Oblivious

The Philippine Star reports that Bishops are calling for a boycott of an exhibit that the Bishops think is sacrilegious. The exhibit, s where, "some of the works featured phallic images and condoms juxtaposed with religious icons", is being held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Bishop Deogracias Iniguez calls for a boycott because, the artists "“...should be very sensitive and respectful to the people…they should respect the religion of others,”.   Which tells of a lack of self awareness from a member of a church who actively opposes a bill, that would provide contraceptive options to Filipinos whose religions allow their use.  A religion that actively opposes a bill, that will allow people whose belief does not forbid them, to divorce.

Maybe the good Bishop should heed his call and respect the religion of others.  The Bishops can call on their flock to not use contraceptives and to not divorce,  they should respect the religion of others who wants to.

Another Bishop

Former Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz, who previously served as CBCP president, said he saw a video of the “sick” exhibit.

“The ones who did those things are sick. They are not only sick, what they did was also sickening. No one in his right mind with the proper values system would even think of doing such a thing. I wonder if those who did those desecration would allow me to do those things to them… Meaning to say, to put those items on their faces and bodies and to desecrate them with all those items, like a used condom,” Cruz said.

He seem to have not noticed that no actual person's face and/or body was used in the making of the exhibited item.  It is the Bishop who is threatening to do the things he thinks are disgusting to live human beings.

I don't think anybody within the Catholic hierarchy ever challenges this bishops when they voice their ideas,  they seem so oblivious to the contradictions within their own pronouncements.

Evidence not Testimony

Madami na namang testigo na lumalabas na nagpapatunay na nadaya si GMA sa eleksyon.  Ang hindi ko nakikita ay ang ebidensiya na nadaya nga si GMA.  Kung puro testimonya lang, maski si Garci pa yan, madaling siraan ang mga testimonya na yan.  Ang kailangan natin ebidensiya, kung walang ebidensiya, wag na nating pag aksayahan ng panahon ito.

Worst Defense of PCSO Bishops

Antonio Montalvan has a column today with probably the worst defense for the PCSO bishops ever.  Worse than the non-sequitur defense by Teddy Locsin, Jr.  His defense is basically, the bishops need the vehicles to perform their priestly duties, therefore good. Long quotes below

A few years ago, a Catholic bishop assigned to a Mindanao diocese resigned from his post for health reasons. The good bishop had a chronic back problem that was exacerbated by the performance of his duties. A bishop has to make what is known as a pastoral visit to all the parishes under his diocese, besides numerous other duties. He has to look after the social action programs being implemented. In Mindanao, most dioceses have a very active program for indigenous peoples. Few people in Manila perhaps have knowledge of the vast Mindanao terrain where the hinterlands can only be traversed on unpaved roads.

then

That bishop had to eventually resign. His work was, literally, back-breaking. Not even a 4×4 vehicle could alleviate the pain he was suffering. His resignation was accepted by the Pope.

Distance and the primitiveness of roads are a reality in Mindanao that Margie Juico of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office surely does not know. I wonder now if she can sleep well at night. She has just committed one of the most serious blunders a public servant can ever do—to accuse and impute malice where there was none.

The only reason, according to Father Bernas that government money can be appropriated for religious institutions is if the money is to be used for secular purposes.  And that rationalizations the bishops kept repeating publicly,  that the vehicles they got were used for the poor, and not to promote religion.  And here is this man, demolishing the bishops own public rationalizations for getting those vehicles.

He probably should have stuck to the new meme the bishop defenders are using, that the PCSO scandal was done to tarnish bishops so they will be less proficient in their opposition to the RH Bill.  Never mind that the allegations were true, the bishops did get money from the PCSO and GMA.  Never mind that no investigation was ever done whether the vehicles were actually used primarily for secular purposes and not for religious ones.  The government and the church does not want any kind of confrontation at this time.

update

Here is Senator Drilon's explanation on secular purpose

"He said under the Constitution, financial aid from the government cannot be used by a religious organization for religious purposes.

“Pero kung pagbigay ng pera ay for religious purposes, yan po ang bawal. At sa nakalipas na araw na ating tinatalakay ang isyu, eh wala pong ebidensya na ito ay ginamit para sa religious purposes,” he told dzMM’s Tambalang Failon at Webb.

He, however, said that any religious organization can still receive financial aid from the government as long as its purpose is for charity.

“Kung ang pagbigay ng pera sa simbahan ay for charity work, hindi po taliwas yan sa ating Saligang Batas,” he said.

He said in the case of the Catholic prelates, there is no direct evidence proving that they indeed used the vehicles for religious purposes such as going to remote areas to hold mass.

and

Drilon added that the type of vehicles given to the prelates is also not an issue.

“Hindi [isyu] yung whether it is a Montero or a dilapidated pick-up. Ang isyu eh, eto ba ay ginamit upang tulungan ang simbahang Katoliko,” he said.

Ricky Gervais lies about being Catholic

Chutzpah

Ang kapal naman ng mukha ng mga obispong katoliko,  kamakalawa lang ay humihingi sila ng paumanhin sa ginawa nila.  Ngayon naman sila na ang gustong makakuha na paumanhin.  Para bagang hindi nangayari yung panghihingi at pagtanggap nila ng milyung pera galing kay Presidente Arroyo at sa PCSO.  Para bagang dahil sa sabi ng Senado ay wala silang ginawang ilegal ay wala na silang nagawang imoral.

Kapal

The Hypocrisy of Miriam

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is quoted in the Inquirer today saying 

“The COA report said that this action was a violation of the constitutional provision that no public money should be appropriated, directly or indirectly, for the use of any church,” said Santiago, chairperson of the Senate constitutional amendments committee.

“Under the Constitution, the power of the COA is to audit government funds, not to settle questions of constitutional law. The power is granted only to the Supreme Court,” she said.

She said the COA, instead of declaring the donations to the bishops as unconstitutional, should have instead recommended that the constitutional issue be raised in the Department of Justice, the official legal adviser of the executive branch of the government.

Yet with a simple google search, we find her declaring several bills and actions unconstitutional.

In her blog she writes this

"If the House of Representatives passes the Nograles resolution by mere majority vote, then it will be unconstitutional. We are not allowed to conflate an ordinary bill with a charter change resolution. There is simply no correspondence between the two measures."

and this

"Last week, she released an opinion that it might be unconstitutional for the Senate to detain former agriculture secretary Jocelyn Bolante for the fertilizer fund scam, leading the Senate to release him."

 GMA News quotes her saying

Santiago said the bill is unconstitutional because it violates Article 2 Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which says that the state shall "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."

 and the TUCP quotes her saying

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago branded as unconstitutional and discriminatory a bill seeking to ban women from working for at least 11 consecutive hours during the night....Santiago said the bill would violate Article II Section 14 of the Constitution, which states: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”

So apparently, only blowhard senators are allowed to declare things unconstitutional.

Catholic Exceptionalism 3

Catholicism in the Philippines is so entrenched in our culture that catholics seem to think that what is good for catholicism is good for the country. I wrote 2 previous posts on how this kind of thinking is hurting non catholics by restricting freedoms to what is allowable from the perspective of catholicism.

Now we have Manoling Morato not seeing anything wrong with giving millions of pesos to catholic clergy and institutions for helping the poor.  I won't go into the question of whether the gifts awarded were actually used to serve the poor, but look at this post from TheNashman which mirrors my reaction, but go straight to what I think is the more important matter.

Will Mr. Manoling Morato not see anything wrong if the Philippine government gives vehicles to the Iglesia ni Cristo?  or to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  What about Buddhists?  or Muslims? If yes,  why did they not give any to them?

Mr. Morato is blinded by his catholicism to think that giving to catholics is normal,  this is precisely the reason why our constitution gives Filipinos freedom of conscience, and restricts the government from favoring any one religion. Because if it doesn't catholics and catholicism will be favored among all others, and that can lead to tyranny, to the way the Philippines was ruled during the time of Rizal when every catholic priest was a law unto themselves,  which, judging from how some bishops got to acquiring their vehicle from the government, some still seem to think so.

One Day Old Chick

One Day Old Chick, Maria Victoria B. Choco

Bugok na Itlog, Jose Carlos B. Choco

Weclome to the world babies

Kasal kasalan

Nuong isang araw,  nang gagalaite yung mga obispo ng simbahang kotliko dahil may mga kinasal na tomboy sa Baguio.  Gusto pa ng nila ipakulong yung mga kinasal dahil daaw labag sa batas ang kanilang ginawa, buti na lang at hindi sila pinatulan ng gobyerno kasi kung labag sa batras ang ginawa nung mga tomboy sa Baguio, pano na yung mga bata na naglalaro ng bahay bahayan at kasal kasalan araw araw.

Ngayon naman, ang argumento nila ay hindi puede magpakasal ang mga bakla at tomboy sa isa't isa dahil

...marriage is between man and woman and part of procreation and rearing of children.


“The conclusions from [these observation] is obvious: There can be no marriage between two individuals of the same sex, there can be no sexual union between parties of the same sex and there can be no possibility of the birth of children between two persons of the same sex,” he said.

 Ang kasal daw ay para magkaanak.  Ang buong akala ko, nagpapakasal ang dalawang tao dahil minamahal nila ang isa't isa.  Hindi pala,  ayon sa obispo ng simbahang katoliko, basta babae at lalaki kayong gusto magpakasal, maski hindi kayo nagmamahalan, maski galit kayo sa isa't isa, maski nagpapakasal lang kayo dahil sa pera o para maging citizen ng bansa,  maski pinilit lang kayo ng inyong pamilya,  mas importante ang mga dahilang ito sa pagpapakasal kaysa sa pagmamahalan,  Sa mga obispo, walang papel ang pagmamahalan sa pagpapakasal.

Sa pagigigng inahing baboy naman ng babae,  palusot lang naman ito ng mga obispo,  kung talagang ang pagpapakasal ay para maging inahing baboy ang mga babae, bakit nagkakasal ang simbahan ng mga matatanda na menopause na?  Bakit hindi kasama sa requirements ng simbahan ang fertility test sa mga nagpapakasal?  Bakit sinasabi ng mga madre ay kasal na kay Hesukristo?

Walang magandang dahilan ang simbahan para ipagbawal ang pagpapakasal ng 2 tao na nagmamahalan maliban sa hindi nila ito gusto.  Sa bigkas ni Bishop Bacani, kadire kasi, pero hindi porket kadiri ang isang bagay sa ibang tao ay dapat na itong ipagbawal, lalo na kung wala namang nasasaktan dito.  Ano ba naman ang epekto sa inyo ng pagpapakasal ng 2 bakla o tomboy, buhay nila yon, hayaaan niyo sila.

Waste of money

Catholic strategy for the prevention of HIV infection can be summed up in 4 words, "Do not have sex".  Yet, the Philippine government via the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office gave a church based organization, AIDS-Free Philippines, 500,000 to 1.5 million pesos per year from the time of former President Estrada until 2009 to precisely promote this.

Which would have been bad in itself, promoting only the AB (Abstinence and Be Monogamous) without the C option (use Condom) for those who cannot do the AB is counter productive.  The catholic church has been trying to teach AB since before I was born and Filipinos are still begetting children before getting married and having sex outside of marriage.  So only promoting the first 2 options promotes the spread of HIV through ignorance.

But it's worse than that,  the AIDS-Free Philippines organization actively opposes the use of condoms, 

"In 2004, Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer, Director of AIDS-Free Philippines and Executive Director of Human Life International (HLI) Visayas-Mindanao, observed that:

“The discrepancy in the infection rates between the two countries, Thailand with severe condom- oriented programs and the Philippines without, has continued and only grown wider. As of August 2003 there were 899,000 HIV/AIDS cases documented in Thailand and approximately 125,000 deaths attributed to the disease. These numbers are many times those projected by the WHO (60,000-80,000 cases) in 1991. These numbers contrast sharply with those of the Philippines where, as of September 30, 2003, there were 1,946 AIDS cases resulting in 260 deaths. This is only a mere fraction of the number of cases (80,000-90,000) that the WHO projected would be reached by 2000.”31

The huge discrepancy continues, with Thailand having 610,000 [low estimate: 410 000; high estimate: 880,000] people living with HIV and death according to the UNAIDS/WHO. In contrast, the Philippines has only 8,300 [low: 6,000; high: 11,000] persons living with HIV. The numbers are even
more striking considering that the Philippines has a much larger population than Thailand.32
There is also more evidence from other countries that questions the effectiveness of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS. A study in Uganda by Kajubi et al. (2005) concluded that condoms were not effective at lowering HIV infections: “In this study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners. Prevention interventions in generalized epidemics need to promote all aspects of sexual risk reduction to slow HIV transmission.”33
Dr Edward Green of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project, in his book Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries, contested the efficacy of condoms and HIV counseling and testing, the preferred prevention strategies of Western donor nations and the U.N.
Green said:

“The largely medical solutions funded by major donors have had little impact in Africa, the continent hardest hit by AIDS. Instead, relatively simple, low-cost behavioral change programs–stressing increased monogamy and delayed sexual activity for young people–have made the greatest headway in fighting or preventing the disease’s spread. Ugandans pioneered these simple, sustainable interventions and achieved significant results.”34

Tim Allen and Suzette Heald, in a comparison of AIDS policy in Uganda and Botswana, also noted:

“Promotion of condoms at an early stage proved to be counter-productive in Botswana, whereas the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s contributed to the relative
success of behaviour change strategies in Uganda.”35

Their opposition to condom use for the prevention of HIV infection boils down to, people do not use them correctly, therefore they are ineffective.  If used correctly, condoms provide up to 98% protection against HIV infection.  They argue that, behavioral change is more effective in preventing the spread of HIV,  we are not  disputing that, but correct and consistent use of condoms is also behavioral, what is the difference then? Then, there is the problem of what to do with people who are already infected with HIV,  are they barred from having sex the rest of their lives?  Condom use is the only way HIV infected people can have sex with their partners without overly worrying about infecting them.

So we have here an organization, that was funded by the Philippine government, supposedly dedicated to the prevention of HIV infection among Filipinos actually promoting the spread of HIV among Filipinos, now that is a waste of money.