic Catholic teaching, the RH Bill is CLEARLY and incontrovertibly contrary to the SPIRIT and LETTER of all the above quoted magisterial Catholic teachings!

2. Catholic Issue No. 2: WHETHER or NOT Guevara et al are telling the unvarnished TRUTH in their Position Paper’s explicit statements (page 4, first paragraph thereof) that “the RH Bill……….. protects life….. (and) is not pro-abortion, anti-life or anti-women”.

2.1 The truthful and relevant facts underlying this 2^nd issue are:

a. Firstly, nowhere, in their Position Paper nor in the RH Bill itself, is “abortion” defined at all, even if the Bill (Section 2m) states that “abortion remains a crime and is punishable”. Thus what is properly and truly abortion, may NOT be “abortion” as far as the RH Bill is concerned, as will be proven here below.

b. Secondly, Catholic Church teaching has always consistently declared that human life or “personhood”, with the immortal soul already divinely infused in God’s own image and likeness and as His explicitly willed gift to the parents, STARTS AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION! It is that instant when the woman’s ovum unites with and is fertilized by the man’s sperm cell. Whereas, the RH Bill’s authors (and Guevara et al obviously agree with them), are on record in their congressional deliberations, that only when the foetus has traveled towards and successfully clung to the uterine wall, can it be considered as legally protected from deliberate abortion, i.e. destruction, nay, MURDER!

c. And because of such a supposedly legal yet mendacious definition of “abortion”, those “modern” and very popular contraceptives such as Depoprovera, which Guevara et al and the RH Bill also consider as “essential” medicines, but are actually abortifacients, will be explicitly allowed under the Bill. For it is WELL KNOWN that these types of contraceptives are explicitly designed to prevent thus kill the LIVE foetus from safely reaching the uterine wall, thereby aborting the pregnancy. And yet, Guevara et al mendaciously insist that the RH Bill is not “pro-abortion nor anti-life”……

d. Consider further that the subject Position Paper is specifically and publicly addressed to Catholics, written by 14 Catholic professors of a Catholic University owned and operated by the Society of Jesus a canonically instituted Catholic Religious Order with mostly Catholic students, where 3 of these 14 Ateneo professors are teachers of Catholic Theology. Therefore, their unabashed public propaganda for Catholics to DISOBEY and to JUSTIFY such MOCKERY of the “core principles of Catholic social teaching” and Catholic moral theology itself, must certainly be a GRAVE MATTER of the highest degree and urgency. (NOTE: The Jesuit President of the Ateneo, in fairness to him, has publicly issued a disclaimer against Guevara et al’s Position Paper in behalf of the Jesuits and the University. However, no official counter Position Paper has been issued by the Jesuits as of today October 30, 2008.)

2.2 Conclusions on Issue No. 2

a. Thus by being silent about their own unqualified ACCEPTANCE of the RH Bill’s known albeit mendacious definition of “abortion”, Guevara et al and their Position Paper have CERTAINLY NOT told us Catholics the unvarnished TRUTH. Instead however they are consciously and knowingly, considering their intellectual and professional capabilities, foisting at the very least, a MORAL and THEOLOGICAL FALSEHOOD on us Catholic Filipinos by means of a mentally DISHONEST casuistry! And these cleverly disguised falsehoods are particularly and insidiously detrimental to the young and impressionable Catholic students at the Ateneo de Manila University and their families as well. And yet Guevara et al, especially the trio of academically high-degreeD theologians among them, including those with PhDs in philosophy and the social sciences, should have known that our Lord Himself said to Jeremiah the prophet, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I dedicated you. A prophet to the nations I appointed you!” (Jeremiah 1:5) Nonetheless, these Catholic professors of a Catholic University are now encouraging Catholics to assist and to justify the continuing murder by Depoprovera and the like, of hundreds of thousands of potential prophets of the Lord in our midst.

b. But let us assume that there is a sincere doubt on their part even as Catholics, about the Catholic Magisterium and the Popes’ infallibility in their REPEATED collegial declarations that a true person with body and soul created and gifted by God, already exists at the moment of conception even before its foetus has successfully clung to the mother’s womb. NEVERTHELESS, no amount of doubt other than near-absolute certainty, could morally justify the unabashed public endorsement of the DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION OF HUMAN LIFE or the killing of LEGALISTICALLY-challenged albeit unborn persons. For by analogy on a similar doubt, no prudent Christian would encourage people to shoot at targets WITHOUT COMPUNCTION where PROBABLY, or even just POSSIBLY, COUNTLESS but REAL human persons would be killed by such a highly nay, CRIMINALLY imprudent practice.

c. And here are the moral principles and conclusions on the same matter coming from John Paul II: (Evangelium Vitae, 60 with emphasis added)

Some people justify abortion by claiming that for a certain number of days the result of conception cannot be considered a personal human life. But from the time of fertilization a life of a new human being is begun, from the first instant there is established what this living being will be: a person.* Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, scientific research provides a valuable indication of a personal presence at the first moment of a human life. Furthermore, even the mere possibility that a human person is involved would suffice for an absolute prohibition of killing a human embryo. Over and above all scientific and philosophical affirmations, the church has always taught that “the human being is to be respected and treated as a person, from the moment of conception”.⁺

*Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974), nos. 12-13.

⁺Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Donum Vitae I.1

Note: Verbum sapienti satis est!

3. Catholic Issue No. 3: WHETHER or NOT the unqualified and total endorsement of the RH Bill as recommended by Catholic professors Guevara et al in their Position Paper, may be safely and prudently accepted and decided by Catholics “in good conscience”, which will have moral “primacy” even over the CONTRARY official and consistent teachings of our local episcopal Magisterium together with the Popes in their Encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, Casti Connubii, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Vatican II Council’s Gaudium et Spes itself.

3.1 The facts about “CONSCIENCE”

a. “Conscience” is a common faculty of our God-created souls, through which we are able to listen to God’s voice vis-à-vis the Truth, by means of His urgings, promptings and other instances of God’s grace intended for our souls, in relation to the good we must do or the evil we should reject such as temptations from other external sources, i.e. the world, the flesh, or the devil, in order for us to act righteously yet FREELY, with the help of His grace and in accordance with His Will.

b. Thus the truth of what is truly good or what is really evil, is transmitted by God to our souls’ faculty of conscience as was designed, willed and created by HIM. But whether or not such TRUTH being transmitted, is sincerely ACCEPTED and HONESTLY acted upon by the person out of its own FREE WILL, is substantively ANOTHER MATTER.

And so, the process of conscientization is a continuous and ARDUOUS lifelong process within our souls, in cooperation with God’s grace, similar to spiritual growth in Faith, Hope and LOVE. That is why the Church has always urged us Catholics even from an early age, to make a habit of frequent and SINCERE examinations of our conscience, not only prior to Sacramental Confessions, but even daily.

c. Therefore, one’s actions and decisions DO NOT NECESSARILY reflect, much less ALL THE TIME, such God-conveyed TRUTHS even if one has a “well-informed and well-formed conscience”. Pride, greed or sensuality frequently and easily trump the voice of our true conscience at anytime. For not everybody is a Thomas More who confirmed the sacredness to him of his conscience (NOT everyone’s ALLEGED conscience!) just before he gave up his life as a consequence of his obedience to the teachings of the Church and in loyalty to the Pope, God’s Vicar on earth.

d. In fact all too often, many of us self-servingly and deceitfully proclaim the much abused cliches “My conscience is clear” or “in truth and in fact”, merely to justify one’s morally and/or legally doubtful actions and decisions. In other words, self-proclaimed declarations of allegedly conscience-based motives and actions CANNOT be taken at face value. This is because the declarant may among others, be in error, or incapable of good judgments (especially if in the habitual state of sin), or may even be deliberately telling a lie. And yet it is the truth and only the truth that God conveys to all our consciences, God being Truth personified!

e. NEVERTHELESS, we all STILL have to RESPECT such declarations of alleged conscience-based actions or decisions. But “respect” for somebody else’ conscience is certainly NOT equivalent to “agreement or acceptance” for ourselves, of their decisions even if purportedly made with a perfect conscience (kunó).

f. Thus Section 139 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church states that: “The truth concerning good and evil is recognized in a practical and concrete manner by the judgment of conscience which (normally) leads to the acceptance of responsibility for the good accomplished and the evil committed”. Cardinal Newman often said that “conscience has rights because it has duties”. And St. Augustine postulated: “God’s commandments were given so that (His) grace might be sought, and grace (personified in His Son our Redeemer) was poured so that the law (God’s Commandments) might be obeyed.”

g. And so John Paul II concluded that: once the idea of universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, the notion of conscience inevitably also changes……. To grant to the conscience of the individual the prerogative to determine on its own and independently, what is good and evil and act accordingly….. (so that) each individual is faced with his or her own “truth” different from the “truth” of others….. can lead to a denial of the very idea of human nature. (To the currently popular notions) that one has to follow one’s conscience is added the affirmation that a moral judgment is true, (merely) because it has its origin in conscience. (If so) the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of (self-proclaimed) sincerity, authenticity, and of being at peace with oneself. (Veritatis Splendor, 32)

“Conscience can err because of invincible ignorance, but also because someone shows little concern to find out what is good and what is evil. And conscience becomes gradually almost blind by becoming accustomed to sin.” (Ibid, 62)

“The Church’s authority does not undermine…… freedom of conscience, because that freedom is not “from” the truth but always “within” the truth. The Magisterium does not bring to the conscience truths that are foreign to it, but truths that it ought already to possess. Especially in more difficult issues the Church helps consciences to attain the truth and to abide in it.” (Ibid, 64)

A subjective error about the moral good, should not be confused with the “objective” truth about the moral order. The moral value of an act performed with an erroneous conscience is NOT equivalent to the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience. The evil committed – though not chargeable to the person in question – does not cease to be evil and disorder of the moral order. (Ibid, 63)

h. In his parallel yet strikingly concise analytical style, Pope Benedict XVI has often described that same popular albeit mendacious way of exaggerating the role of any and everybody’s conscience, as the roots for tragedy and the dictatorship of moral RELATIVISM.

And here is what Papa Bene’s immediate predecessor had to say about relativism: (Evangelium Vitae, 70):

At the root of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism of our present-day culture, a relativism many think an essential condition of democracy, for it (supposedly) guarantees tolerance and mutual respect. Objective moral norms are being considered as leading to authoritarianism and intolerance. It is true that crimes have been committed in the name of “truth”, but equally so in the name of “ethical relativism.” Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against life of which our century has had such a sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus? Democracy cannot substitute for morality or be a panacea for immorality. Democracy is a “system”, a means and not an end. The value of democracy – considered by the church as a positive “sign of the time” – stands or falls with the values it embodies and promotes.

i. And so as to Guevara et al’s so-called “primacy of conscience”, there is really no such thing in authentic Catholic theology and in the teachings of the Magisterium.

If there is any “primacy” at all that is authentic and effective, it is the “PRIMACY OF GRACE”. In his last major Apostolic Letter Novo Millenio Ineunte, Pope John Paul II made this fundamental Christian notion very clear, thusly:

If in the planning that awaits us, we commit ourselves more confidently to a pastoral activity that gives personal and communal prayer its proper place, we shall be observing an essential principle of the Christian view of life: the primacy of grace. There is a temptation which perennially besets every spiritual journey and pastoral work – that of thinking that the results depend on our ability to act and to plan. God of course asks us really to cooperate with his grace, and therefore invites us to invest all our resources of intelligence and energy in serving the cause of the Kingdom. But it is fatal to forget that without Christ we can do nothing. (NMI, 38)

4. Catholic Issue No. 4

Let us assume for the sake of argument, but without necessarily conceding the fact, that the Philippine social and economic realities are substantially what Guevara et al describe them to be as such in their Position Paper. And so, the last issue I shall tackle is whether or not such supposed realities will be sufficient justification in conscience, for Catholics to support the passage of the RH Bill.

Guevara et al and their Position Paper have practically ignored the political factor, by devoting only FOUR (4) words, namely “bad governance and corruption” on the part of our government officials and politicians, constituting one of the six “inter-related factors” mentioned as the cause of “poverty” in our nation (page 4, last paragraph of Position Paper).

And so I too will practically GLOSS OVER the fact of my having constantly criticized over the last 40 years, nay excoriated our government officials’ and their allied politicians’ indescribable and interminable “bad governance and corruption”, especially over the last ten years. I do so despite the fact that five of our pastors among our most vocal and courageous Catholic Bishops have recently described it as “endemic, massive, systemic and rampant”, and that this has become “a social and moral cancer”. For it may be permissible to say in charity or without the tongue in cheek, that the babies of the poor, cause more poverty (at least in spirit), than the INSATIABLE GREED of our corrupt government officials and allied politicians!

Nevertheless, there is also some merit in NOT overly debating the RH Bill’s social and economic whys and whereases. For it is a fact that socio-economic analyses and forecasts, just like those on the weather and earthquakes, are seldom if ever accurate on a long term basis. For instance, take the case of Alan Greenspan, the decades-long Economics guru and hero of the Western financial world. Yesterday’s “HERO” is now today’s “HEEL” together with the erstwhile richest and most powerful captains of industry such as those from the Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merryl Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the like, simply because of a worldwide financial tsunami which no one among them even thought to be possible.

As to public opinion as indicated by random poll surveys, it has always been a truism that the TRUTH is more often than not, in the MINORITY. As was the case of Jesus Christ Himself! And I suspect, many of our fellow Catholics’ present favorable opinion about the RH Bill, will change upon sensing with God’s grace, that death is near.

And so instead however, I will even assume, arguendo but without conceding the fact, that as the RH Bill supporters habitually insist: the larger our population, the poorer we shall be. (!?) I do so even at the risk of being FALSELY accused by Marxists of using “religion as the opium of the people”. And to those who would ask about the Church’s preferential option for the poor, I’ll say: “YES, but certainly NOT at the cost of their souls and our souls too. For just a single one of them as I believe in faith, is worth more than the WHOLE WORLD (Mark 8:36)”, because Christ died for each one of them!

And so if poverty MIGHT BE the social cost whether imaginarily, temporarily or permanently, as a consequence of obeying God’s laws in truth and in faith, then SO BE IT! For wasn’t a life of poverty the example, the lifestyle Jesus Christ set for us when He walked this earth? His was a simple but holy lifestyle, even with no place of His own to rest His often exhausted human body!

And surely Christ assured us, and we have thus oftentimes prayed or believed that:

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God. (The Sermon on the Mount)

2. Lord, by thy Passion and Cross, may we be brought to the glory of Thy Resurrection! (Angelus Prayer)

3. I consider the sufferings of the present as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed in us. Indeed the whole created world eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. Creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but by him who once subjected it; yet not without hope, because the world itself will be freed from its slavery to corruption and will share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Romans 8: 18-21)

4. But if God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)

5. We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, whom He has called accordingly to His plan. (Romans 8:28)

6. The Lord is my Shepherd, there is nothing I shall want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He guides me through the right paths for His name’s sake. Though I walk in the valley of darkness and of death, I fear no evil for You are beside me. Your rod and Your staff comfort me. (Psalm 24/23)

7. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “if you want to follow me deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me”. (Matthew 16:24)…. “Come to me, all you who work hard and who carry heavy burdens, for I will refresh you…. For my yoke is good and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11: 28 and 30)

RES IPSA LOQUITUR!

AND WHAT IF…..

If in case the RH Bill becomes a law, (Heaven forbid!), this is the advice of John Paul II for such a situation:

“Unjust laws raise difficult questions for morally upright people as regards to cooperation. The choices to be made are sometimes difficult; prestigious positions and careers might be at stake. One should recall here the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil, not even by appealing to the freedom of others or to the fact that the law permits the action. To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right, a right that as such should be acknowledged and protected by civil law.”

YES! Many of us Catholics are prepared to seek relief from our Supreme Court in case…

For if in Ebralinag et al vs. Cebu Superintendents of Schools (GR No. 95887, December 29, 1995) the Supreme Court upheld the right of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to refuse to participate in their school’s Flag Ceremonies, how could we Catholics be legally compelled by any law, to participate in Murder by Depoprovera et al, since this would be clearly contrary to our universally and historically validated religious convictions?

Lastly, here is what Pope Benedict XVI said in his April 16, 2008 address to all U.S. Catholic Bishops during His Holiness’ recent visit to the United States.

“….it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church’s teaching on today’s key ethical questions. Once again, it falls to you to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the gospel of life.”

And certainly in the Philippines, such moral formation would be necessary for Guevara et al and their cohorts, who should follow the example in holy obedience and humility set by the Jesuit lay brother, St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, whose feastday is today! He was a theologian in his own right despite the meagerness of his formal education, and the lowly porter’s job at their Jesuit House’s entrance hall he kept for 24 years. And yet his religious treatises were “very simple in style but sound in doctrine”.

St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, do please pray for Guevara et al and for me too!

Eduardo B. Olaguer

c/o Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate

Aurora Milestone Tower

1045 Aurora Blvd., Q.C.

October 30, 2008

Did those fifty CBCP bishops speak for the Catholic Church?

TO LIGHT A FIRE! No.41-080303

The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are more organized, often with burdensome structures. We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have NO THEOLOGICAL BASIS; they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.

The new Code of Canon Law… prescribes the extent of the authority of (such) conferences, which cannot validly act “in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given his consent, (except if) it concerns cases in which the common law prescribes it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See…. determines it” (CIC, Canon 455, 4 and 1). Thus no episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.

…… It happens that with some bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local conference leads to letting what should remain very personal, lapse into anonymity…. It happens then that the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened…. Well, the really powerful documents against National Socialism (Hitler’s Nazism) were those that came from individual courageous bishops. The documents of the (German Bishops) Conference, on the contrary, were often rather wan and too weak with respect to what the tragedy called for.

Besides, it is obvious that truth cannot be created through ballots. A statement is either true or false. Truth can only be found, not created. Contrary to a widespread conception, the classic procedure of ecumenical councils did not deviate from this fundamental rule. At these councils only statements that were accepted with a moral unanimity could become binding. This does NOT at all mean that these unanimously accepted conclusions, at least, could produce truth. If anything, the unanimity of such a large number of bishops…. is a sign that they are speaking, NOT of what they have themselves “invented”, but only of what they have “found”…

If one is clear on this point, there is not further need to demonstrate why an episcopal conference, which moreover represents a much more limited circle than a council, CANNOT VOTE ON TRUTH….

Thus, in many episcopal conferences, the group spirit and perhaps even the wish for a quiet, peaceful life or conformism lead the majority to accept the positions of active minorities bent upon pursuing clear goals….

….. It seems very nice always to decide together. This way however, entails the risk of losing the “scandal” and the “folly” of the Gospel, that “salt” and that “leaven” that today are more indispensable than ever for a Christian (above all when he is a bishop, hence invested with precise responsibility for the faithful) in the face of the gravity of the crisis.

(End of Quotation with emphasis added)

**************

Truth to tell I have intuitively agreed 100% with the substance of the above quoted statements even before I discovered their provenance a few weeks ago. And so before I reveal the “AUTHORITY” behind those statements, let me first independently explain why the particular case of those 50 some bishops who supposedly unanimously approved the latest CBCP Pastoral Statement entitled “Seeking the Truth, Restoring Integrity”, is a clear example of what that “AUTHORITY” referred to as the risks entailed when episcopal conferences issue statements that may lead to the loss of the Gospel’s indispensable salt and leaven for us Christians.

Thus the latest CBCP statement purportedly issued in the midst of “restlessness and confusion” whereby we are faced in their own words, with a “crisis of truth and the pervading cancer of corruption”, has actually led to even more “restlessness and confusion”; PLUS some corruption in the intellectual probity of those obviously pro-GMA partisans who would summarily reject any public citizens’ appeal for a gracious voluntary resignation by GMA, but would instead publicly thus scandalously seek the quick ouster of their own CBCP President for the latter’s contrary views about GMA.

The bare fact still remains however, that the main conclusion and recommendations of those fifty bishops are logically and MORALLY inconsistent with their own past and present officially stated factual premises!

For it is a fact that our people’s “restlessness and confusion” adverted to and admitted by the bishops themselves not just now but for the last three (3) years, were vis-à-vis the widespread and persistent accusations of “a crisis of truth and the pervading cancer of corruption” swirling around and centered on Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her immediate family, Cabinet officers, military/police and political allies. In other words, these specific allegations and persistent accusations of lying, cheating, stealing and killing have always been directed against PGMA et al, and NOT against Philippine society as a whole, even if we as a victim people have also been in a real sense contributory and thus a significant part of the problem.

And so, the 50 bishops’ statement specifically and clearly adverted to “questions about the moral ascendancy of the present government”, which is headed by GMA and none other.

And yet, despite NOT having clearly resolved the personal culpability nor accountability of GMA vis-à-vis those accusations for such high crimes and betrayal of public trust by her and the government she heads, these bishops have already in fact given their vote of moral confidence to the accused PGMA et al, by selecting “the President” as the only explicitly named official “to take the lead in combating corruption wherever it is found”.

In fact, the ground-zero areas of corruption that have been explicitly mentioned in the bishops’ six recommendations and conclusions were practically all encompassing to include a) the “social and political ladder”; b) all branches of government (thus including the judiciary and the Supreme Court); c) appropriate investigating bodies particularly the Senate and the Ombudsman; and d) the media. Therefore these bishops must have found GMA the very principal accused herself, and NOT ANY of her accusers, to have the greatest moral ascendancy and credibility in “combating corruption” itself.

In retrospect, it must have been highly providential when for several days some 24 years ago, starting on 15 August 1984 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope John Paul the Great’s then Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave an in-depth interview on fundamental Church matters to the eminent writer and journalist Vittorio Messori. And a particular topic they tackled was that on “Bishops Conferences” such as the present CBCP.

Thus the exclusive author and authority behind the opening statements of this piece, quoted and presented in italics, is nobody else but Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI! Those particular quoted sections are on pages 58 to 62 (“the problem of episcopal conferences”) of the Ratzinger Report, an exclusive interview with Vittorio Messori on the state of the Church as published by the Ignatius Press of San Francisco.

Are Some of Our Bishops Complicating the Simple?

40-20080227

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

I still have vivid memories of my childhood introduction towards recognizing what is MORALLY right or wrong from the Catholic Christian point of view. These memories are mostly associated with “Mother” Gratia my Kindergarten class teacher at St. Scholastica’s College, there at the end of the former Pennsylvania Street in the old Singalong area near Taft Avenue.

What “Mother Gratia inculcated in me some 68 years ago was pretty simple, thus easy to remember up to now. As children of God, His ten basic commandments spelled out what we were supposed to do and not to do. Period!

Among the most basic and easiest to understand and to remember as to its universality and absoluteness, was that of always telling the Truth and NEVER to tell a LIE! And NOT TO STEAL nor KILL…

There was no excuse at all for disobeying such basic commandments.

Since then I have not heard nor read from nor found in any of the thousands of Catholic books and teachings and homilies on Catholic moral theology, any teaching or principle contrary to “Mother” Gratia’s simple and basic kindergarten moral theology.

Regardless of the consequences therefore, no one is allowed to lie, to cheat, to steal or to kill, except for valid self defense or as a soldier during a legitimate war.

If so, no one who violates these strictures whether under the laws of the land or of God’s commandments, is immune to secular penalties and/or moral condemnation, especially when the violations are serious, repeated, even habitual and have already inflicted great injustice on numerous innocent victims, and the “penalty” is a mere APPEAL for resignation from high office.

Regardless of the consequences therefore especially if merely imagined or speculative ones, the application of such penalties is rigid and universal. And so the Catholic Magisterium and Papal teachings have consistently rejected circumstancial and/or consequential excuses or exemptions from these Divine commandments. The Catholic Catechism is in fact very precise.

No. 1756 There are acts which in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions are always gravely illicit by reason of their object, such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (emphasis added)

THEREFORE: even our Bishops, here or anywhere else, may not refuse to condemn or seem to tolerate such evil practices especially if repeatedly perpetrated by the most powerful and known officials and families of this nation, just because it may (SPECULATIVELY!) lead to the emergence of a Filipino Pol Pot, or another evil-doing leader, or civil war or what have you!

The facts have been clear as far back as four years ago when our Bishops issued their first Pastoral Letter warning GMA et al soon after the Hello Garci! revelations. The facts are even much clearer now to all of them as to the “corruption from top to bottom” of our political ladder, as mentioned in their latest announcement.

Article 2269 of the Catholic Cathechism moreover has this to say about those responsible even if only INDIRECTLY, for the following : “Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethen in the human family, indirectly commit HOMICIDE, which is imputatable to them” (emphasis added)

A hundred million U.S. Dollars stolen from our national treasury would certainly lead to the death and hunger of thousands of our Filipino brethren.

Mene! Tekel! Parsin!

39-20080226

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

Just like loyal the courtiers as well as critics and enemies of their inordinately proud and corrupt Chaldean King Belshazzar who inherited the throne from his father Nebuchadnezzar, GMA’s own loyal retinue of courtiers and persistently contentious critics are now trying to interpret similar on-going mystical writings-on-the-walls.

These dire latter day warnings are not just on the walls of Malacañang so to speak, but are now in fact spreading throughout Metro Manila, the provinces and even in big cities abroad where our OFWs abound.

The warnings are in fact everywhere -- not just in the conference halls of the Senate, or in the offices of the Department of In-Justice or of the Ombudslady-in-waiting, but also in the streets, the market places, among the very young in our schools and universities, in Rome, New York, Hongkong, the Middle East, London, and in Cyberspace especially.

The prophet Daniel’s interpretation as spelled out in Scriptures for those direst of dire warnings which soon came true against King Belshazzar must be well-known somehow, at least in its general sense, to most of those who will read this piece. And so I believe that practically every prominent political foe of GMA as well as some of her sympathizers, have the same general interpretation vis-à-vis our present national signs of the times. And that would be consisting mostly of an impending political disaster for GMA, for her family and her allies.

I dare say that such an exclusively political and anti-GMA interpretation is at best half-baked! And so despite my being a consistent critic of GMA for the last ten (10) years, I must state what I truly believe in -- that these present-day dire warnings are not just political nor for GMA exclusively. These are in fact all addressed to and meant explicitly for EVERYBODY including all of her enemies and critics as well, including yours truly; And its sunstance is for more encompassing in their ramifications.

For if we look back at the sad distant as well as recent history of the remains of Belshazzar’s Babylon of some 2,700 years ago and subsequent to Daniel’s prophetic warnings and viewed, particularly in the light of the Iraqis’ 20^th and 21^st century history, Daniel’s prophetic interpretations must have been meant for and addressed to all of Iraq’s men, women and children, particularly with respect to the present inhabitants of Iraq now hopelessly divided by hate and ravaged by war.

It was the same for the French people for many years, starting from the gathering storms of civil unrest just before the Napoleonic wars and the French revolution. So too with the Americans of the mid-19^th century; and the Germans and Italians prior to World War I and World War II. All of them had their own evil and shameless Rogues Gallery of political, business and religious leaders as well.

The central fact I wish to bring out therefore, is that it was not just those big bad tyrants and evil-prone leaders like Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Mussolini who suffered ignominious fates. Abraham Lincoln, who may have been a saint, (relatively at least, in comparison with his successors!) was for a while also widely maligned and eventually assassinated.

But more significantly however, in all the above historical cases, the people suffered much longer and far more acutely than their deposed leaders.

For that is exactly what I am truly afraid of for us Filipinos today! Unless we listen more humbly and more discerningly to the dire warning signs of the times and handwritings on our walls, the aftermath of EDSA One and EDSA Two, could be a mere walk-in-the-park compared to what is in store for the Philippines these coming years.

And so in the spirit of real humility, personal contrition and honest facing of the painful truth about ourselves above all, I believe that we the supposedly elite and better educated but certainly more materially well-off and socially better positioned, must accept the major portion of the blame as to why the Marcoses, the Erap Estradas and the Macapagal-Arroyos have not been prevented from pillaging and despoiling our nation’s material and moral heritage. Truth to tell, many of us even among GMA’s present-day critics, have knowingly conspired and have unduly benefited from such pillaging and despoiling of our nation. If once again today, we feign innocence and reject such a call coming from many of our Church leaders, for humbling contrition and moral restitution, I am afraid that the Marian prophecies and similar apocalyptic warnings from Direction For Our Times, both of which are consistent with those in Matthew 24 and Zechariah 13 particularly for these our present times, might also soon come true just like Daniel’s judgment and prophecy were imposed on the Babylonian empire’s people up to this day.

For could it be that our own short remaining days are already numbered (Mene!)?Or that we have been weighed as a people and found wanting (Tekel!); and the impending dismemberment of our nation and division by political dissension and civil war is at hand (Parsin!).

Someone is Truly-in-Charge

38-20080217

I received a flurry of e-mailed comments on my last blog article a week ago entitled “In Bad Faith and in BAD, BAD company!”

The comments and suggestions ranged from that of a layman apostle of Jesus Christ the Returning King, who prefers to leave the matter of our national travails to God’s Divine Providence who “at the appointed time… will tell us exactly what to do”, and another religious inclined young lady who said that “change may be improbable or impossible but with the Lord’s grace, it may take time but it will definitely happen.”

At the other end of the opinion spectrum was a 4-page account (apparently from the Romulo Neri which was obtained through his Black-and-White Movement convenor-friend) with its detailed rationalizations as to why and how useless or in vain Neri’s sacrifice as a whistle-blower/witness against PGMA, would merely become, despite full public disclosure by Neri of the incriminating Malacañang secrets behind the NBN-ZTE scandal.

After reading these and other comments, I was left with the same nagging yet ambivalent impression I have lately been absorbing by reading our newspapers or listening to the most recent Senate hearings on the botched NBN-ZTE contract and related developments.

My impression is that we are a people still sorely confused and deeply divided, but with quite a number of highly encouraging signs of hope for our national redemption. Yet it seems every new major scandal or controversy such as this latest one over the botched witness abduction masquerading as “witness protection” and subsequent “true confessions” of Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada, further widens the confusion and deepens the level of dissension among mutually hostile sectors of our society, and sparks fresh animosities even among hitherto allied groups and institutions.

I have thought long and hard as to why our people seem to be speaking in a thousand different tongues unintelligible except to a few, thereby creating even more confusion and hostility among those who do not understand much less agree with one another’s disparate opinions.

To theorize and ascribe our national disunity to a particular Pinoy cultural flaw or to a prevailing absence of sound and consistent episcopal moral/ spiritual leadership, would merely contribute to more hostilities among ourselves perhaps even among hitherto natural and fraternal allies.

And so after several days of my not knowing what to entitle nor how to proceed with this piece after its opening paragraphs were composed, I am now led to rely on the truly consoling (ever since my jailbird years!) and surely solid theological notion vis-a-vis our on-going national moral purgation and looming catharsis. Thus this piece is addressed mainly to my fellow Christian believers who sincerely accept and regularly recite the most profound basic truths of our common Faith as expressed in that universal Christian prayer addressed to “Our Father.”

And so I now proceed on the premise and belief that God our Father, sovereign Lord of all of mankind’s history from the beginning of Time itself and even beyond, is still definitely yet lovingly in charge and in sovereign control of the Filipino nation, as with all other nations.

Whether we know it or not, or can explain it logically or not, as sovereign Lord and creator of the whole world and cosmos, “Our Father” is knowingly in charge and in control over the fate of each and everyone of us. And that includes particularly at this time, PGMA, FGMA, Ben Abalos, Romulo Neri, Jun Lozada, Joker Arroyo, Lito Atienza or anybody else including my own self of course, but without violating anyone’s Free Will! Otherwise, we would all be non-independent automatons shorn of any moral responsibilities, whether of guilt and much less of merit.

That being the case, I can NOT nor can anybody else, change nor improve by one whit, the absolute correctness of the timing, nor degree of punishment, or vindication, or fullness of justice or depth of mercy that Our Father will surely and eventually impose on me and/or on PGMA, FGMA, Ben Abalos, Romulo Neri, Jun Lozada and everybody else. And such Divine judgment will be in perfect accordance with God’s perfect justice and infinite mercy as applied to each and everyone of us at any given time.

Having said that, I also firmly believe that free-willed as we all are but endowed with a God-given conscience, and through prayers and good will, with unimpeded access to His superabundant supernatural Grace, we all therefore ought to know, AT LEAST the basics of what are obviously MORALLY right or wrong vis-à-vis lying, stealing and killing etc., especially if we claim to know and believe in God’s ten basic commandments. And more so if the early years of our education and conscience formation were spent in the most reputable Catholic schools.

Thus for example, common sense and a modicum of a clear conscience should lead most every reasonable Christian to arrive at a reasoned judgment that:

1. Joc-Joc Bolante and his associates and superiors in government who have been accused of facilitating the squandering of huge sums of our people’s money, and who have refused to face the bar of justice so as to explain or exonerate themselves, have done a serious injustice to our people. Thus our people’s protests against such continuing mockeries of our justice system should not be blithely dismissed as supposedly “mere political NOISE”.

2. Either Benjamin Abalos or if not, Romulo Neri is guilty of blatant perjury and other high crimes, considering that under oath Neri has publicly accused Abalos of masterminding a P200 Million bribe offer to facilitate the NBN-ZTE transaction, and Abalos on the other hand has denied it categorically thereby and thereafter accusing Neri of gross perjury. For our national leaders to dismiss such serious accusations and counter-accusations among top level government officials, as well as denigrating its continuing Senate investigation as mere “political grandstanding”, is certainly another mockery of their moral and legal accountability as public servants, to us the sovereign people of this nation.

3. The harassment of vital witnesses and dire threats to their very lives, thus preventing the full disclosure and investigation of alleged high crimes, and the summary dismissal of such allegations of high crimes on the part of top government officials, particularly in the case of the abduction of witness Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, are obvious and gross violations of our laws, as well as God’s 5^th and 8^th commandments as well. That these gross violations have become so blatantly and brazenly done, and yet have been ignored or even justified by reasonable but supposedly apolitical Christian citizens many of whom are friends of ours, are clear contradictions of their own Christian vocation.

Therefore we who claim to be adult Christian citizens of this nation have the clear moral as well as civic duty to “observe, judge and act” according to good reason, upright conscience and established legal and religious norms, with respect to the MORALITY or IMMORALITY as the case may be of our public officials’ conduct as servants of the people subject to our laws and in the light of God’s Ten Commandments. This duty to observe, judge and act may not be evaded or postponed especially if the alleged violations of the law seriously affect the whole nation, regardless of whether or not the accusers or the accused are our friends, loved ones, or enemies – politically or otherwise!.

And as a Catholic Christian, I also believe that such a process of observing, judging and acting especially on serious moral issues and matters affecting our nation, will be much more effective with respect to the true and correct Common Good -- which is/Who is, Jesus Christ Himself, the Way, the Truth and Life itself, if done prayerfully, humbly and contritely, and while conscious of our own past and present shortcomings.

And lastly I also believe that habitual resort to personal private prayerfulness which we all owe to our Creator, does not however mean that we will have an exclusive, private and unerring instruction from God Himself as to what to do. Although such private revelations may in fact have been granted and will still be granted to a few privileged souls, most of the time however, God’s Will for us on what to do even vis-à-vis basic national moral issues, will be discovered mostly STILL through common sense, and the simple yet logical application of our fundamental laws and God’s Ten Commandments.

As to Romulo Neri’s rationalizations on the supposed impracticability and uselessness of a morally correct course of action just because of the anticipated morally evil counter-actions by the enemy, these are nothing but a confused soul’s last efforts to wiggle out of a morally correct but painful decision. Moreover, such temptations are as usual, at the instance of S.A.Tan, the Evil Father of all lies and false rationalizations.

The latest up-to-the-minute developments shown on TV, on the NBN-ZTE/Lozada/Neri imbroglio, whether at the La Salle campus or at the Senate and elsewhere, are proof enough to me that Divine Providence is still and truly in charge, despite all the intricate obfuscations high crimes and detestable lies of mice and men.

HALLELUJAH!

In Bad Faith and in BAD, BAD Company…

37-20080212

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

Yesterday, the 11^th of February and 71^st birthday of our youngest sibling Sister Joseph Mary of the Religious of the Good Shepherd, was a thoroughly bad day for both Sister Joseph and myself.

For more than ten hours we had to endure almost the same moral and spiritual sufferings of NBN-ZTE scandal witness Jun Lozada. In fact I may have suffered nearly as acutely as Mr. Lozada, considering that two of my very few surviving friends and comrades during our crusade against the Marcos Martial Law tyranny, were inexplicably but obviously ringleaders in a conspiracy to discredit Mr. Lozada.

I am intimately familiar with the Lozadas’ hometown of Ligao City in Albay province. Many of its “native” families have been wellknown to me and my sister because we have deep parental and social roots in the adjacent town of Guinobatan, a mere ten kilometers from Ligao. And during our adolescent years, native Bicolanos whether from Camarines Sur, Albay or Sorsogon, knew practically everybody who was somebody.

And so whether in the one-horse and “anti-Intsik” Baao hometown of Joker Arroyo and the Bernas brothers, or in the 2-horse poblaciones of Ligao and Guinobatan, we knew more or less at what particular social, intellectual and moral levels prominent Bicolanos were situated. Incidentally up to this day, there is no “Intsik” business establishment that has ever thrived or even survived for long in Baao! If Francis Garchitorena were alive, he and Joaquin Bernas’ younger sibling Justino, would be spending endless hours tracing the whys and wherefores behind Joker Arroyo’s running wild against Ligao’s surprisingly intellectual and courageous whistleblower.

But my instant intellectual and moral admiration for Jun Lozada was not because of, but perhaps even inspite of his Ligao Chinese ancestry.

For Heaven knows that up and coming intellectual muchless moral giants of AT LEAST POSSIBLY of the same mold as Jaime Cardinal Sin, Lorenzo Tañada Sr., and Ninoy Aquino, are now widely presumed to have vanished from our shores particularly in Bicolandia, given the nauseating moral and intellectual STENCH exhuded by a number of its most egregiously TRAPO local politicians.

And so I am sure that yesterday, wherever they were, these three aforementioned dear departed friends and crusading associates of mine, together with Soc Rodrigo and Bicolanos Ramon Diaz, Raul Roco, Francis Garchitorena and my own late Jesuit sibling, Fr. Toti Olaguer, must have all been cheering and praying for the vindication of Jun Lozada, and for the immediate moral conversion of Joker Arroyo and Lito Atienza.

For surely, on the basis of my departed friends’ ultimately authoritative moral dictionary, these latter two erstwhile moral lumimaries, have unfortunately been mired deep in muck far, far worse than bad faith. And thus Joker and Lito are now IN BED with and entrapped in BAD, BAD company….

HYPOCRISHE GONE MAD

36-20080207

TO LIGHT A FIRE!

How much more stupid and brazen can GMA’s stooges and lackeys be?

Worse, these imbeciles/hoodlums seem to presume that the IQ level of the citizenry, ourselves and our Catholic bishops too, are even lower than their own. So much lower, that they think they can fool us by simply lying to our faces, no matter how outlandishly tall their tales.

I do not know whether I had more feelings of pity or more of horror listening to DENR Secretary Lito Atienza during the Malacañang press conference yesterday (February 7, 2008). I never imagined he could sink to the same depths of mendacious incredibility as that so-called police general. For they both seemed to presume that the Filipino people are naive enough to believe that their government “blackguards” were doing Jun Lozada a favor by NOT identifying themselves and NOT bringing him safely straight home to his family. And instead they kept him incommunicado and fearful for his life for more than 12 hours up to early morning of Wednesday.

Secretary Atienza, mouthpiece Bunye and policeman Razon, all sang the same crazy tune – these “blackguards” were supposedly doing their duty of providing security for Mr. Lozada, but against his will!

Thus I now have found reason to echo though belatedly the same deep sense of disappointment, which the authors of the two following articles, (re-produced hereunder), express vis-à-vis our Catholic Bishops’ most recent joint Pastoral Statement. Their protest is against the latter’s kidgloves handling of this benighted GMA administration’s repeated and gross transgressions of God’s commandments, particularly the 2^nd, 5^th, 7^th, 8^th and 10^th.

Yes indeed as our Bishops have called for, we should “Reform Ourselves/Yourselves and Believe in the Gospel!”. But better yet I believe, is for many, many more of these highranking church leaders to lead us by clear example, especially in terms of prayer, penance, humility and moral courage as prophetic witnesses for the truth and against rank injustice! For without these pre-requisites for demonstrated sincerity, our bishops’ proforma appeal for nationwide discernment of the common good, will be morally and spiritually impossible. In fact, if it remains merely proforma, it could even be hypocrisy and a mockery of the Holy Spirit.

Editorial
Rumors or facts?

Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted 01:17:00 02/05/2008

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in a statement issued at the close of its plenary session last week said that the basic fault in the country’s political culture is the subordination of the common good to the private good. But the CBCP places most of the blame for the failure to promote the common good on the people. It did not even so much as slap the wrist of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration for its failure to lead in the effort to promote the common good.

The CBCP did not call the administration to account for the many “sins” that have been imputed to it. On the contrary, it called the many problems of the country “simply rumors, fears, suspicions, imagined wrongs.” “Because these are reported in the newspapers, we begin to believe that they are true.”

Corruption in government is part of the “rumors, fears, suspicions”? Have the bishops not heard or read about the $329-million National Broadband Network deal with ZTE Corp. of China in which hundreds of millions of pesos were given or offered as bribes to certain key officials? Have they not read or heard about the diversion of the P728-million fertilizer fund and the anomalous P1.3-billion poll computerization deal?

The CBCP at least lamented the “inexplicable lack of action” on the extrajudicial killings (881 by the count of the rights group Karapatan; 300 by the Inquirer’s) “despite strong suspicions about their perpetrators in the military establishment.” But will it use its moral influence to pressure the administration to put a stop to these killings and arrest, prosecute and jail the people responsible for them?

The CBCP made no mention in its statement of the deteriorating crime situation. Neither did it mention the problem of poverty which is resulting in the death of thousands of children and is plunging hundreds of thousands of people into the depths of misery, hopelessness and despair. Or perhaps it considered these just “rumors, fears, suspicions” spread by the media?

It is true, as the CBCP has said, that the key to the problems of the nation has its roots in the “subordination of the common good to the private good.” But who should take the lead in promoting the common good? True, change must start with individuals. But the government should set the example in subordinating private interest to the common good. And the Catholic Church, like a good, solicitous parent, has to guide the government toward the right path, toward the path of morality and ethical conduct.

Newsstand
The bishops, between center and periphery

By John Nery
Philippine Daily Inquirer

The Catholic bishops’ latest pastoral statement held no surprises; indeed, it said things that needed to be said. And yet this loyal son of the Catholic Church, who eagerly awaited the statement’s release, must confess to a deep sense of disappointment.

I feel let down, not because of what the statement did not say (it did not, for example, call the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to account for any specific allegation but that was to be expected); I was disappointed because of how it said the things it did say.

I winced, for example, when the bishops attempted a blithe contrast between the country’s problems as perceived in Manila and the problems as perceived everywhere else. They listed five issues -- corruption now allegedly at its worst, the possible return of military rule, renewed attempts to change the Constitution, “extra-judicial” killings, the imminent implementation of a national ID system -- and then pronounced them Manila-centric. “The above are more or less the problems of the nation as seen from the center that is Manila.”

They then made another list, including the “depreciation” in the value of overseas Filipino workers’ (OFWs’) income remittances, continuing problems in land reform, “unabated fighting -- or the threat of it” in certain areas, frustrated election reform, the promotion of mining and the abuse of natural resources and, not least, the continued flourishing of political dynasties, and concluded: “What emerge from the periphery -- the provinces -- are concerns quite different from the above.”

I’m afraid the bishops have been less than intellectually honest. The problems they place in the box labeled Manila are in fact nationwide in scope. Let me cite just one instance; most of the politically motivated killings took place outside Metro Manila. In other words, the blood of hundreds of victims watered the countryside, not the capital. Indeed, as the Alston final report indicated, the large cities of Davao and Cebu have also been stained by the blood of victims, killed extra-judicially. These two cities, under Rodrigo Duterte and Tomas Osmeña, are the center of major archdioceses too, under the pastoral care of two of the country’s most influential prelates. The last time I looked, neither city was part of Manila.

The problems the bishops privilege as emerging exclusively from the provinces can be found in Metro Manila’s all-too-convenient box too. Let me cite just two instances. The deep longing for election reform is not unknown in the national capital. (Unsatisfied for so long, it almost approximates our spiritual thirst; it too is like a deer that yearns for running streams.) And the unfortunate effect of a strong peso on a remittance-fueled economy is felt as keenly in Metro Manila as it is in the provinces. Why, are there no OFW families in the capital?

Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps mental dishonesty is imprecise. Perhaps what our bishops were trying to do was indulge a quasi-Kantian rage for symmetry. First this, then that. There is the center, and there is the periphery. In doing so, however, in making a false distinction between the signs of the times in Metro Manila and in the rest of the country, the bishops of my own Church, I fear, have slighted truth itself.

I am also somewhat bothered by the difference in language used. The appeal for closure to long-running controversies (the content of many news stories) is couched diffidently, in the language of qualification. “Today we often hear that ‘closure’ has to be made to various issues ranging from the elections of 2004 to present charges of corruption in high places.” When we parse this passage, we see that the bishops are not directly saying closure is needed; they have merely acknowledged that the call for closure is often heard.

Contrast this with the stirring language of assertion in the latter passages, with, say, their (profound) analysis of the root cause of our many ills. “We zero in on what we say is the basic fault in our communities’ political and social life: the subordinating of the common good to private good. We see how this flaw in our national character evinces itself in our community life. We need to seek ways and means of correcting it in whatever way we can ... We have to form ourselves into real communities of faith-discernment and -action.”

Perhaps qualification was needed to arrive at a consensus among shepherds. (Another example: “For we live today as a people almost without hope, it would seem.”) But it is the language of assertion that guides the sheep.

CBCP Statement : “Reform Yourselves and Believe in the Gospel!” (Mark 1:15)

printable page

Beloved People of God:

Our Holy Father in his most recent letter to us reminds us of the gift of faith and hope: that when we believe, we hope; and that when we hope, we live differently (see Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, November 30, 2007, no. 2). These convictions on faith and hope set the tone of our own letter to you in the present pastoral situation.

The Darkness of Our Situation—the Common Good Subordinated

For we live today as a people almost without hope, it would seem. We look at our landscape and see darkness everywhere. Many of us are more than aware that many problems are simply rumors, fears, suspicions, imagined wrongs. Because these are reported in the newspapers, we begin to believe that they are true.

In such a pastoral situation we are being asked again for guidance on various specific problems currently bothering us. The following have been brought to our attention:

(a) the perception that corruption in government is at its worst, fraudulent projects going on unchecked despite the bad publicity given them in the media, investigations into the truth of allegations of bribery often stymied or their results unreported;

(b) the suspicion that martial law will be imposed as a response to the likelihood that destabilizing coups against the government are still being planned by disgruntled elements of the military allegedly with some civilian support;

(c) the constant talk about plans and moves for Charter change being made by politicians which to all intents and purposes appear to be nothing but a ploy for the sole purpose of their staying on in power—not the kind and method of making the right kind of change in the nation’s basic law;

(d) the “extra-judicial” killing of suspected leftists and their sympathizers, as well as media men, and the inexplicable lack of action on them despite strong suspicions about their perpetrators in the military establishment;

(e) the imminence of a law establishing a national ID system and the fear of some that this is being pushed simply for easier control of socially active elements of the general population.

The above are more or less the problems of the nation as seen from the center that is Manila. They are by no means universal as far as the entirety of our people is concerned. What emerge from the periphery—the provinces—are concerns quite different from the above. The following were brought to our attention by many of our people:

(a) the appreciation of the peso against the dollar resulting in the depreciation of OFWs’ remittances, contributing not a little to the continuance and exacerbation of the endemic poverty of the countryside;

(b) the lack of support for the improvement of the general welfare of rural folk, the slow progress especially of the land-reform program which is due to end this year unsatisfactorily funded and implemented;

(c) the bad peace and order situation obtaining in areas where the unabated fighting—or the threat of it—between the military and the NPA and the MILF/MNLF continues to cause unrest;

(d) the long-awaited and fought over reform of COMELEC which up to now has not been enacted;

(e) the pushing of mining concerns against the best interests of our people, especially of indigenous groups in disregard of the provisions in their behalf that the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act guarantees;

(f) the continuing abuse of our natural resources, of forest and marine life in particular, and the corruption in agencies that are meant to protect these resources; and

(g) the growth and proliferation of family political dynasties in many provinces and cities which only serve to institutionalize more intensely the concentration of power and unsavory economic opportunity in the hands of the few.

In the two sets of problems that have been listed above, for all their apparent differences, we see nothing new. They are the same old problems, or variations of them, which have been plaguing our nation for years on end, through successive political administrations. Nothing or very little seems to have been done about them.

In them all we see the all too patent subordination of the common good to private good.

This is the basic fault in our country’s political culture that the Church in its preaching of Christ’s Gospel of social justice and charity has been bringing to our attention all these years and asking us and our communities to respond to as effectively as we can. It is the reason we make concern for the common good a crucial criterion for the choice of public officials. The persistence of that deep-seated fault pushes us to conclude in sorrow that we as a people are still devoid of a real social conscience.

Today we often hear that “closure” has to be made to various issues ranging from the elections of 2004 to present charges of corruption in high places. That the political order is accused too often with moral bankruptcy with nary an exception is a sad sign of the general cynicism and frustration of our people. Most unfortunately there does not seem to be any way of achieving closure. For the process and results of standard democratic inquiries, sometimes including those by the Supreme Court, are received with skepticism and cynicism, given political interests, alliances, and allegiances.

And we hear the general cry from the periphery: “Enough of the paralyzing divisions in the body politic. Bring issues to the courts and trust them to do their jobs. And help us get on with our lives, with our concern for livelihood.”

In the Darkness, Light

In such a pastoral situation of frustration, cynicism and apparent hopelessness, we need to be aware of the deep resources of our faith in the Lord for whom all things are possible. We take our faith for granted in daily life. Often we act and behave contrary to faith. We resort to faith as a last resort and not as a daily catalyst.

Yet it is only from the perspective of faith and hope that we are able to see light in the darkness, liberation from darkness.

So if what we have brought to your attention seems to be only the dark side of our national situation, we should be able in the same faith and hope to see glimmers of light shining through—glimmers that must be of our own creation. But not entirely: for despite the prevailing darkness, we see everything is not thoroughly evil. There is good everywhere, even in those we often criticize, and it is our task to critically collaborate with them even as we critically oppose the not too good. This is integral to the challenge being put to us.

Journey to the Light—Start with Ourselves

If you agree with what we said above that the lack of a social conscience is, indeed, our common sin, is there anything we can do about it?

To journey to the light, we need first to realize that we have contributed not a little to the common malaise—because of decisions we have made, decisions that flowed from what we have become and because of our unconcern, inaction, apathy, often thinking only of our interests. And so with little sense of the future of our country, we vote for people we should not vote for.

Therefore, in the much needed regeneration of our politics and social life, this is where we have to start: with ourselves, as individuals, families, communities.

We have always put the blame on people we have chosen to govern us. Today we have become more aware that despite efforts, successful or not, to remove the incompetent or corrupt, our problems have remained. We have looked at the enemy as only outside of us.

But now we ask: In the face of the many persistent and unresolved crises of today can we together make a determined start, by making a conscious effort at changing our mind-sets towards a greater and more efficacious concern for the good of the nation?

Personal and Communal Conversion towards a Social Conscience

We are asking you, our beloved people, to be with us in the moral-spiritual reform of our nation by beginning with ourselves. This is what we need—conversion, real conversion, to put it in terms of our faith, for all of us to deliberately, consciously develop that social conscience that we say we sorely lack and to begin subordinating our private interests to the common good. This conversion is for all of us: laity, religious, priests, bishops.

But we have to go about it not only as individuals but just as importantly as whole communities. We have to face a common problem and map out deliberately and communally how to go about the work of self-reform. It is nothing less than what St. Paul speaks about: “Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and pleasing to him and is perfect” (Rom. 12: 2).

Renewal of Faith-Communities, Civil Society, Political Leaders

We have to come together then as communities of faith, as we your Bishops said back in 1986 after the Snap Elections of that year, to “pray together, reason together, decide together, act together,” form groups of thinking and praying people—in our schools, seminaries, parishes, mandated organizations, lay movements, social action groups, most especially in basic ecclesial communities which the Rural Congress we will be holding this year looks to as a crucial instrument in the forbidding task of rural development.

We zero in on what we say is the basic fault in our communities’ political and social life: the subordinating of the common good to private good. We see how this flaw in our national character evinces itself in our community life. We need to seek ways and mean of correcting it in whatever way we can—but always according to the principles of active-non violence—together, creatively and imaginatively, as we bishops exhorted in 1986. We have to form ourselves into real communities of faith-discernment and -action.

We ask this of explicitly Church groups. But we will ask it too of all citizens who have a concern for the nation’s good, especially those who hold the reins of power, from Malacañang on to Congress, provincial and municipal governments, all the way down to barangay councils. People in government—and as well as all other civic and business groupings—can they too reflect together in all manner of associations and look into themselves to see if, in all their actuations, the demands of the common good are in fact captive to merely personal and selfish interests? And if they are, can they rise up to the challenge and decide themselves to contribute to the general effort?

This must sound like a preposterous request, but we make it anyway for we believe that what it seeks is the critical need of the moment. Already it is being responded to here and there by various concerned groups such as those that have been organized and trained to fight corruption. So we seek a wider response from all our faithful towards a more vigorous work for good governance and a more active promotion of responsible citizenship in our society in the light of the Gospel and the social teachings of the Church.

If in your minds, corruption—the worst offender against our common good—is rampant today, sparing no level of social and political life, and most glaringly and reportedly so in the various corridors of power, we have to confess that corruption is in truth our greatest shame as a people. But if it goes on unhindered, it is because, as we have had occasion to point out in the past, we all too often condone it as part of the perquisites of power and public office.

Lent—the Time to Journey Together toward Transformation

Lent will soon be upon us, a time of penance, of sorrow for sin, of self-reform. Soon we shall hear again the clarion call of the Lord Jesus: “Reform your lives and believe in the Gospel!” (Mk 1: 15). This season is the appropriate beginning for profound reform and conversion. It is the time for a spiritual combat against the enemy within, our pride and greed, our lust for power and wealth, etc.

And so we exhort you, our beloved people: As a special project for this year’s Lenten observance and in the spirit of penance, let us come together in little groups of reflection and discernment. In these groups we look seriously at our part in the many evils of our day—as individuals, as families, as communities—and discern what action we can do together.

Alay Kapwa is our traditional Lenten Program of sharing time, treasure and talent for evangelization. This Lent, without forgetting the treasure part, we zero in, in a very special way, on time and talent, asking what we can offer of these for the common effort towards the correction of our social ills. These would be evangelization of the most authentic kind. For it means a real acceptance of the Lord’s mandate to us as Christians to be concerned about one another, to go beyond ourselves and reach out to others. This attitude in the pattern of Christ himself is at the heart of Christian identity.

Hence other already existing movements and efforts (like the Pondo ng Pinoy) aimed at the transformation of Filipino culture through little acts of kindness for the neighbor and motivated only by the love of God—these too must be intensified as essential to our Lenten program of reform.

In our coming together, in our exchanging of ideas and discerning on them, in our praying and acting together, we bring hope to our despairing land—the hope that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, says in his most recent encyclical is the great need of our modern world.

With Mary, Mother of Hope, on the Journey of Renewal

We beg Mary to intercede for us with her Son Jesus. In the midst of the disciples who hoped for the renewal of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, she stood as their Mother, our Mother, of hope. Mary, Star of the Sea, guide us on our journey of renewal that we may more faithfully follow your Son Jesus in his loving care of all our brothers and sisters.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,

+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
January 27, 2008

Novo Anno Ineunte: What must we do?

35-20080102

At the start of every New Year, many of us are faced with the same basic age-old dilemma of what to do during the coming year that will hopefully correct our mistakes and blunders of the past.

Those who heard some 2,000 years ago, Peter's bold public proclamation during that first Pentecost Sunday, about Christ's supreme sovereignty over mankind, blurted out the same age-old question. (Acts 2:37)

And this was St. Peter's reply according to St. Luke:

“Each of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise of God was made to you and to your children, and to all those from afar whom our God may call....Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” (Acts 2:38-40)

Peter's 263^th successor Pope John Paul II re-emphasized that quintessential Christian solution to our secular world's dilemma, in his last major Apostolic Letter Novo Milennio Ineunte, as follows:

We are certainly not seduced by the naive expectations that, faced with the great challenges of our time, we shall find some magic formula. No, we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person, and the assurance which He gives us: “I am with you!”

It is not therefore a matter of inventing a “new programme”. The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition – it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ Himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in Him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with Him transform history until its fulfillment in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millenium. (End of quote)

Returning once more to that underlying principle of the primacy of Divine Providence, which guided both his personal life and philosophy of pontifical governance, John Paul II added the following elucidation:

If in the planning that awaits us we commit ourselves more confidently to a pastoral activity that gives personal and communal prayer its proper place, we shall be observing an essential principle of the Christian view of life: the primary of grace.

There is a temptation which perennially besets every spiritual journey and pastoral work: that of thinking that the results depend on our ability to act and to plan. God of course asks us really to cooperate with His grace, and therefore invites us to invest all our resources of intelligence and energy in serving the cause of the Kingdom. But it is fatal to forget that “without Christ we can do nothing”! (John 15:5)

It is prayer which roots us in this truth... (NMI)

Stanislaw Cardinal Dziwisz, John Paul II's personal secretary for 39 years has often given public testimony of his patron's personal observance of total dependence on Christ through a strict personal regimen of private prayerfullness. Thus we know that Karol Wojtyla often prayed while prostrate on the floor with his arms in the form of a cross, and that the “Pontiff lived, like a saint”!

And in his successor's first encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI reminds the Catholic lay faithful that they too must similarly be “illuminated by faith, by the Church Magisterium and animated by the Charity of Christ” as a sine qua non requirement while performing our duties in “working for a just order in society”, particularly in the world of politics.

His second encyclical tied Hope and Charity together with the same thread: “Anyone who does not know God, even though he may entertain all kinds of hopes, is ultimately without hope, without the great hope that sustains the whole of life. Man's great, true hope which holds firm in spite of all disappointments can only be God--God who has loved us and who continues to love us 'to the end', until all is accomplished”. (Spe salvi, 27)

In fact in almost every public occasion our Papa Bene repeats the same basic theme just like Peter and John Paul II had done.

Thus, to the Bishops of Poland he used the same primacy of Christ-centeredness and prayer as the “secret” behind the New Evagelization, so as to achieve “collaboration” among bishops, priests, religious and the laity. More specifically he called on the bishops to observe “chastity, the practice of poverty, the spirit of prayer, simplicity, delicacy of conscience” so that the diocese will reflect its “bishop's way of being” because the “model of Christ” will never be surpassed nor become obsolete.

Again, on the solemnity of the birth of St. John the Baptist last June 24, Papa Bene called on the Church “to bear witness to the truth without compromise, and not to be afraid to “denounce transgressions of God's commandments” even if it will offend people in power.

On the last Sunday of October at the evening prayer of the Angelus, he exhorted the mostly lay faithful in the audience at St.Peter's Square, to strive for “this martyrdom of ordinary life” as witness against prevailing secular distortions of truth even to the extent of “heroic testimony and bold participation”.

A few days later during the mid-day Angelus the Pope used Zacchaeus' heroic conversion to exemplify God's love “flowing from the Heart of Jesus and working through the heart of man” as the force that renews the world. And from Zacchaeus as a model for us lay people of this “crooked generation”, he also offered St. Charles Borromeo the famous Archbishop of Milan, as a model for our bishops today. For “exemplarity in charity, doctrine, apostolic zeal and above all prayer! And, Papa Bene then summarized it all: “We conquer souls on our knees!”

Three weeks later, Pope Benedict XVI pleaded for heroic sanctity from the 23 new cardinals during the homily of their public consistory, no less emphatically. He asked them to “share in Christ's passion without claiming recompense .... as servants... even to the shedding of blood!”

I have gone to all the details of recalling those words of wisdom from Peter and his last two 21^st century successors, in order to demonstrate the stark contrast between their spirit-inspired exhortations as against the namby-pamby public rhetoric of some of our national leaders whether lay, clerical, religious or Church hierarchy, who seem to have placed their faith in our politicians' hypocritical appeals for national moral reform, and/or in their own beating-around-the-bush type of homilies.

And so to drive home the point, I shall re-quote the last two paragraphs from the 12 November 2007 valedictory address of His Excellency Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Washington as the outgoing president of the U.S. Episcopal conference. It fits in perfectly with all the previous quotations! Hopefully therefore, ALL our local bishops and priests and nuns and faithful laity, may be similarly inspired and thus united under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

«The example of Mother Teresa should cause us to reflect as Bishops. What is the state of our souls? Our leadership must be rooted in the humility of a life of prayer, every day and before the Eucharist. It must embrace Christ in the humbleness of the Sacrament of Penance. Our leadership as shepherds will never be authentic if our souls are not one with Christ the shepherd. The words of Mother Teresa herself are fit for our own meditation as Bishops in service to God's people: "It is in being humble that our love becomes real, devoted and ardent. If you are humble nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace, because you know what you are. If you are blamed you will not be discouraged. If they call you a saint you will not put yourself on a pedestal."

As we enter into this new style of collaboration, we may have yet more opportunities to practice charity and humility! Of course, we will not always agree on everything. A good leader, however, recognizes that he does not have all of the insights, all of the answers. As leaders, we are called to recognize the value that each person brings to the conversation, and to recognize that our primary role is to bring about unity in truth. That unity often comes at a price: it costs us our egos; it costs us our individualism. It is a pearl purchased at a great price, but it is a pearl that is priceless.»

AMEN!