Interdicts, faith, Cardinals, and morals

March 19, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

The Catholic Church has its system of laws, under an Apostolic Constitution known as the Code of Canon Law, and while my preference is for a society that is secular,I am not opposed, in principle, to religion, just as I am not opposed to the expression of Catholic principles in politics. Most of all, in the political sphere I do believe that Catholic principles should be understood, even by non-Catholics, so that as Catholics and non-Catholics alike work out a healthy relationship between individual faith and political action, non-Catholics or the secularly-inclined can understand where Catholics are coming from.

Catholicism is a hierarchical religion, and administratively, organized under imperial Roman lines, one of the Pope’s titles being that of Supreme Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus), one of the titles of the emperors of Rome; archbishops and bishops rule of over dioceses, a term borrowed from the administrative setup of the Roman empire. Spiritually, it is organized on both a hierarchical and collegial lines, as bishops are successors of the Apostles, of whom the first among equals was Peter:

And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will my church be based, and the doors of hell will not overcome it.

As a religion that happens to have a government, the governing power of Catholicism is exercised by the Pope in a political sense (as sovereign of the Vatican City state), and in a spiritual sense, by the Pope together with the bishops. In matters of faith and morals, the Pope is infallible when proclaiming dogma: for example, Pius XII’s proclamation of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin as dogma; infallibility is also granted the hierarchy of the Church when they gather in Ecumenical Council for the same purpose, for example, most recently, Vatican II. Within their dioceses, bishops, too, have the supreme authority when it comes to matters of faith and morals. Much of Canon Law is devoted to maintaining the authority and privileges of hierarchy, and in enumerating both the powers and responsibilities of the governing authorities of Catholicism as well as accompanying grievance mechanisms (appeals, tribunals, punishments and so forth).

The question of Cardinal Vidal’s instructions to the clergy of his diocese, should then be viewed in the context of the Cardinal’s powers as Archbishop of Cebu, the justifications for wielding those powers, and whether they were an abuse or within his authority to order; and its implications for Catholics.

Because of the cultivation of the episcopacy by the administration (an unprecedented religious affairs office, with presidential assistants ministering to the needs of the hierarchy), a partisan and not just political dimension has emerged in the goings-on among the hierarchy. See God and Gloria in the Asia Times:

That’s in part because Arroyo has deftly played the religion card. The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country and senior bishops have in the past flexed their moral authority to affect political outcomes, including elections and crucial laws and legislation.
But a series of controversial incidents, many involving financial links to Arroyo’s administration, has called the clergy’s own legitimacy into question. Nueva Vizcaya Bishop Ramon Villena recently admitted in a newspaper report that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), the lottery run by the Office of the President, had given him 1.6 million pesos (US$39,000) to build a hospital for the poor in his home province. However, the total assistance given to Villena’s province, according to the report, was 3.2 million pesos.
The report also showed that the Catholic Church-run Radio Veritas received more than 2 million pesos in ad placements from the PCSO, which while not necessarily a new development, represented a huge increase in the amount of government funds doled out for similar initiatives in the past.
“That gifts or money would blind the eyes of bishops and seal their lips to gross corruption when solidly proven would be a tragic contradiction to their experience as pastors at Edsa I and Edsa II,” said Cotabato Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, a former CBCP president, referring to the clergy’s participation in past people’s power movements which overthrew corrupt governments.
The CBCP’s current president, Lagdameo, while quiet on previous scandals involving Arroyo and despite the issuance of carefully worded joint CBCP statements, has personally attacked the embattled premier since the ZTE scandal broke out. Two of his statements called on the people to engage in “communal action” and get involved in a “brand new people power”, which was interpreted by many as calling for a new people’s power movement. Lagdameo’s statements were strongly criticized by pro-Arroyo bishops.
Before Lagdameo took the CBCP’s helm, its previous leader, Fernando Capalla, was a personal friend to Arroyo. Church insiders say that Capalla, who also sat as one of the government’s peace negotiators in talks with Muslim secessionists, was frequently escorted by presidential guards from the airport whenever he flew into Manila.
It was thus notable, some say, that during Capalla’s tenure when explosive vote-rigging charges against Arroyo broke that the bishops did not support calls for her resignation or impeachment. When a government agent who claimed responsibility for wiretapping a conversation between Arroyo and a senior election official in 2004 in which the two appear to have predetermined vote counts for various constituencies across the country took refuge at a Manila seminary, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales ordered that he be turned over to the military.
Rosales, who is a relative to one of Arroyo’s closest aides, has admitted in press interviews that he has received a 1 million peso donation from the Presidential Palace for his various livelihood projects targeting Manila’s poor populations. As successor to the incorruptible Cardinal Sin, many Filipinos have looked on Rosales to be a strong voice against government abuse.
Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, who was the CBCP’s president when the clergy called for a civil disobedience campaign after Marcos rigged the results of 1986 snap elections against Corazon Aquino, has likewise shot down calls for the clergy to endorse Arroyo’s resignation. Despite his key role in orchestrating Marcos’ ouster, the senior clergyman has said a declaration against Arroyo is beyond the clergy’s authority and should be left to the political opposition.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Cebu’s moderate statements have put him in the line of fire. Cardinal Vidal faced questioning (see Vidal-GMA â€˜secret meetâ€™: Public asked not to make conclusion and Cardinal explains ’secret meeting’) on whether he met the President at Wack-Wack and His Eminence told the press,

But in an interview with reporters yesterday, Cardinal Vidal narrated that he went to Tagaytay from a meeting in Rome. He then came home to Cebu but had to go again to Manila the following day to officiate at the marriage of â€œa big benefactorâ€ of the Alliance of Two Hearts Parish.

â€œIt just so happened that I was there. The house (I stayed in) is overlooking Wack-Wack. Thereâ€™s a balcony there. While waiting for a (fellow archbishop) to join me for a mass, I was there (on the balcony). From afar, I could be seen easily but I did not notice them (the First Couple). Beyond the fence, there is a road and it seems that she (Arroyo) saw me but I didnâ€™t see her,â€ said Vidal.

He added that President Arroyo, who was golfing with her husband, called the house and told him that she would be passing by to say hello.

â€œImagine, the President of the Philippines visiting me. But I didnâ€™t give her any spiritual advice. It was not the proper time to do so. She (President Arroyo) did not stay long. It was not a business meeting. Otherwise, I would not say anything about it,â€ the archbishop explained.

However, he did manage to grab the opportunity to tell the President about the plight of public school teachers, for fear that he might forget to do so in the future.

â€œI told her that I remembered she once asked me for some programs for the poor. (I told her) to please help our teachers and their transactions with the Government Service Insurance System. Do something about it so that our teachers will not be forced to moonlight. She promised she will check on it. According to her, there are half a million teachers from all over the country. Help them because they are among the poor employees of the government,â€ Cardinal Vidal said.

He added that cardinals also passed by MalacaÃ±ang and when asked what they talked about, â€œWe just said hi, hello and goodbye.â€

The “hi, hello and goodbye” in what some prelates how come to call “The Diocese of MalacaÃ±ang,” didn’t amuse bloggers like The Mount Balatucan Monitor:

First, Cardinal Vidal prohibit the priest in his diocese to join in a signature campaign by the Dilaab Foundation in search for truth. Second, after a concelebrated mass, Cardinal Vidal said Lozada is no hero. â€œWhy do we have to make him a hero?â€ he said in an interview with reporters. Third, the priest who is supposed to celebrate a mass for truth for Jun Lozada in Cebu today backed out. According to Sr. Estrella Castalone, executive secretary of the Association of Major Religious Superiors (AMRSP), â€œthe priest has received orders not to celebrate the Mass, so we had to resort to an interfaith prayer.â€ Now who ordered the priest to back out? Who is the highest Catholic Church official in the Archdiocese of Cebu where the buck would stop?

In contrast, Cardinal Vidal allowed Presidential Management Staff Chief Cerge Remonde to attend the recollection of the priest in his diocese. He even allowed Cerge to discuss the NBN/ZTE controversy during the recollection and distribute a primer on the issue. Recently, Cardinal Vidal was reported to have met with the First Couple in Wack Wack early this month…

Which brings us to the point of whether the Cardinal Archbishop of Cebu, from a Catholic point of view, was using his powers in a proper way, for the good of his flock.

Ostensibly, the concern of bishops is that the Mass is being used for partisan political purposes. A Philippine Star report puts it this way:

Speaking over Catholic Church-run Radyo Veritas, Archbishop of Nueva Caceres Leonardo Legaspi said he had prohibited priests in his archdiocese from allowing churches to be used as venue for political discussions.

“I don’t have a problem if they want to stage a rally since it’s the right of every Catholic to express his or her chosen political decision,” he said.

“What I don’t want is for Masses to be used for that. I also don’t allow that here.”

Legaspi said he had issued the order to priests in the Archdiocese of Nueva Caceres so they would not allow themselves to be used in political rallies.

“For me, they should not use Masses to attract crowds for their cause,” he said.

“Masses are not meant for that. You are degrading the solemnity of Masses. It’s really painful to see the Mass, priests and nuns, and even bishops being used for that.”

Legaspi said Church law prohibits the use of the Mass to attract crowds in advancing political interests.

“The level of politics is way below the reason for holding Mass,” he said. “If you allow Mass to be used in politicking, you degrade its value and solemnity.”

Legaspi said he has the prerogative to impose disciplinary action on priests and nuns who would violate his order.

“That is the prerogative of the bishop since he is the pastor of the faithful in his diocese,” he said.

As Archbishop Leonardo Legaspi goes, so goes Cardinal Archbishop Vidal: they are concerned over the “politicizing” of the Mass, and don’t shrink from exercising their pastoral authority (see Lozada runs into trouble with Catholic prelates). Except that while the worst that can be said of Legaspi is that his insistence on awaiting the truth will be an eternal one, Vidal’s non-partisanship is seriously in doubt. And there is the corresponding example of (not my favorite prelate, either)Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, who lets priests say mass for the President, her family and the Lakas-Kampi coalition, and for anyone else on the other side of the political divide. The Catholic hierarchy prefers to be nebulous rather than risk being active political players (see Patricio P. Diaz’s summary of episcopal opinions). By so doing, as Amando Doronila points out, the hierarchy makes itself vulnerable to divide-and-conquer tactics:

The lack of solidarity in the hierarchy and an authoritative direction from the highest ecclesiastical leadership, represented by the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Rosales, on the question of whether to support street campaigns to remove the President has allowed the government to deepen the divisions in the hierarchy to play the opposing tendencies against one another and has caused administration critics to charge the hierarchy with being soft on the government, with its series of pastoral letters straddling the fence on what political action to take on the issues raised by the corruption scandals.

But with regards to the individual decisions of individual prelates, in denying permission for Masses for Lozada, have they then imposed spiritual sanctions on Lozada and his supporters?

Oddly enough, the Vatican (and thus, definitive) online version of the Code of Canon Law has no links to the section that I believe is relevant, but another site has it, so here it is: Code of Canon Law, Book VI Part II: Penalties for Particular Offenses.

Under its provisions, the Church first of all, states it has the right to punish members of the faith who commit violations of the principles of the Church. The list of offenses is meant to serve as a deterrent to breaches of faith,and corresponding penalties for offenses as well as their remedies, to bring back erring members of the flock back into the fold.

In general, a penalty is not binding until someone actually commits a crime under Canon Law; but it is binding the moment the crime is committed, regardless of whether anyone witnesses it or states that a violation has taken place. At the same time, the Code of Canon Law is replete with exhortations to those holding authority not to be too free and easy about handing down penalties, and lists many exceptions to the rules, or what we would call mitigating circumstances that ought to be taken into account in determining the committing of crimes and corresponding punishments.

The gravest punishment under Canon Law, is excommunication, followed by interdict. An excommunication forbids the sacraments to a Catholic; an interdict can apply both to an individual or a group of Catholics.

When Nun questions priests’ refusal to celebrate Mass for Lozada, a legitimate question was being asked of the authorities. Basically, even if Canon Law isn’t being brought up, the question is whether Lozada has been effectively excommunicated or an interdict imposed on his person or wherever he may be -or when he is within the limits of a particular diocese. And then the question arises whether such sanctions have been imposed in defense of the faith or as a last ditch effort to preserve the authority of prelates whose own clergy and flocks have turned against them or stopped looking to them for guidance in terms of faith and morals.

I can think of one blogger who could give a definitive answer to these questions -Scriptorium- but alas, he is on indefinite leave from blogging. But maybe he’ll take a look at this entry and sort out the real issues from a Catholic point of view.

Let me close by republishing a recent editorial from The Forward, the school newspaper of San Jose Recoletos Cebu (I have been very impressed by these kids, as I’ve mentioned before: see my column, The future’s bright):

Young Moves?

Editorial (Edited)
FORWARD 2nd Semester 2007-2008 (released March 13)

The young are not indifferent. This is the message we can draw from the rallies of some schools in Manila (University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, etc.) in the fight against moral bankruptcy of the Philippine government. On this picture, one might ponder:are the actions of the young from Manila or Luzon enough manifestation that they are really hard at work for change?

This is no issue of regionalism but an assessment of whether or not the totality of the new breed of Filipinos has gone a notch more radical. In the EDSA 1, we witnessed (in our history books,etc.) the involvement of the young in Luzon, Visayas, or MIndanao. Notably, it was because of the shocks of the imposition of Martial Law that everyone felt curtailed and pushed to their limits.

Then, Erap’s administration came with excessive corruption and ‘ended’ with the controversial unopened during the impeachment proceeding. The young took in ferreting out the truth and had it exposed in the open.

Here in Cebu and some parts of the Visayas, there were rallies. Mindanao for sure had also echoed their cries. And as expected, EDSA 2 overtook in liberating the country again from the hands of a corrupt president. Among the frontliners in EDSA 2 were the young in Manila.

Now, it is Arroyo’s administration that is emperiled. This latest scandal hounding her administration fits well as a sequel to “Hello Garci”, “fertilizer scam”, “cash gifts” to politicians – episodes that have become box office operas on TV.

Now, public’s attention is focused on the ZTE scandal and the “heroic” end of ZTE NBN deal star witness Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada.

Lozada is well supported by the civil society, religious sectors, youth groups, etc. He was a close friend of former National Economic Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri. Neri, on the other hand, first answered the queries of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee about the ZTE scandal but the public was dismayed when he invoked Executive Order 164 (requiring “all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government” to “secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before House of Congress”).

With the fearless Lozada and the reserved Neri, the country – including the young – calls for a probable people power to know the truth again.

FORWARD wants to passionately reply to the query of PDI columnist Mr. Manuel L. Quezon III through SMS, regarding what the public feels and how it reacts to Lozada’s revelation. But Cebuanos seem to take on the issue in a different way.

So, we say in this piece, that the Cebuanos, particularly the young, respond through freedom of expression make manifest in the campus press, debates, and classroom discussions. But the question is: does it effect change? On the other hand, we ask: does people power really provide us a better change?

Arroyo is a by-product of people power. If she would be ousted by the same force that made her president, the message is clear: people power wields power more than the due process does. Whether this idea is something good or bad, it’s the people who must be able to figure it out.

We say the young Cebuanos’ physical silence may mean two things:they are discerning on what proper actions to take or the choose not to take part at all.

Incidentally, concerning “those who choose not to take part at all”, Thirtysomething v4.3 has an interesting entry on Dante’s Inferno, and the place in Hell reserved for those who profess neutrality “at a time of great moral decision”:

In relation to the subject, I tried to verify it it was indeed Dante who once said that “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”

I found out that it was not a direct quote, but rather, the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s interpretation of one of the passages of the “Divine Comedy.”

In the Inferno, Dante and his guide Virgil, on their way to Hell, pass by a group of dead souls outside the entrance to Hell. These individuals, when alive, remained neutral at a time of great moral decision. Virgil explains to Dante that these souls cannot enter either Heaven or Hell because they did not choose one side or another.

They are therefore worse than the greatest sinners in Hell because they are repugnant to both God and Satan alike, and have been left to mourn their fate as insignificant beings neither hailed nor cursed in life or death, endlessly travailing below Heaven but outside of Hell.

This scene occurs in the third canto of the Inferno…

Contrasting views in the blogosphere: In support of Cardinal Vidal, from Lost in Oblivion and An Angel Lost in Hell. Critical commentary from Ipadayag! and After All and The Mount Balutacan Monitor. On the other hand, Tingog.com simply pays tribute to the alma mater.

Returning to Scriptorium, an excellent explanation of the difference between the corruption of the old days and the corruption of today (highlighted in similar terms in the Inquirer editorial Hacenderos). In 1953 when Magsaysay ran for president, his campaign song had the lyrics “no more graft or ten percent, if Magsaysay’s president!” while by 2006, the “acceptable limits” of graft, according to Romulo Neri, was twenty percent. As Scriptorium points out in Why I miss old-fashioned corruption (a Philippine satire), and which reminds readers its satirical but the best satire is built on truth (hence, a non-satirical piece but one full of truths, the supreme apologia of the pragmatic politician, George Washington Plunkitt’s explanation of the difference between Honest Graft and Dishonest Graft):

In the past month, the Philippines has been convulsed again by the scandal over the ZTE-NBN contract. The controversy has pitted the Arroyo Dictatorship against a motley alliance of the idealist intelligentsia and â€œreformedâ€ sinners, with bishops uncertainly in the middle trying to counsel accountability to the former and moderation to the latter. Itâ€™s all somewhat surreal, but I think the controversy merely manifests the presence of a far more massive iceberg beneath.

That iceberg is sometimes called the collapse of public ethics in the Philippines. In some ways related to the concurrent decline of private ethics, it is characterized by the systemic removal of all the controls of decency and propriety that once held corruption in check. However, itâ€™s not my intention here to delve into the higher ethics of the matter, but only into its lower ethical dimension of practicality; for the problem, pragmatically speaking, is the rampant inflation, even the hyperinflation, of the cost of government bribery. In short, to use Friedmanâ€™s dangerous generalizations, we are ceasing to be an â€œAsian-typeâ€ crony-state, and are becoming a predatory state on the â€œAfricanâ€ model.

We see this most starkly when we compare the present with the past, what we might call Contemporary and Historic Philippines.

Historic Philippines was characterized by customary controls on abuse and rapacity. No one begrudged an official the act of skimming a little money off the common weal, since a public servant deserved a little bonus for serving the common good. Whatâ€™s more, his poorest constituents saw him not only as administrator but as surrogate father, the parens of their many little patriae, and they depended on him to feed their hungry and to pay for their funerals, celebrations, medical treatments, emergencies, housing and whatnot. Woe to the official who did not honor his duties as patron; and since this was a staggering personal obligation for his pocket, it was understood that he would necessarily borrow from the public treasury to thus serve the public need.

What we might now call graft and corruption was, therefore, in those days not merely inevitable, but necessary. It was also honorable, for the dominance of quasi-ethical concepts like amor proprio (personal honor), patronazgo (responsibility to the needy), delicadeza (decorum), and palabra de honor (inviolability of promises) meant that bribery had to be hidden from view, moderate in amount, stable in value, and calculated to not radically prejudice public service. Also, the formal morality that was honored by law and canonized by religion militated against selfish profit, which thus had to be moderated lest it reach scandalous proportions. This was hypocrisy as a fine art; for if it trysted with the occasional corruption, hypocrisy at least honored morality as a revered spouse, and feared social ostracism for its abandonment.

In Contemporary Philippines, on the other hand, the customary controls are lost, and the moderating influence of hypocrisy and hellfire is but a dim memory. When a certain First Lady allegedly demanded 10% for public contracts it was an earthshaking affront to the customary laws; but with todayâ€™s breathtaking 100+% kickbacks, society scarcely yawns, and feels content to buy peace by letting the bribing go on till 2010. And this is not a mere phenomenon at the summit; it rears its evil head at every level of social government, even to the barangays that will not renew a permit without compounded gifts. And the opportunities are multiplying, with the grant of massive revenue-making powers to local executives, and nullity for psychological incapacity enacted as a bonanza for judges and prosecutors.

The decay is shocking. Whereas hypocrisy once honored delicadeza by keeping bribes low and quiet, todayâ€™s corruption is garapalan, reaching dizzying heights of rates and ostentation. The idealized model of a Magsaysay, who reimbursed the government for meals served to his friends, has been replaced by that of officials serving Petrus to allies and flying their extended families on junkets to Europe; and nobody cares who notices that expensive suites are hired in Las Vegas for Manny Pacquiaoâ€™s fights by moderately paid officials and/or their spouses. On lower levels, a judge and his sheriff wonâ€™t issue TROs for less than half-a-million; and a mayor in Southern Luzon demands 20% of the gross capitalization of a project before he approves it, the good of his constituents be damned.

Gone too is hypocrisyâ€™s respect for palabra de honor. In the good old days, officials had the decency to stay bribed, and their promises once sold were durable, but today a judge or commissioner will abandon a side in a case at the mere hint of a better offer, and the PBACs of the several agencies are become unreliable. Hence, getting contracts and favorable rulings are increasingly a matter of continuous competitive bidding, forcing the client to pay more for bribe security, which even then is rarely absolute. A member of a powerful commission changes his already sold vote upon getting a brown valise; and a prosecutor who gets a bribe for himself and his boss pockets all the money with nary a care. Such is treachery, such is dishonor!

At least in non-adversarial proceedings like those before the revenue agencies, there remains some stability: the going rate for examiners, collectors, and revenue district officers is fixed by custom, and investors in big contracts can preemptively get favorable Rulings or Orders for a mere P100,000.00. Even there, however, costs are rising, especially in licensing: The average building permit today costs twice what it did merely 10 years ago, and franchises for transport are so expensive that itâ€™s cheaper to just go colorum (illegal) and pay off the policeman. If youâ€™re in Manila, however, pray that itâ€™s a policeman who arrests you: cops are reasonable and will lower their demands if you show good cause, but MMDA enforcers show little mercy, and wonâ€™t even honor the time-honored custom of haggling.

Where has decency gone? Some mayors at least still provide exemplary social services, and their old-fashioned corruption is seen as a forgivable continuation of the old ways of patronage, but many executives now treat their constituents not as clients to be cared for but as cash cows to be brutally squeezed. Few still care for the obligations of patronazgo, or for the old partnership of public good and private gain; now the Philippines is becoming an materialist-individualist paradise where religious sanction and social shame mean almost nothing. Hypocrisy for the sake of amor proprio is overthrown; our republic is now the openly rapacious kingdom of sin verguenza.

All this has resulted in a hyperinflation in the corruption market, as demand for bribes outstrips diminishing supply, forcing officials to have recourse to foreign government suppliers. The macroeconomic effects would no doubt be shocking if they are quantified. Foreign direct investment is fleeing to countries with lower corruption rates, where bribes are low enough the escape the half-lidded eye of the FCPA, and the field is left to crony capitalists insulated by their influence from the inflation, and legitimate investors and wage-earners who must bear all of the burden. The cost of business is spiking, and it may soon become so high as to make profit, and therefore salaries to proletariat and salariat alike, impossible.

The bull of the bribe market must therefore be brought under control, for it has indulged its exuberance too irrationally and too long. It is the task of leaders to regulate corruption and temper selfishness, and they must do so by restoring the customary controls. Is it any surprise that the opposition is now led by advocates of the old order of decently decorous corruption, calling on leaders to moderate their greed? A few choice convictions of dispensable allies would be a good start, provided they are not later stoppered with cynical pardons, since they would at least discourage outright pillage, and show that the customary laws are still respected. That would suffice to tell officials: No more! Too much! (I wonâ€™t add â€œGet out!â€ lest I be accused of sedition.)

But we must act soon. Let the overheated bribe market continue and it will destroy the customary controls entirely: hyperinflation destroyed the general economy of Weimar, and look what that did to the rule of law? Public ethics must be restored to its ancient equilibrium between gain and service, decency and hypocrisy, for if not, then we will see in the Philippines the same events that followed the replacement of the ancien regime and its customary controls with the all-corrupt Directory, or of the Manchus with the Kuomintang: specifically, the rule of military tyrants (as prophesied by Edmund Burke in the case of France). The freedom to bribe must therefore become once again an ordered freedom, lest all freedom be completely lost.

The thing is, I have heard similar views expressed, in all seriousness, by expats who find no difference between the cupidity of Filipino and say, Malaysian or Indonesian, Vietnamese or African officials except the lack of tidiness and predictability when it comes to the Filipino officials (except in Cebu, where the bribery is methodical: everything gets done, but your choice is whether to pay a premium to expedite the processing of licenses, etc., a system such expats hold superior to the rapaciousness and inefficiency they encounter down the line everywhere else, it seems).

Then, the Inquirer editorial today. Trivial pursuits, focuses on the Commission on Appointments and the controversies concerning its rules. As in all things, ever wondered why the phrase, “moderate the greed,” has resonated so much with people from all walks of life?

It’s the cornerstone of our traditional culture: the idea that human vices must, at least, be moderated.

CBCP, Gloriagate, history, ideas, law, philippines, politics, president

Tags:

Comments

151 Comments on "Interdicts, faith, Cardinals, and morals"

anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:33 am

The CBCP may be an organization of the heads of archdioceses nationwide, but strictly speaking, the CBCP is not the Catholic Church.

The whole Philippines is not one diocese. There is no archbishop for the whole country

cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:01 pm

In short, to use Friedmanâ€™s dangerous generalizations, we are ceasing to be an â€œAsian-typeâ€ crony-state, and are becoming a predatory state on the â€œAfricanâ€ model. – George Washington Plunkitt

I have a hunch that in terms of foreign policy treatment, China lumps us together with the African countries. BTW, as i pointed out in my blog, in terms of development models, as per Dani Rodrik, we also resemble Africa more than Asia:

http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/07/rodrik-on-kinds-of-growth-spurts.html

Maybe lack of local productive capacity and increasing remittances are part of what is destroying the previous orderly scheme of corruption.

Public ethics must be restored to its ancient equilibrium between gain and service, decency and hypocrisy, for if not, then we will see in the Philippines the same events that followed the replacement of the ancien regime and its customary controls with the all-corrupt Directory, or of the Manchus with the Kuomintang: specifically, the rule of military tyrants (as prophesied by Edmund Burke in the case of France). The freedom to bribe must therefore become once again an ordered freedom, lest all freedom be completely lost.- George Washington Plunkitt

The question is whether moderate greed aka Plunkitt’s ordered freedom to bribe as a feature of the system was a stable configuration to begin with.

In any case, Plunkitt’s warning on the breakdown of equilibrium and the role ethics plays (in defending against an outside morality) is echoed by Niklas Luhman:

The effects Luhmann fears can be elucidated historically by listing the countless crusades, wars, inquisitions, and persecutions that moral discourse has fueled. By acting as mediator between morality and society, ethics is charged with minimizing the devastation morality is capable of unleashing…morality, with its code of approval/disapproval, attempts to limit the choice it cannot help but automatically engender. It attempts to impose its means of reducing complexity on the systems it inhabits, i.e., it attempts to replace a ‘legitimate’, system-specific means of generating and processing information with an ‘illegitimate’, totalizing and parasitic one…Ethics, therefore, described from this systemic perspective, is seen as a kind of immune system or on/off switch, and we are advised that “perhaps the most pressing task of ethics is to warn against morality” – William Rasch, Immanent Systems in Observing Complexity

The second to the last paragraph of the ‘Young Moves’ editorial you quoted above also warns against this alien morality in the form of People Power.

DJB Rizalist on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:40 pm

MLQ3,
You are struggling with and dancing around a FACT that perhaps we all refuse to recognize: that the Catholic Church is in fact the fount of clerico fascism, the very inspiration of Benito Mussolini’s right wing movement in Italy. As you know my own opinion of the church in politics is that it is just another NGO, and so entitled to all the rights and freedoms the Constitution guarantees.

However, as an institution you need to take off the kid gloves with the Men in Skirts Manolo, because they are more totalitarian internally than the CPP, more dogmatic and backward, more prone to the wiles of power, which once they owned and can never forget.

Neither should we!

DJB Rizalist on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:44 pm

BTW, however you feel now about this Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, I don’t mind telling you I felt exactly the same way (if not more murderously) the year you were born, towards a certain Jaime Cardinal Sin, who, for twenty years less one week in 1986, was Marcos’ co-conspirator, the main ribbon cutter for Imelda’s Edifice Complex, the Champion of People Power! Yecch.

john marzan on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:48 pm

deej, it wasn’t fvr who saved arroyo back in 2005, but the cbcp.

http://www.politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/03/cbcp-is-part-of-problem.html

salud on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 12:55 pm

When these bishops die, they will be judged by God. We can only pray for their enlightenment. Remember for whatever sin you do, there must be restitution. Just like whatever you steal, you must pay back with interest.

benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:05 pm

Again what makes this thing UNNECESSARILY complicated is the lack of understanding of the fundamental difference between being spiritual and being religious.

Pinoys, in our infinite capacity for vacuousness, cannot seem to fathom the spirit behind being an ethical individual and instead delegate our thinking and sense of morality to the dogmatic quaintness of organised religion.

Thus instead of understanding simple ethical principles that would otherwise easily resolve these convoluted conflicts, we instead try to resolve these dilemmas by READING INTO the moronic behaviours of people and events surrounding these cretins.

Except that while the worst that can be said of Legaspi is that his insistence on awaiting the truth will be an eternal one, Vidalâ€™s non-partisanship is seriously in doubt. And there is the corresponding example of (not my favorite prelate, either)Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, who lets priests say mass for the President, her family and the Lakas-Kampi coalition, and for anyone else on the other side of the political divide.

I mean, what’s the point in evaluating — no, speculating — on what motivates Bishop What’s-his-face’s or Cardinal Whatever’s actions or pronouncements?

So what if Cardinal Heng Hong is in bed with President Whoever and therefore “allows” masses to be held for Whoever’s minions’ roadshows?

So what?

The principles at stake here are VERY SIMPLE.

(1) In the eyes of the State, the Cahtolic Church is a citizen just like any other Pinoy individual or corporate entity (albeit a non-taxpayer, I might highlight).

(2) Just like all citizens, it is subject to conventional channels when exercising its right to PARTICIPATE in the affairs of the State.

(3) When it chooses to exercise its influence over Government officials BEYOND these conventional channels (brokering favours and deals on an individual basis with said officials), it itself becomes a political player (in contrast with being a mere political participant via conventional democratic channels).

BUT, its avowed core business is to provide SPIRITUAL SERVICES to its customers.

THEREFORE, that it would use one of its business operations — The “Holy” Sacrifice of the Mass — as a channel for influencing the political sentiments of its customers (“pastoral letters” read out during what’s supposed to be the “homily” section of this ceremony) constitutes a breach of the scope of its core service.

It’s like ABS-CBN — a supposedly avowed champion of “balanced” news reporting services — being found to be using its news program Bandila to deliver subtle or subliminal political messages to its viewers.

It’s simple, really.

ricelander on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:18 pm

I think our “religious” attitude as far as evil deeds are concerned revolves on our notion of eternal salvation as we understand or interpret Christian teachings. I could be wrong because I am not a Catholic, but I base this opinion on my observation of many religious people I know some of them close to me: salvation is attained by believing in Christ as the Savior not by doing good. Make hay then while there is time. You can always make amends afterward pag puno na ‘yung bank account. Jesus is always forgiving, you know…

Hindi ko naman nilalahat, in fact I feel bad thinking that way. I just have to say that I think many have that kind of attitude.

cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:28 pm

Ricelander, salvation via believing in Christ as a savior and not by doing good is not a Catholic, but rather a Protestant or Evangelical belief.

BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 1:36 pm

Catholic salvation is based on the sacraments.

BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:27 pm

This was from the last post:

Bencard,

before making a comment, make sure you know what youâ€™re talking about. the rules and procedures on truth-seeking in a civilized society are accepted, not for â€œpeace of mindâ€, but because they are the only ones which can ensure â€œhuman truthâ€, as distinguished from â€œdivine truthâ€, the latter being beyond the realm of human understanding

An inferior mind always thinks most people are too stupid to understand him. Procedures, Bencard, rely on people doing these procedures. Relying on procedures in this country is like asking the police, the lawyers like you and the judges to be completely ethical in their work.

The best example of this is the “Hello Garci” tapes. Truth: Gloria cheated. procedure: tape is inadmissible. Understand what I mean?

frombelow on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:29 pm

The fallacy that confront those who want to Oust GMA is that they always consider the Catholic bishops as vital component in whatever political movement in this country.
could it be that the overrated importance of the Bihops was only the result of the effort of some civil society groups, politicians, and business elites to deodorize their EDSA 1 and 2 to make their obvious power grabs more morally acceptable.
Strategically speaking they are correct. The trouble starts when they (civil society groups ) begin to believe their own propaganda.

BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:42 pm

Bencard,

What I really mean about irredeemable is that sticking to procedures despite obvious truths is a little conniving. To me.

cvj on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:55 pm

Brianb, what i understand from Bencard is that in these matters, there are (or there should be) no ‘obvious truths’ that are unfiltered by the legal process. I disagree with him on this and believe that truth can be obtained from varied sources as long as it passes the process of authentication. Society is now more complex as compared to the days of St. Thomas More who was willing to give the Devil the benefit of the law.

Jeg on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 2:57 pm

MLQ3: …while my preference is for a society that is secular,I am not opposed, in principle, to religion, just as I am not opposed to the expression of Catholic principles in politics.

This expression of Catholic principles in politics is the reason People Power worked in the Philippines in 1986, and in Poland in 1989. The people massed against the government and those armed soldiers arrayed against them were steeped in Catholic morality. The soldiers will not shoot at unarmed civilians. Contrast that with Burma or China. I am all for the secular state such as what we have been striving for, but we must not forget that this country traditionally recognizes a higher power. In the preamble to our constitution it states:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God…

The biggest atrocities in history have been perpetrated by people and societies who have traditionally believed in a higher power but rejected it in favor of the ultimate authority of the State.

Mita on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:13 pm

benigno, confused talaga. in the 1987 constitution, it’s a state policy to promote and protect the youth’s physical, moral, SPIRITUAL, intellectual and social well-being. can you tell who requested that one word be inserted into the constitution?

no church should meddle in matters of state and vice versa. one glaring reason why – it’s another point of “gulo” between citizens…especially if we don’t like what they say or do.

about neutrality. i wish there were more in the country who believe in and practise political neutrality. non-politicians, the “religious” and even those serving in government would do this country a lot of good if they could stay politically neutral.

BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:17 pm

cvj,

He believes “human truth” is encapsulated in the legal. Though it is always a good philosophical assumption that every thing human or with respects to bencard “truthfully human” can be integrated in the law, this is simply not the case in our current legal system.

He prefers to think that legals procedures have been perfected and that a normal human being’s thinking is simply inferior to what has been established by the best legal minds (who really only plagiarize their american counterparts). He calls people like me who distrust lawyers and dislikes legal procedures Philistines. This is what makes Philippine lawyers different from their American or European counterparts, that they believe they are intellectually superior.

What a laugh. Writers prefer to make the complicated simple. Lawyer like to do the opposite and make the simple complicated. Who is the Philistine? Let me put it another way: who of the two is lacking in sophistication?

Marcelo on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:27 pm

Dear Friends:

Some thoughts -

(1) The earthly representatives of our Holy Mother Church are probably both (repeat both) divided and playing a game whose end moves they see far beyond our own horizon (2010 or the next massive street protest, take your pick). But then again, the Vatican has a millennium-and-a-half of statecraft under its belt, so this may just be par for the course.

(2) Part of that statecraft has always been concerned with timing and taking sides. That’s why the earthly representatives of our Holy Mother Church are on both (all) sides of our current controversy. Realpolitik at its shining best! On more moral grounds, since neither (none) of the sides can claim to be the Sole Exemplar of the Whole Unvarnished Truth, our Holy Mother Church is simply following the odds, to make sure that the moral balance ends up right in the end…heh heh. (But maybe the Church will eventually place a hidden finger on the scales?)

(3)On “moderate greed”: there’s a line by the head slave spoken to his Roman master in the Broadway musical comedy “Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum” that goes something like this: “I will, of course, steal from you, but only within reason. You will ,of course, beat me, but also only within reason.” I am not going to stand on some soapbox and pontificate on what constitutes “moderate greed,” but I will observe that some actions are system-breaking while others are not.

(4) On the difference between Catholics and Protestants: which side says “By Grace Alone”?

(5) On ABS-CBN delivering “subtle or subliminal political messages”…ha ha..HAH HAH HAH HAH!

Willy on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:33 pm

The clergy guides its flock through faith and morals.
It is the supposed demarcation line between religious morals and secular morals that brings a tension between Church and State. This brings with it an implied assumption that the relativist or pluralist notion of morality should be irrespective of the “religious” morality as seen by the Church. The Church meanwhile holds on to an objective morality consistent with its Magisterium regardless of relativist/populist views. By the principle of subsidiarity, the bishopric in their specific locales exercises a wide discretion over matters of discipline and pastoral care in their own dioceses, while avoiding the prescription of specific plans of action as it is best left to the lay people. Thus there is a wide diversion of views as to the role of the clergy, it is either too much or too little. It all depends on one’s views on the demarcation line, together with one’s view of morality.

BrianB on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 3:49 pm

Marcelo,

The bishops pounced on Erap even before he won the presidential election and he actually won it.

Mike on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 5:20 pm

The question of sin is one that the Church has concerned itself with from the beginning–perhaps even before, as when the Old Testament prophets called on the people to repent to avoid God’s wrath. Kings were not exempt from this call, and many prophets were put to death when they challenged temporal powers.

Of course, not all prophets were always faithful to God–Jonah and Jeremiah were reluctant prophets. So perhaps some of their spiritual descendants today (I’m not naming names…ROSALES!!!!!) have trouble calling David on Bathsheba. That’s a personal decision. Every baptized person has the mark of a prophet on his soul, so the rest of us should call it as best we hear God calling it.

benign0 on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 5:20 pm

confused talaga. in the 1987 constitution, itâ€™s a state policy to promote and protect the youthâ€™s physical, moral, SPIRITUAL, intellectual and social well-being. can you tell who requested that one word be inserted into the constitution? – Mita

Jeez, it’s a no-brainer.

Actually if you think about it, that clause in the Constitution gives the State the right to have a say in any religious organisation’s approach to delivering spiritual services. Kung baga they can exert some form of governance over how religious organisations deliver their services.

Interesting…

Chabeli on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 5:53 pm

Lino Lebron, a businessman, is the constant companion of Cardinal Vidal. The house Cardinal Vidal describes as “The house (I stayed in) is overlooking Wack-Wack”, is a house built for him courtesy of Lebron (for the Cardinal). I can’t remember now whether this house is next to Lebrons’, & I also don’t remember now whether the title of the Wack-Wack house is under the Cardinals’ name. It was also Lebron who arranged the meeting between Gloria & Cardinal Vidal.

nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:10 pm

I agree.
Let the Catholics be.
Let everyone have freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, there are some things our powerful majority Catholic church should not be doing.

First, what does the Catholic Church NOT do?:

1. The Catholic Church does not provide us pension
2. The Catholic Church does not build roads and infrastructure
3. The Catholic Church does not provide free universities or schools
4. The Catholic Church does not provide cheap mass housing
5. The Catholic Church does not provide does give us access to calamity loans to help us get back on our feet after a god-made disaster.

The above (and more) are provided by our state (no matter how corrupt or inefficient) with money from Taxpayers.

Taxpayers who come in all shapes, sizes, colours, and faiths.

So the Catholic Church has NO BUSINESS pushing its fat weight around and interfering with government programs on population control and right to information.

(And this should be the same in some parts of Mindanao where Islam is the dominant religion.)

Jeg on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:17 pm

So the Catholic Church has NO BUSINESS pushing its fat weight around and interfering with government programs on population control and right to information.

If by ‘no business’ here you mean ‘no right’, then I have to disagree. I agree with DJB. The Church is just an ubergigantic NGO and as such they do have a right to say what they think. The onus is solely on the state on whether it decides to act independently of this NGO and not pander to it. We keep blaming the Church for this and that when in fact it is the State that allows itself to be dominated. Probably because they find it useful to do so.

WillyJ on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:37 pm

The Church has citizenship status, agree with DJB and Jeg.
With respect to the Church’s active opposition to population control programs (translated: artificial birth control), it should be understandable because that is expected as a minimum, as it falls under non-negotiables.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the members of the European people’s party, enumerates the 3 non-negotiables:

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
/

Mike on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:38 pm

nash,

The Church, through its charitable organizations and religious orders, DOES in fact provide cheap education (think mission schools instead of DLSU, Ateneo, et al.), housing (GK), and calamity relief. These are things it should not be doing? Perhaps, but the word of its Master is to do them anyway.

Jeg on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 6:45 pm

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

Im glad we’re not as fascist as California.

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal has determined parents in that state have no legal right to home school.

Link: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=69177

nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 7:23 pm

@Jeg

I agree that the Catholic Church HAS the Right to express its opinion. And I agree with you and DJB completely on their rights. Yes, It’s not so much the state, but the politicians who need the church endorsement.

I should be more specific actually and say that Church LAWs (which have no value if you are not a member of that church) should not be Secular Laws…

@mike

“The Church, through its charitable organizations and religious orders, DOES in fact provide cheap education (think mission schools instead of DLSU, Ateneo, et al.)”

Yes, I’m aware of these. They are all over the cordilleras. However, take note of the operative word “mission”. You have to convert! I went to Catholic School which does not accept you if you are not baptised.

I would like the Catholic Church to open the same schools in Basilan and accept everyone….I would also like them to use their money and open a free hospital similar to PGH….

cheers,

WillyJ on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 7:47 pm

The Church’s application of social doctrine, and supposedly secular laws, both work for the common good. In that respect they should not be in conflict. It is in the approaches that judgments differ.

The Catholic Church should certainly help everyone. GK for instance, went on a mission to our Muslim brothers in Datu Paglas, Maguindanao. They built homes but did not convert them. check http://www.datupaglas.com

nash on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 7:58 pm

Yes, thank god for GK. They are doing a lot of good. that canot be denied.

Now, if only we can open the sprawling Villa San Miguel to house the poor and for Cathedrals to be OPEN AT NIGHT for the homeless to take shelter, that would be really good.

vic on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:03 pm

To me I’d like to see the Church, the Catholic Church in Particular as one Big Charitable Organization. It will do much more good doing such…

jakcast on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:16 pm

In Italy and Spain, long the bastion of Catholicism, you will find sparsely filled churches on Sundays and where divorce is allowed. I suppose the modern day Europeans have regarded religion as contributing less and less to their overall human development. Especially after numerous wars have been fought in the name of religion.

In contrast, in the Philippines and in Latin American countries, the Catholic Church continue to be a dominant factor in the lives of the people, especially among the rural folks.

Is this the difference between being religious and being spiritual? Or are these remnants of colonialism?

UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:37 pm

GK is a Charitable Organization, isn’t it?

Or is GK a proselytizer?

UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:43 pm

For a view of how a demonstration can be hijacked by provocateurs, look at this one. New York City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0rprGKO9-8

UP n student on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 9:48 pm

A YouTube of the pro-Tibet demonstration, as intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5ubd4RHuk&feature=related

DJB Rizalist on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:05 pm

Catholics really do not need the imperial clerico-fascist hierarchy that runs their Church, any more than they Kings and Dictators. As a corporate citizen, of course it has the rights and freedoms due everyone. But if “people power” ought to be exercised anywhere (and I do mean “direct democracy” in this case, it should be in the Church of Medievalism, superstition and idiocy hiding under holy cassocks.

After all, even in Benign0’s simplistic view of things, the Freedom of Religion, as such, cannot possibly square with a serious search for the Truth. For though I have the right to believe in the Great Spaghetti Monster, neither It nor the Men in Skirts and Funny Hats can seriously persuade me that they are serious about searching for the truth.

What they want everyone to find and imbibe is THEIR truth, to which they have every right, but do we have to believe them if we want to serve God and our fellow men?

DJB Rizalist on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:17 pm

A great institution like the Catholic Church, deserves to be led not by a secret cabal of mediocre mumblers (like, most of the Bishops are fairly stupid, unsophisticated goatherds if you ever try talking to one of them. The lowliest bloggers are smarter, even if they know no Latin, because the learning of these men is vacuous though pompous, and hardly worth rebutting for their silliness.

Now when they dabble in politics, all that can’t show because of costuming and makeup, the posturing and most of all, the hypnosis of 400 years of culture.

Catholics ought to be more forthright about fighting the evil system that is the hierarchy. There is a great deal of good this NGO could do, if it harkened back to the great Teacher whose lessons have been lost in the fog of Empire and Dogma and Pagcor payslips. El Shaddai? Dios ko day!

The Church is corrupt because it basks in the ignorance of the people and likes the situation just fine, for how else can their own mediocre abracadabra shine when Mike Velarde wears only slightly less outrageous outfits?

ricelander on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 10:27 pm

DJB,
Great Spaghetti Monster, hmm a nice name for a rock band don’t you think. Men in Skirts, meron na yata yan.

supremo on Wed, 19th Mar 2008 11:02 pm

‘GK is a Charitable Organization, isnâ€™t it?

Or is GK a proselytizer?’

GK is a Habitat for Humanity wannabe with religion mingled in. It is no different from Singles for Christ which mingles speed dating and religion. They both engage in blasphemous behavior.

rego on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:08 am

Oh yeah we just love to intermingle everything that makes the whole situation deceitfully complicated. Mixed politic with religion, with showbiz and everything we can mixed with. We dont want to use Rule of Law, we also want the court of public opinion to settle teh debate. Result aneverending argument on which one is is teh best court. A simple senate investigation and testimony become a canonization of the star witness complete with masses in all teh churches around the country as possible. A simple disagreement in the military becomes the chance for Cory to grab her rosary and call for people power…..

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:13 am

Jeg says : “We keep blaming the Church for this and that when in fact it is the State that allows itself to be dominated. Probably because they find it useful to do so.

The State, or more specifically, it is because the CBCP is a vote-machine — able to deliver votes — that the Executive and the Legislative branches assent to CBCP point-of-view. Add memories of the surge-against-Marcos-in-Malacanang, then all the more the intimidation.

And right there is a message. Any group that demonstrates the ability to deliver votes — evidence that your platform is shared by a lot of voting-age Filipinos — and Malacanang and Congress will be quite attentive.

Blackshama on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:27 am

The Philippine “Church” is part of the Latin Church. First of all we are not a national church.In Catholicism it is the Eastern Catholic Churches that can be considered “National Churches” If we want a Philippine National Church then that is no less than the Iglesia Filipina Independiente.

Since we aren’t a National Church, we don’t have a Primate. The Cardinal Archbishop isn’t our primate. Bishops are directly responsible to Rome. The CBCP cannot pass legislation that can bind the sees of Manila or Cebu.

In a National Church, a synodical form of governance is followed. The IFI, the Episcopal Church have this kind of government. The Eastern Catholic Churches have preserved the synodical system. But CBCP isn’t a synod. It represents the bishops and their dioceses but theoretically not the Philippine church.

Benedict XVI isn’t really keen on considering the national bishops conferences as legally representing the Latin Rite national churches.

This is the context by which MLQ3’s discussion on Cardinal Vidal’s powers to order his clergy must be discussed.

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:37 am

Jeq,
I believe homeschooling for very young kids should be banned too. It poses a danger to civic society and may spell trouble for the socialization of young people. Education is the primary business of the government. It is not as idealistic as you think, especially in the primary and secondary level. In the tertiary level, education can take a more idealistic form. The objective is socialization, equipping young citizens to participate and prosper in their country.

That is why it is compulsory on primary and tertiary levels, and the raison d’etre of its being compulsory is also the raison d’etre of banning homeschooling.

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 12:48 am

I mean compulsory in primary and “secondary” levels.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 1:45 am

mlq3, i wonder if you would be as critical of the church if it allowed lozada and his admirers to continue using it’s pulpits, and take advantage of the faithful, who are just there to hear mass and pray, to disseminate his versions of “truth”. i never heard you say anything against the church when lozada was making the rounds of catholic schools, chapels and churches in metro manila, poisoning the minds of students too young to understand the ways of adult politics, with all its prejudices, intrigues, misinformation and sheer hypocrisy.

i agree with the notion that, politically speaking, the church is just another ngo with its own interests to protect. while its members don’t vote as solidly, as apparently the iglesia ni kristo, el shaddai, villanueva’s jil, or the muslim groups, i don’t think you can fault any politician, including an incumbent president, who tries to keep in good graces of these religious groups. the president’s practice of coursing some community aids and projects through a particular archdiocese is, i believe, not an attempt to politicize them (they are already politicized as ngos) but done in her belief that it’s more efficient to do so being that the church directly interacts with the intended beneficiaries, and has existing systems and facilities already in place for the distribution of government aid in the diocese.

as far as the lozada brouhaha is concerned, i think the church did the right thing by choosing to be neutral and not allow lozada and his handlers to ran roughshod on churchgoers who do not believe him and not interested in what he is trying to propagate, i.e., the condemnation of “gloria” and her family. praying for peace, unity, progress and prosperity is one thing. praying for the “success” of a partisan political agenda is another. the former is laudable, the latter, reprehensible, and could lead to further erosion of faith and of the catholic church’s influence in society.

brianb, you have posted some comments, while i was asleep, in response to mine in the preceding thread. i don’t know what you do for a living but i see you really have a talent for stating obscure nonsense posing as words of wisdom.

example: “an inferior mind always thinks most people are too stupid to understand him”. fallacy: therefore, a science teacher who thinks most of his freshman students don’t understand his teaching of the theory of relativity is of an inferior mind.

example: “procedures, bencard, rely on the people doing those procedures”. wrong. procedures don’t depend on those who are supposed to follow them for their validity. they are not rendered ineffective by their being violated. violators are punished, later if not sooner.

example: “truth: gloria cheated”. wrong. where in the tape did it say that?

example: “procedure: tape is inadmissible”. wrong. inadmissibility of wiretapped tape is SUBSTANTIVE LAW, not procedural (if you know what that means).

you cannot, brianb, go through life being simplistic. some “writers” think they can simplify matters by writing misleading nonsense, and in the process, complicate things even more for the uninitiated and less discerning.

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 1:54 am

@supremo

Singles for Christ = Pangit kasi

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 1:55 am

“example: â€œtruth: gloria cheatedâ€. wrong. where in the tape did it say that?”

Another case of Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with….”

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:01 am

“……they are not rendered ineffective by their being violated”

Eh kaya siguro na-violate dahil ineffective in the first place. ano ba.

Madonna on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:07 am

â€œan inferior mind always thinks most people are too stupid to understand himâ€.

And a superior mind will always make sure that most people will understand him.

â€œtruth: gloria cheatedâ€.

Kailangan bang i-memorize yan?

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:09 am

Hm,

1. “fallacy: therefore, a science teacher who thinks most of his freshman students donâ€™t understand his teaching of the theory of relativity is of an inferior mind.”

You do not understand what I wrote at all. I said “an inferior mind always thinks most people are TOO STUPID to UNDERSTAND him

2 “they are not rendered ineffective by their being violated.” What if people did not do the procedures or delay doing it, what then?

3 “procedure: tape is inadmissibleâ€. wrong. inadmissibility of wiretapped tape is SUBSTANTIVE LAW, not procedural (if you know what that means).”

This is begging the question. I think you know what begging the question is.

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:11 am

Bencard,

It’s only obscure to you because it’s well outside your area of expertise. Without your legal jargon, what would you be bencard? A bum?

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:12 am

Sorry, above comment re this para:

“brianb, you have posted some comments, while i was asleep, in response to mine in the preceding thread. i donâ€™t know what you do for a living but i see you really have a talent for stating obscure nonsense posing as words of wisdom.”

mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:17 am

of all the organized religions, isn’t the r.c. church the least able to “deliver” votes?

mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 2:22 am

bencard, we don’t have to belabor the obvious about the role surveys play in a modern democracy.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:03 am

bum, brianb? if that is so, what does that make you? the prince of erudition? what, if anything, have you written anywhere that is so profound as to make you a “legend” outside of your own small mind?

o.k, add the words “too stupid” to my ergo, what difference does that make to your fallacious premise?

didn’t i say violators will be punished? a wrong decision resulting from the violation can be rectified on appeal. want more free legal education? no more, better hire yourself a law teacher.

you use the word “procedure” in legal context without understanding it. research or consult a lawyer about the difference of procedural from substantive. then come back and debate the matter further with me, if you want. oh no, you cannot obfuscate the issue by calling it “begging the question” unless you are talking about something else irrelevant and out of context.

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:10 am

Bencard,

begging the question: “has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises” from wikipedia.

You assume the Garci Tape is inadmissible (because nothing there says she cheats) for “substantive” reasons and not procedural reasons (tape being taken from wire tapping).

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:18 am

And, bencard, it get me why you are s exasperated with people not being able to understand legal language but you insist on using it in your comments.

Ok, I did ask a lawyer–well, actully I googled the definition and it seems wiretapping is also under substantive law.

Guys, read back to comment 2:09. This is how some innocent people go to jail, by using words “procedure” that lawyers think they have a monopoly over.

benign0 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:26 am

of all the organized religions, isnâ€™t the r.c. church the least able to â€œdeliverâ€ votes? — mlq3

Worse. They are MOST able to bring warm bodies to moronic street “revolutions”.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:43 am

brianb, i assumed no such thing. the wiretapped tape is inadmissible because that is the SUBSTANTIVE LAW (i.e. statute passed by the legislature). whether the tape says that “gloria cheated”, or not, is an issue of fact that can only be determined by listening to the tape. “procedure” is irrelevant.

it will never be presented to any legal forum, but for many of us who have heard the tape, we know that there is nothing there saying “gloria cheated”.

this discussion is boring from the very start. enough already!

BrianB on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:49 am

Bencard, you have no idea how boring you are. But you are the only one consistently defending Gloria and it is important to many of us here to test our opinions on a literal devil’s advocate.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:02 am

brianb, fools and wise men are often recognized through what they say or write.

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:03 am

to benign0 : on roman catholic political savvy and faithful showing up at rallies. It is a situational thing. What catholics do in pinas… way different than what catholics can do in Saudi Arabia.

grd on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:20 am

But a series of controversial incidents, many involving financial links to Arroyoâ€™s administration, has called the clergyâ€™s own legitimacy into question. Nueva Vizcaya Bishop Ramon Villena recently admitted in a newspaper report that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), the lottery run by the Office of the President, had given him 1.6 million pesos (US$39,000) to build a hospital for the poor in his home province…

mlq3, is this bad and improper even if it’s a worthy project and benefits the poor?

i remember the late “incorruptible” Cardinal Sin once said:

“If Satan would appear to me and give me money, I will accept the money and spend it all for the poor. The devil remains to be my enemy but I will use his resources to feed the poor.”

grd on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:26 am

UPn,

there’s no other religion in saudi arabia other than islam.

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:42 am

@Bencard

I have just one polite question.

GMA already admitted to calling Garci.

Is it proper or ethical for a candidate to call upon an election official in the middle of the count?

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 4:46 am

@grd

“If Satan would appear to me and give me money, I will accept the money and spend it all for the poor”

I have seen no evidence that Cardinal Sin (RIP) ever truly practiced what he preached. (He’s like Cory Aquino and her CARP.) Otherwise, there would have been at least soup kitchen in villa san miguel. (if there was then i’m sorry for jumping the gun)

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:03 am

nash, my short answer is no, it’s both non-ethical and illegal. but i don’t think it is an impeachable offense.

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:20 am

@bencard

thanks.

in my humble non legal opinion, i think GMA should resign for merely dialling that number and asking how the count was going and if our current laws say it is not an impeachable offense (i think it is under a general heading though…) then we should push for electoral reforms and it should be explicitly made impeachable.

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:52 am

to grd: re Islam as Saudi Arabia religion. Supports my point about behavior as situational — Roman Catholics in Saudi Arabia behave way different than how Filipinos behave. It is a constitutional thing.

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 5:59 am

Atheists in Saudi Arabia behave way different than atheists of Pinas, too. Situational.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 6:52 am

nash, as i said time and again, that’s her call. personally, i don’t think a minor offense (misdemeanor) should be a cause for relinquishing the presidency especially when no comfortable replacement is available.

the thing is our republican system of constitutional government (u.s. style) doesn’t offer an easy way for removing a president involuntarily. the story might be different if we have a parliamentary system where “loss of confidence” can topple a government at any time.

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 7:39 am

@bencard

I know she will not resign because she’s not that type of person. (Insert all the insults I can think of here)

But I will still join calls for her to do so all the way to 2010.

She did something illegal. I expect so much more from the highest office.

Italian PMs, Japanese PMs, British PMs who have not done anything illegal have resigned for lesser misdemeanors (if being unpopular is considered a misdemeanor). My puny little brain cannot understand why such standards of leadership should not apply to us.

vic on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 8:39 am

nash, unless there was a “consideration” or Bribe to influence ‘Garci’ on that famous call caught on the TAPE, the most GMA broke was the Ethical Code of Manners expected of Elected Officials and that would have been enough for a Decent person, I meant any decent person to set aside her or his own personal interests and goals and Fade away. But it is no Longer possible to find many in a power hungry country where to be, is a sure-way ticket not only to enormous source of wealth to one’s own family but to her or his own minions and Tribes. Look at the way all the men and women around GMA will stoop down to ground level or even below and you will understand WHY…

benign0 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:16 am

What they want everyone to find and imbibe is THEIR truth, to which they have every right, but do we have to believe them if we want to serve God and our fellow men? — DJB

I can’t speak for all religions but the Catholic Church certainly has a deep and EXTENSIVE track record of suppressing The Truth over the last two millenia.

It continues to derive its power by propagating a notion that people are all a bunch of worthless scum destined for a firey oblivion unless they partake in “sacraments” that can be delivered only by its duly deputised (they call them “ordained”) lieutenants (often for a fee or some other “personal” favours).

benign0 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:22 am

Lozada’s officially a pathetic chump:

[...]looking back, should [Lozada] really be the poster boy for â€œseeking the truthâ€? Seriously, would he really have come out in the open about the corruption in the NBN deal had it not been uncovered by Jose De Venecia III first? Heâ€™s not the whistleblower here, Jose III is. What Lozada has done is merely turn his coat after realizing heâ€™s on the losing side. He himself admitted that had the NBN deal pushed through, he was set to gain millions. Now that the jig is up and there are no more millions to gain, heâ€™s using his knowledge of the underhanded goings-on of the deal to highlight the blame away from himself and towards his masters, painting it as an attack of conscience. A jab of spite, more like it. I donâ€™t know whatâ€™s worse, that dirty people like him are not prosecuted, or that there are many who would take his â€œrepentanceâ€ at face value and literally fly his face on banners

Full article here:
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20080318-125473/Ego-worship

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:38 am

@vic

yes, I agree. merely dialling that number should have been the end of her.

and in my opinion, she was really trying to influence the count….

bleh. thank god for the internet, all of these misdemeanors, great and small, will be on permanent record, a big red stain on her sad legacy, pity her great grand children who will google her name only to find a cascade of bad things about her. and rightfully so.

cvj on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:11 am

bleh. thank god for the internet, all of these misdemeanors, great and small, will be on permanent record, a big red stain on her sad legacy, pity her great grand children who will google her name only to find a cascade of bad things about her. and rightfully so. – nash

This further illustrates and reinforces Luhman’s theses that:

1. “Society does not consists of people. Persons belong to the environment of society.”

and…

2. “Society is an autopoietic system consisting of communication and nothing else.”

Luhman defines ‘communication‘ as the unity of ‘information, transmission, and comprehension’.

mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:15 am

grd, we can assume the hierarchy is supremely capable of making distinctions according to moral theology -that gifts from the state, if used for the poor, are intrinsically good things.

but government and the clergy do not operate in a vacuum. what is licit may become illicit by the mere expedient of being unreported and only belatedly acknowledged: a donation for a clinic is only found out some time after the fact, because of reportorial sleuthing, which revealed the donations started pouring in at a time the president was politically besieged, for example.

which only multiplies the questions: was the donation in keeping with both secular and not just religious law, was the donation suspiciously timed, was it particularly impressive in amount because of the political circumstances bothering the president, did the recipient then use his authority and prestige for the partisan defense of the president?

all down the line, possibly perfectly legal and definitely, from the prelates’ point of view, not sinful (or venially so at most). and all justified because the faithful are not used to tithing and so, somehow, the diocese needs funds and it’s not coming from the flock.

but in the end, it adds up to a political picture and political conclusions. one of which is that the hierarchy is far from being politically neutral.

mlq3 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:17 am

nash why should there be a soup kitchen in villa san miguel? and that’s what caritas manila does.

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:24 am

A Canadian says about Filipinos : “…it is no Longer possible to find many in a power hungry country where to be, is a sure-way ticket not only to enormous source of wealth to oneâ€™s own family but to her or his own minions and Tribes.”

that a Filipino, given the chance to enrich self and clan, will discard Ethical Code of Conduct that white Canada (or even yellow Japan) finds as basic-minimum….

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:36 am

@mlq3

well, another one certainly won’t hurt..i think there should be one in every bishop’s residence or seminary….and they all can certainly afford it..

UP n student on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:50 am

For a bread-and-butter issue, start asking people about delays in their government retirement checks.

The Equalizer on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 11:20 am

Gloria knows that men in uniform and men in skirts have a price.She knows their number.

The best example is Cardinal Vidal who is the Cardinal of the Pidals.

benign0 on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 1:38 pm

Picked this up from your latest column mlq3:

But your belief in one or the other is anchored in what you believe concerning human nature: Is it generally good, or bad? Or does it lie somewhere in between, which I personally tend to believe: people are generally good, but generally bound to be bad, because, as one student told me in Cebu, “in this country it is easier to do wrong than it is to do right.” Which to my mind explains why generally good people end up doing bad things–it is simply a human failing to take the road of least resistance. — mlq3 in his latest INQ7.net column

On the contrary, the problem with Pinoys’ predisposition to improper approaches it seems lies a lot deeper than the environmental factors provided by the Philippines as an environment.

For anyone who’s had a chance to get a peek into the purplish world of Pinoy expat communities, you’ll find that they are microcosms of Pinoy national politics back in the islands — a world of intrigahan, misguided actions stemming from hear-says, and pissing contests galore.

Kinda disturbing in light of the theory above that implicitly paints an optimistic picture of the Pinoy character as one merely set back by the environment in the islands and the Government there.

That uniquely Pinoy dysfunction/malaise/cancer apparently lies entrenched not only in the collective national character but in the individual psyche as well and is being spread by boat and by plane all over as more Pinoys pack up and leave the islands.

Chabeli on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 3:53 pm

Like the Church, Cardinal Pidal is broken.

Carl on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 7:27 pm

All this cardinal and church bashing is sour-graping. Back when Cardinal Sin aligned the Catholic Church against Erap, did anyone of you cry bloody foul on the supposed neutrality of the Church in politics? No, everyone was busy chanting the corny Vox Populi Vox Dei.

Bishops admitted receiving jueting money as donation at a time when Erap was beleaguered. Did this prevent you from heeding Cardinal Sin’s call?

aurum on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 7:41 pm

To understand how bishops think, you have to go back to how they became bishops in the first place. They were the ones who did not rock the boat, who were sipsip to their higher-ups, who raised the most funds, who got invited often to say mass for political bigwigs, who had the most number of photo-ops, who were experts in creating intrigues against their competitors, and who were obtuse yet eminently capable of appearing to be learned. Of course, there are exceptions but they are far too few in between.
SWS should conduct a survey among priests and the religious and we will all see how poorly they think of their bishops. And we expect the bishops to lead us?

Chabeli on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:49 pm

Carl, you do have a point in your comments. In the same breath that nobody really questioned how scummy & dirty Chavit Singson was, & now the very people who “created” the Chavit Singson (the Pidals) expose are questioning the Jun Lozada.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 9:50 pm

“…all these misdemeanors, great and small will be on permanent record…”nash.

not so fast, man. pgma has not been convicted yet, so presumed innocent. erap? yeah for a heinous crime. gma? no, no, no.

caveat: be careful of what you say. libel is also a crime in the philippines, you know.

mang_kiko on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:03 pm

caveat: be careful of what you say. libel is also a crime in the philippines, you know.

bakit, bencard, sa anong bansa pa bang krimen ang Libel? Liban sa Pilipinas as sa ilang Bansa sa Africa at sa ME at sa ibang 3rd world Libel ay pagka-alam ko Civil Case lang ata o sa legal term “Tort”.

Bencard on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:15 pm

mang_kiko, tama. pilipinas nga ang tinutukoy ko dahil si nash, sa tingin ko, at itong blog ni manolo, at si gma, ay nasa pilipinas lahat.

DuckVader on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:39 pm

Benigno writes:

“For anyone whoâ€™s had a chance to get a peek into the purplish world of Pinoy expat communities, youâ€™ll find that they are microcosms of Pinoy national politics back in the islands â€” a world of intrigahan, misguided actions stemming from hear-says, and pissing contests galore.

Kinda disturbing in light of the theory above that implicitly paints an optimistic picture of the Pinoy character as one merely set back by the environment in the islands and the Government there.”

Assuming this is true, does it stop Filipinos from becoming successful in their new, host countries? The answer is largely — NO! So in the proper environment, this facet of Philippine behavior that you find annoying and upon which you decide to denigrate people, is largely an irrelevant factor. Which makes your analysis wrong.

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:45 pm

@bencard

It doesn’t matter, it’s all on the web. Do a google search, it’s mostly negative. That’s her fault. This is 2008, this is how powerful the court of public opinion is. It’s the internets baby.

Libel? Where? For what? She can go ahead sue me for all I care. I will have a field day representing myself in court (I know, it’s foolish) asking for evidence to the contrary that GMA is not a liar, a cheat, for turning a blind eye on extrajudicial killings, for influence peddling…

nash on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 10:50 pm

@bencard

Libel? Where? For what? She can go ahead sue me for all I care. I will have a field day representing myself in court (I know, it’s foolish) asking for evidence to the contrary that GMA is NOT a liar, a cheat, for turning a blind eye on extrajudicial killings, for influence peddling…

@Carl

“Back when Cardinal Sin aligned the Catholic Church against Erap, did anyone of you cry bloody foul on the supposed neutrality of the Church in politics? ”

Not everyone who went to EDSA 2 went because they could not make decisions independent of whatever Sin said ano. Yes, it’s probably true that without Sin people wouldn’t have been so brave (or misguided). The truth is universal. Erap was corrupt and had to go. Even if Joma Sison said it, he would still be correct.

anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 11:18 pm

nash,

“Libel? Where? For what? She can go ahead sue me for all I care. I will have a field day representing myself in court (I know, itâ€™s foolish) asking for evidence to the contrary that GMA is NOT a liar, a cheat, for turning a blind eye on extrajudicial killings, for influence peddlingâ€¦”

in libel, truth is not a defense

mindanaoan on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 11:23 pm

aurum, i don’t know what ill-will drove you to write so disparagingly about our bishops. i suspect it has to do with some bishops refusal to be part of lozada’s road-show. or maybe you’re just a cantankerous turd. but regardless, you owe it to blog readers to put some substance into your post. even the wildest charge deserves attention if it is founded on reasonable arguments. your caricature is just plain malicious and utterly baseless.

jackast on Thu, 20th Mar 2008 11:26 pm

The question of Cardinal Vidalâ€™s instructions to the clergy of his diocese …- mlq3

I call that the Bishops’ Gmabit, eh Manolo?

Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 12:03 am

anthony, you’re right. in the philippines, i believe, truth is not a defense in libel.

nash, i think the way it works, you – yes, YOU, have to prove that what you are saying is true i don’t know how you can do that considering that the entire anti-gma crowd has been trying to search for evidence of their “truth” that can stand up in any legal forum, and still has not succeeded. i think all that the victim of your libel has to show is you made the libelous remark maliciously knowing it’s not true. i like your bravado, but in case you get a knock at your door one of these days, good luck.

Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 12:08 am

btw, nash, google entries in the internet are not evidence of “truth”. don’t be too naive.

cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 12:24 am

Wow siga.

nash on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 12:50 am

@bencard

I’m not saying they are true ano.

All I’m saying is it’s all out their in the Public Domain, mga hinaing, suspetsa, at pagdududa ng tao kay GMA they are all in the Internet. That’s her fault, from the lying, stonewalling, mismanagement, political patronage…etc.

Don’t blame me for what she did.

I suppose you are going to knock down my door? In true Igorot hospitality, I will slaughter one chicken and one pig for you. Unless you are vegetarian and it will be sayote and camote.

@Scalia

If it were true, it cannot be libel.

Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:08 am

nash, make up your mind, will you? are you saying she did, or she did not? what do you mean by “what she did”? i thought you said they are only suspetsa, hinaing, pagdududa. if you understand the difference, stop confusing “truth” with suspicion.

nash on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:13 am

@Bencard

My personal opinion is that she cheated.

My earlier comments was on her legacy. What memory will we have of her. And too bad for her, we have lots of crap floating on the internet about her. She cannot escape that because it will stick to her like shite.

Now incidentally, I’ve been told that as the defendant, I have to do nothing in a libel suit except to wait for the plaintiff to prove the falsity of my statement.

So here is my statement: Gloria Macapagal Arroyo cheated in the last elections.

Sue me please.

jakcast on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:39 am

The (mis)handlers of Mr. Lozada’s roadshow should have realized from day 1(when CBCP issued a weak call for action against GMA) that the Church is not yet convinced.

In the ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of the Filipinos, the Catholic Church (survivor of two millenia of power plays) knows that its not all rational thinking in acquiring truth (the ‘logos’)that is at work. It is probable that GMA is guilty; likely in view of all the evidence.

However, the pre-modern way, but still important method, not concerned with the rational, but with meaning(the ‘mythos’) is still essential.

They know that the ordinary, everyday working Filipino, is still searching for meaning in all of this. So what if GMA knew and authorized the corrupt ZTE/NBN deal? What is the meaning of this in my life?

Even Martin Luther had to be reactionary in order to espouse his revolutionary Reformation thoughts.

Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 1:43 am

nash, first, i have to be retained (my rates are not cheap) in order to sue in behalf of clients. second, i’m still not sure what you are saying. your first sentence says it’s your PERSONAL OPINION that she cheated. then you make a “bold” unqualified “statement that gma cheated in the last election. are you trying to have it both ways? go back to your advisor and clarify if you can do that. i think you are playing a dangerous game, man.

nash on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:10 am

Hello Bencard,

Bold, personal, whatever. I said what I said. She’s a liar and a cheater. There, I said it again

It would be unfair to drag these legal threats on Mr. Manuel Quezon III’s blog. Also, I am hardly saying anything original and this is a blog comments box. Mr. de Quiros for example writes a far more eloquent column on a broadsheet.

In any case, should you decide to sue me please send all correspondence to

nash@cantab.net

Frankly, whether you are cheap or expensive, that is not my concern. That’s for your client and I am not your client.

Do you need a mailing address too?

Bencard on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:19 am

what de quiros do or say is his own concern. it’s not mlq3 who is doing the libeling, it’s you, in mlq3’s blog! read my lips. it’s not for me to sue you unless i’m retained for the purpose, but not by you.

BrianB on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:22 am

Nash, mamundok ka nalang.

BrianB on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:31 am

MLQ’s column:

“The clarion call of our times, then, unites faith with reason. To rebuild a civic culture. To have a common ground in shared values based on a shared belief in how the system ought to work. Our particular political objectives are secondary to this. It is our generation’s mission.”

Manolo, you know which country you’re in? A Civic culture? I’d be happy with a democratic republic. We’re a minority in the struggle for freedom from systematic corruption. A minority. Can we promise a good life to the people after we rid ourselves of a few big fishes? No. Ca we promise a better quality of living and more opportunities after the corrupt has been removed from office? Our generation? Our generation is legion in mind and attitude.

hawaiianguy on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 4:01 am

Brianb,

Trying to make leaders hold themselves accountable won’t work unless they are taught a hard lesson, and that something is done now. Gloria knows that, after making Erap pay for his sins. Her time of reckoning will come ultimately when she leaves office. She may possibly pay for her own sins now, if some pieces of the breaking system and injustice can be straightened up or made to work. But first, start with the few big fish, like Abalos, and hopefully the dominoes will fall with him. The Senate probe had already opened a can of worms.

BrianB on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 5:02 am

hawaiianguy,

Not saying it is wrong. I just want to make it clear that so far we are a minority. It took a while to realize but it is true. What she has done and the reasons for her removal are not subject to a vote.

hawaiianguy on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 5:47 am

Gotcha, BrianB.

As mlq3 said, time to rebuild the civic culture. Never mind if only a few are willing join.

benign0 on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 5:56 am

So in the proper environment, this facet of Philippine behavior that you find annoying and upon which you decide to denigrate people, is largely an irrelevant factor. Which makes your analysis wrong – DuckVader

I never related this collective dysfunction of Pinoys in any country to the INDIVIDUAL achievement of Pinoys.

The point is that when Pinoys are together, whether in the islands or in expat communities abroad, they exhibit that same collective dysfunction.

nash on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:30 am

@BrianB

Oo nga eh. Miss ko na bundok.

Itong isa namang tambay dito, mega-announce pa niya na “mamahalin” ang kanyang retainer. Hindi ko lubos maisip kung sino naman ang uto-utong magbayad ng mahal sa kalidad niya.

I’m libeling GMA? Come get me, I’m not hiding.

Pilipinoparin on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:44 am

Benigs,your generalization about dysfunction of Pilipinos is only in your dreams. I have been here for decades, been members of different organizations, midwest and west coast. We even have members from the north, and other countries. I have never experienced what you are saying about Pilipinos. Maybe you have seen that in some organizations or groups you belong to before. I think just like other group of people,Pilipino groups are generally OK. Your group maybe different, maybe the saying …birds of a feather flock together apply to you and your group. Otherwise, you are dreaming my friend.

Another thing Benigs, why are you calling our country islands? Don’t you have a heart to call it Republic of the Philippines or RP or maybe Pinas? Why islands? Dont’ you remember anything about Phil. history? How about the thousands of Pilipinos who died just so our country will become RP and not islands?

hawaiianguy on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:53 am

nash,

Yan ang tinatawag na gulpe de gulat. Pag nayanig ka sa threat (libel or anuman), kala nila magiging tameme ka na tulad ng karamihan sa pinas. kaya tuloy nasabi ni brianb na minority lang ang medyo concerned sa mga miyembro ng civic society.

mang_kiko on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 8:00 am

di ba nila na rinig yong latest pronouncement ni CJ Puno ukol sa Libel penalties na dapat iwasan nang manga Huwes ang sentensya at monetary fines lang daw..at ito pa dahil ang Libel ay sa ilalim nang Revised Penal Code kailangan na evidensya para mapatunayan ay katumbas din sa timbang nang ibang Criminal Cases, walang Duda. Iba yong sa Tort law, tulad ni OJ Simpson, nakaiwas sa Criminal Case, pero sa Civil Case sya nadali..

Nash, sa atin Bayan di mo kailangan ang Serbisyo ni Atty. Bencard to sue in behalf of Client, kundi magcomplain ka nalang sa Fiscals natin, sila ang mag file nang Libel Charges…

anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 9:58 am

nash,

the issue in libel isn’t the truthfulness of the remark/statement, but whether the remark/statement was made with malice

whats controversial here is that a libelous remark is presumed to be uttered with malice. so the burden to show that there’s no malice is with the accused

the real defense in libel isn’t truthfulness, but that the remark/statement wasn’t uttered with malice

The Equalizer on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 11:29 am

How many wounding headlines will it take to force the Catholic Church to permanently cure its institutional corruption?

Millions of Catholics are faced with the decision to demand changes or deliberately look the other way.

grd on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 2:19 pm

DAY 21…

santaclos on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:07 pm

Sa mga bloggers dito, binabasa ninyo ba lahat sa taas bago kayo magcomment? Napakahaba, have no patience reading all.

cvj on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 3:31 pm

santaclos, depends on mlq3’s entries. If it’s an essay-type (like his entry after this), i read the whole thing (although not in one sitting). If it’s a smorgasborg-type (i.e. multiple themes and links like the above), i browse and then zoom in on the theme that is interesting to me. I click through the links selectively depending on my level interest.

aurum on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 4:02 pm

Mindanaoan,
I was about to say, using your own words, that you’re the one who is a cantankerous turd but since this is Good Friday then I will just wish you well and may you continue to be a good Christian.
Happy Easter!

MrG on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 5:37 pm

mindanaoan said:
[quote]aurum, i donâ€™t know what ill-will drove you to write so disparagingly about our bishops. i suspect it has to do with some bishops refusal to be part of lozadaâ€™s road-show. or maybe youâ€™re just a cantankerous turd. but regardless, you owe it to blog readers to put some substance into your post. even the wildest charge deserves attention if it is founded on reasonable arguments. your caricature is just plain malicious and utterly baseless.[/quote]

From Cebu, I can understand where the language of aurum comes from. Listen to this explanation from Fr. Dan de los Angeles, Archdiocese of Cebu, which was published in the Cebu Daily News issue of March 20:
[quote]The Philippine Daily Inquirer said we boycotted the gathering. I disagree. Boycott implies we were obliged to attend but did not in order to register our protest. But we were not obliged to attend Mr. Lozada’s assembly nor were we protesting his presence here in Cebu. We did not stay away. We just chose not to go for one reason or another.

IS IT SO IMPOSSIBLE FOR MR. LOZADA AND COMPANY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR PRESENCE IN CEBU WAS SIMPLY IGNORED BY THE CLERGY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER?[/quote]
Fr. Dan is speaking not only for himself but for all the member priests of the Archdiocese of Cebu who were herded into their spiritual formation gathering the previous week to listen to Cerge Remonde on his version of truth on the NBN/ZTE deal. Remonde came to convince the prelates about the falsehoods being peddled by Lozada, not for any spiritual formation. He came complete with a pamphlet which must have been distributed to the priests in attendance (perhaps, to be read like a missal?)

Who would believe that the priests in the Archdiocese of Cebu would (like dumb driven cattle) shy away from Lozada and listen meekly to a homily by Remonde without any order from a church leader? And whose the highest leader that can arrange for these events here in Cebu? This and the ‘hi-hello-good bye’ non-meeting at the Wackwack simply does not promote an image of a neutral NGO.

Having ordered the priests to listen to Remonde on the NBN/ZTE scam, it would have been fair to allow the priests equal time with Lozada. As things are panning out, Cardinal Vidal and the explanations from his staff are now viewed to be in the same category as Ablos’, Gaite’s, Madriaga’s and Razon’s Senate testimonies.

mindanaoan on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 5:42 pm

aurum, after your calumny, no need to show you’re nice. just add whys and because to your vituperation so we’ll have something to read.

Bert on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:11 pm

“whats controversial here is that a libelous remark is presumed to be uttered with malice. so the burden to show that thereâ€™s no malice is with the accused”

ako naniniwala na walang malisya ang isip ni nash, galit lang talaga siya sa magnanakaw at mandaraya, lalo na kung pera nya ang na-nakaw. ang iba naman kontra sa’yo kapag galit ka sa magnanakaw at mandaraya maski ‘di naman sila ang pinagbibintangan. mahirap intindihin kung bakit kaya ganoon sila. palitan lang ito ng kuro-kuro, pero, bakit naman tayo a-angal kung ang isang tao ay nagrereklamo na siya ay nanakawan kung hindi naman tayo ang magnanakaw, ‘o defense lawyer ng taong pinagbibintangang magnanakaw?

nash, hwag ka nang mamundok, pasyal na lang kita sa islang pinanggalingan ko, ‘di masyadong malayo sa lugar na pinanggalingan ni Bencard, baka mataon na naroon din sya. ok ba iyon, Bencard?

nash on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:15 pm

@anthony scalia

I have no malice when I say GMA is a cheater and a liar. It’s so plain and simple to me.

Ikaw naman, ano pa bang malisya ang pwede mong itapon kay GMA?? She’s bottom of the cesspool already. Angela Merkel has more balls than her, mike defensor, and mike arroyo combined

@brianb

We can go back to serious issues now. Bea Ledesma has been identified as Celine Lopez’ ghostwriter. There.

mindanaoan on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 6:35 pm

MrG, so you also believe aurum was driven by lozada’s experience in cebu. maybe you share his anger. now, how does that support his assertion that bishops became bishops because they are sipsip, creators of intrigue and “obtuse yet eminently capable of appearing to be learned”? where does it say he has conclusive knowledge of this denunciation?
there’s this blog they call “hellhole”. i believe it’s the proper place for rantings.

MrG on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 7:29 pm

Perhaps, we have been reading too much from DJB and the others above on the matter. If that is arum’s perception of what these Church leaders have become, then, I guess he is entitled to it. Would you also have conclusive knowledge contrary to his denunciation? Your perceptions are as good as arum’s and mine.

mindanaoan on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 8:01 pm

MrG, i am quite sure those are not perceptions. it’s unbelievable that he is familiar with most of the bishops to be able to say that. no, he demonized them only because he is angry. i sure doubt if he can point out one bishop who, he said, is an expert in creating intrigues and was thus promoted to become bishop. and no, to say he is entitled to his malicious and baseless caricature is to confuse reason with nonsense.

vic on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 8:48 pm

Since Libel is a Criminal Offense under the Philippines Law, and under the Criminal Law the Onus is on the Prosecutors to prove the quilt, unless it is specifically a Reverse Onus on Libel and Slander Cases…

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 21st Mar 2008 10:32 pm

“Take it from Pope Benedict XVI. He says the modern world “is losing the notion of sin.” And not just personal sins such as greed, lust or the rest of the infamous Seven Deadlies, but social sins, too, such as polluting the planet or ALLOWING INJUSTICE to flourish.”
–USA Today

jen on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 7:29 am

am a cebuano and the way i see it they just had to make a noise and have a scapegoat–Cardinal Vidal- becoz no one came to see the clown! sorry guys but we truly understand your frustrations becoz linangaw kayo dito however pls dont vent your frustration and anger towards the Cardinal. am not roman catholic btw..

Madonna on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 2:49 pm

My, we have a libel law which is a joke. Malice is the operative word. How does one objectively judge if a statement is malicious or not? A libel law should be rather more about the veracity or the falsehood of a statement or claim. And the imputation of malice should just be secondary.

The law belongs to the middle ages and is a more of a defense of the rich and those who are in position of public office to protect their sheninagians from being known by the public. It is a major stumbling block to accountability and responsibility that are due to public officials. It is also runs against the Constitution which says we have freedom of speech. Because of our ridiculous libel law, public officials and all those who derive their power from the public are protected and anyone who wants to say their piece about them are routinely threatened with suits. To say something against a pubic official should not burden an ordinary citizen to produce proof, it is rather that the burden of proving that the allegations are not true should rest with the acccused who hold their office via public fiat.

Methinks we should change our libel law. It is not suited to a modern democratic society. Perhaps because of it, is an indicator that we don’t live in a real democracy. And we are still in the bondooks (the influence of the Catholic Church is partly to be blamed) regarding our legal resorts — not just because of our current libel law, but the absence of a real divorce law.

Bencard on Sat, 22nd Mar 2008 10:27 pm

madonna, one way to show malice is by proving that the perp says the defamatory words KNOWING they are not true. as anthony scalia pointed out, in philippine law, malice is presumed when a defamatory statement is made – meaning that the libeler has the first burden of showing the absence of malice.

example: calling someone a criminal before he/she is convicted in a court of law is presumed malicious. and why should it not be?

btw, not only the rich and powerful may become victims of libel. even an innocent poor probinsiana may be defamed when she is called a prostitute by a local gossip monger.
in a society that has become preoccupied with gossips and malicious innuendos, e.g., the tsismisang senado, or the uncontrolled purveyors of hate in the media, libel laws need to be strengthened rather than emasculated or discarded.

Abe N. Margallo on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 12:05 am

Catholicism is a hierarchical religion, and administratively, organized under imperial Roman lines, one of the Popeâ€™s titles being that of Supreme Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus), one of the titles of the emperors of Rome; archbishops and bishops rule of over dioceses, a term borrowed from the administrative setup of the Roman empire. Spiritually, it is organized on both a hierarchical and collegial lines, as bishops are successors of the Apostles, of whom the first among equals was Peter:

â€œAnd I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will my church be based, and the doors of hell will not overcome it.â€

But there was of course a period of decadence in ecclesiastical hierarchy and authority when bishops, even popes, were drawn into royal service (perhaps akin to an â€œArchdiocese of MalacaÃ±angâ€) or forced to an interweaving of ecclesiastical and royal authority, or when the Church in fact witnessed its division into dioceses and individual parishes well-nigh lapsing into popular Christianity.

More recently, there have been profound changes initiated by progressive leaders of the Roman Catholic Church weighing down on the scaffold of the Churchâ€™s culture of hierarchy that the Philippine Church (and other Catholic conservatives) might have failed to catch on.

For example, the idea of workers empowerment has been attributed to an Englishman named Eric Trist, considered to be the â€œevangelist for participative management.â€ Challenging the conventional wisdom about the imperative for â€œautocracyâ€ in business concerns, Trist suggested that giving workers complete responsibility for an entire operation could lead to job performance that is more productive. It was also a challenge directed to â€œscientific managementâ€ which Henry Ford perfected in the U.S. automobile factories. The concept of empowered work team, however took root in the U.S. only in the 70s and 80s, and only after the Second Vatican Council had begun preparation in 1959, the most important achievement of which could be the empowerment of the laity and the parallel cutback in the power of the clergy and maybe the magisterium itself.

At the Second Vatican Council, among the progressive documents enacted by the fathers is the â€œDogmatic Constitution of the Churchâ€ (Lumen Gentium) which, inter alia, called the lay people to share the missionary vocation of the church and described the church as the â€œPeople of God.â€ Another Council document, the â€œConstitution on the Sacred Liturgy,â€ has promulgated the principle of greater participation of the laity in the celebration of the mass. The Council also enunciated the apostolate of the laity.

The monarchical underpinnings of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) that proclaimed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra somehow deferred, following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1865), to the increasing role of the bishops (versus the papal prerogative of infallibility) even as the textual modification of the Canon Law paved the way for the recognition of the expanding role of the laity, Chapter III of Lumen Gentium, affirming the hierarchical structure of the Church notwithstanding.

The notion of â€œshared responsibility,â€ â€œco-responsible leadership,â€ and â€œdecision-making by consensus,â€ became intertwined with the progressive construction of the Canon Law provisions, as modified by the Second Council, on â€œpastoral (parish) councilsâ€ long before those terminologies became fashionable in the world of business, management and political discourse.

Pope John Paul II in Sources of Renewal, a book he wrote about his experience at the Second Vatican Council, articulated the following:

â€œ. . . A parish needs a council in order to insure that it is truly faithful to Godâ€™s call. Catholics have always cherished the idea of obedience and fidelity to Godâ€™s word spoken in and through the Church. It is that same Church that is calling its people now to listen for Godâ€™s words spoken not only through the leadership, but through fellow Christians as well. But to hear that word spoken through the people requires a new structure, a new way. A council united with the pastor provides by design that way, because its representative nature insures that every voice is heard, not just those that are the loudest, or the most powerful or the most traditional. â€(Italics mine.)

Expounding on the same vein in his book, Co-responsibility in the Church, Leo Joseph Cardinal Suenens, who helped set the agenda of the Vatican II, wrote:

â€œ. . . The role of the one in charge is not that of making a â€˜personalâ€™ decision after taking the advice of others into account. For in that case it would still be â€˜hisâ€™ decision. His role is rather to make it possible, in so far as this depends upon him, for there is to be a common decision, which commits each member to the decision, in such a way that they are solidly behind it and willing to accept all the consequences of what has been decided together.â€

Bencard on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 12:07 am

jen, i agree with you. i’m really appalled by the way they are obviously trying to keep the dying lozada “roadshow” resuscitated. for instance, abs-cbn, which has a virtual monopoly of overseas pinoy audience, keeps replaying on prime time the korina-carandang extravaganza (called “harapan”, featuring lozada, clad in undershirt) ad nauseam. every time my wife turns the t.v. on tfc this holy week, we see the same dubious face, and hear the same questionable claims, of lozada.

i can sense a sacrilegious attempt to portray him as some kind of “christ”. may God have mercy on us.

Bencard on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 12:42 am

abe, what do you think would have happened if the group comprising Jesus Christ and his twelve apostles, along with the believers that were following Him, was governed by this “shared responsibility”, or “co-responsible leadership” or “decision by consensus”?

i understand judas iscariot entertained independent thoughts that ultimately led to his betrayal of his master. but of course, that was providential. it had to be fulfilled, lest we don’t have an easter.

btw, throughout its 2000 years existence, the church has been battered by all sorts of heresies and apostasies. i think it’s going through a phase, but it’s alive and well.

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 7:14 pm

nash,

no, im just pointing out that you cannot invoke truth as a defense in a libel case.

ok if you said that without malice. kaso nga lang, if you are charegd with libel, the burden is on you to prove that it isn’t so

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 7:18 pm

Madonna,

thats why there are moves in Congress to decriminalize libel. but until that happens, we have no choice but to live with that

CJ Puno’s order to trial court judges just to impose a fine in libel cases is already a great improvement.

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 7:21 pm

vic,

a defamatory statement is presumed to be libelous. the law prescribes that presumption

vic on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 9:26 pm

anthony,

but the crime of libel is still have to proven by whom? the accuser or that the accused is presumed guilty and the Onus is on the accused to prove his or her innocence and that would be contrary to the provision of Bill of Rights that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public trial.

there are instances where a statute will specify a reverse onus in cases on Bail Application in specific crime, but I still have to find one on specific Crime the presumption of guilt…

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 9:40 pm

vic,

all the prosecution needs to do is (1) identify the publication where the defamatory statement is printed, (2) identify who wrote the statement (included here is the writer’s editor and publisher), (3) identify the object of defamation, and (4) prove publication

theres no violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence. take note, the accused in a libel case is still presumed innocent, its just that he has the burden of showing that his remark wasn’t made with malice. the prosecution must still prove the enumeration above, for the presumption of libel to attach. if the prosecution fails to establish the enumeration above, then the presumption of libel does not attach.

what if there was no publication, so no third party was able to read the defamatory statement? or what if the remark was made by someone other than the accused? what if the object of the defamation was not sufficiently identified (like in blind items)? all these defeat the libel case, without the accused ever having to overturn the presumption of malice

in short, the prosecution still has work to do.

vic on Sun, 23rd Mar 2008 11:24 pm

Got your points anthony, but I still believe that Libel and Slander should be taken out of the Criminal Code and place where it belongs, the Tort Law, where the case will be between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to sort out.

One thing is that those that are in power can not abuse and utilize the office of the Public Prosecutors for other than truly a meritorious cases.

Secondly, journalists and individuals will be very discerning as civil suit will be very expensive and may require insurance on most journalist to practise their profession. Yet, the public can trust the publication and news as mostly would carry the TRUTH as the threat of Libel would make it possible..

anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 12:19 pm

vic,

amending the libel law is way overdue.

but our bright legislators have more important things to attend to. like the perpetual NBN-ZTE hearings

Rob' Ramos on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 4:07 pm

@ discussion on libel

I found in Chan Robles (www.chanrobles.com) an SC decision that, among other things, enumerated what constitutes libel. I’m sorry if I don’t know how to manually put in the link here, but copy-paste this: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralawgrno141332december112003.html

Anyway, here’s how the decision defined malice: “There is malice when the author is prompted by personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response to a duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed.”

Libel also requires publication: “In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written.”

Those are from the SC decision itself.

I saw a post above that insists on the Freedom of Expression as a counter to libel. I wish to remind you that Freedoms have corresponding Responsibilities.

Rob' Ramos on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 4:08 pm

@ my post above

Oh,look: it’s automatic (the linkie, I mean). Asteeg ^_^

zeel on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 5:21 pm

Jeg said,

“The biggest atrocities in history have been perpetrated by people and societies who have traditionally believed in a higher power but rejected it in favor of the ultimate authority of the State.”

u speak the truth.

zeel on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 5:30 pm

nash,

lighten up. you are only judging based on what you perceive to be the Catholic Church. the pastoral care of the Roman Catholic Church is where you see the difference. if you have not tried to drive down a single nail for a GK house, just try holding back the venom until you have not actually pissed blood just so the next house will be built early enough for a family to move in.

just try.

zeel on Mon, 24th Mar 2008 5:30 pm

nash,

lighten up. you are only judging based on what you perceive to be the Catholic Church. the pastoral care of the Roman Catholic Church is where you see the difference. if you have not tried to drive down a single nail for a GK house, just try holding back the venom until you have actually pissed blood just so the next house will be built early enough for a family to move in.

just try.

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Interdicts, faith, Cardinals, and morals

Comments

The Explainer

Books from my library

Social Network Profiles

Amazon Wish List

Polls

Archives