An Atrocious Response

I am referring to how the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) "rationalized" how embattled priest Monsignor Cristobal Garcia could possibly be "forgiven", with regards to his involvement is a sex abuse case.

This should be good enough?

(Courtesy of watchdogblog.dallasnews.com)

Garcia has been in the news as of late, thanks to a National Geographic article (in their October 2012 issue) by Bryan Christy. In it, the writer tries to trace the ivory trade route, and stumbled upon our country as a port from where ivory is then brought to other destinations. Christy is led to Cebu, where Garcia is stationed, and the priest, a collector of religious figurines, some of which are made of ivory, regales the writer on how to effectively smuggle ivory.

(See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text )

Now comes the news that the Catholic hierarchy has stripped Garcia of his official functions and responsibilities, and the CBCP says it has nothing to do with the NatGeo story. 

Apparently, this removal of duties stems from the fact that the Vatican is still in the midst of an ongoing investigation in Garcia's involvement in a sex abuse case. After that story broke, Garcia flew back to the Philippines. He also claimed that it was he who was "seduced and raped", and not the other way around. This is validation for Brooks Egerton, who initially reported about Garcia's case, back in 2005.

(See http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/vatican-finally-suspends-priest-who-admitted-sex-with-boys.html/)

In the CBCP press conference, it was inevitable that this issue would be brought up; Monsignor Acilles Dakay, Cebu Archdiocese media liaison officer, gave this response:

"What happened in the States could be a crime. If it was also a sin on his part, it was forgiven. He had repented."

(See http://globalnation.inquirer.net/51430/vatican-sacked-cebu-priest-months-ahead-of-ivory-scandal-says-church-exec)

I will leave it up to you how you would view this response. The title of my post puts it clearly what I think of this: heaping atrocious indignation on top of this unimaginable atrocity. (Dakay's response is clearly an admission that it happened, otherwise, what is there to be "repented" for?) Nowhere in the article does it indicate that the priest will be turned over to civil authorities.

We've heard it all before: it's an internal matter. We'll handle it ourselves. No need to concern yourselves with this. We know how best to deal with one of our erring members. In the vernacular, kami na bahala, wag na kayo makialam. (We'll take care of it, don't interfere.)

How utterly convenient. How throughly unacceptable.

It smacks of an arrogance I am all-too-familiar with, as this country has more than its fair share of religious zealots, the kind who exact some nefarious glee in judging others, but when the moral spotlight is turned on them, steadfastly cling to a single dialogue: I will not be judged by men, only by my God.

There's a word for people like that. And yes, it will "offend religious sensibilities".

The truth has certainly been getting a bad rap these days.

Explaining Secular Democracy To Tito

Hello, public officials of the Republic of the Philippines,

Some things to clear about us.

(Courtesy of iconarchive.com)

In recent days, there has been much intermingling of politics and religion (one in particular) in the news, particularly where the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill is concerned.

We've heard of a legislator invoking his deity should the bill pass. We've heard of another legislator saying certain provisions in the bill should be stricken out because it goes against religion (one in particular). And we've heard of a legislator aiming for a "compromise" by meeting with religious leaders (one in particular) to draft an "acceptable" version of the same bill.

Now, I realize that even though you are duly elected or appointed public servants, no one has explicitly informed you of the framework by which our government operates. Imagine my surprise when I did not see a Cliffs Notes version about this at all! (In my day - a long time ago - students who failed to write their term papers or book reviews were routinely saved by this creation, a condensed version of mostly literary works.)

Here, then, is my attempt to provide such a service.

(1) This country is a secular democracy.

For those who ran for their positions, you know this very well, having partaken of an important part in this type of government: the election of public officials.

A democracy is popularly known as a government "for, of and by the people", one where citizens have a say as to who should be running the government through elections, what bills are needed through its representatives, and an expectation of a fair hearing in disputes, through its judges. (Formally, the three branches of a democratic government.)

Ultimate power in this government lies in its citizenry, not officials, who are also called public servants. Officials are given certain powers to carry out their duties in the service of the citizens. (It was never meant to be used to enrich oneself or one's family.)

There is no requirement that says you have to belong to a religion (one in particular) to run for office or be appointed as one. This is enforced in our very Constitution, the document that gives life to our way of government. Something about "no religious test will be required", blah, blah - the lawyers can explain this better, because this is supposed to be the shorthand version, so we won't go into detail.

This also means that someone who says "I don't belong to any faith-based group" is eligible to run for public office, as eligible as someone who goes to a place of worship (one in particular) twice a day, seven days a week, and gives money to religious leaders (one in particular) when a collection plate goes by.

Secular, therefore, simply means we don't care about your religious status. A simple test for this would be: are you barred from voting based on your religion, or lack of it?

(2) It follows, then, that our laws should be secular and democratic.

Legislators create/amend laws, executives enforce it, and judges interpret it (and hand out punishments for those who go against it). That is how it works in a democracy. (For those who think this is too simplistic - condensed version, hello. I highlight the big things, don't worry.)

Since our rights as citizens are not in any way hampered by our choice of religion (one in particular) - see above example on voting - then the laws we have governing everyone should also be equally unhampered by any religion (one in particular), and should be applied equally regardless of religion.

In this respect, in a secular democracy, government laws trump any religion's (one in particular) beliefs. A simple test would be: since citizens are guaranteed the right to happiness, can a religion (any which one) get away with, say, raping a virgin, since it is "demanded" by its religious rules? Obviously no, the government can press rape and assault charges on those who claim that raping a young maiden is their "religious right".

And that goes for all so-called "religious rights".

I often hear rebuttals from theists about how they "answer to a higher power" and that they "will be judged in an afterlife". That is a personal call, guaranteed by our secular laws, our freedom to each choose our own religion. If it makes you feel "superior", kindly gloat in your own home, and wait until after your last breath to do so - the freedom to choose my own religion also means I don't have to believe in your specific interpretation of a higher power or your version of an afterlife.

Anyone can create a religion, just to prove that point.

(3) Religious leaders (one religion in particular) should stay out of formulating secular laws.

Time to drill the point home: public officials are not required to belong to any religion (one in particular), and laws cannot be made with any religion (one in particular) in mind.

It stands to reason, then, that anyone affiliated with any particular faith as its leader cannot be "in charge" of making laws in a government that allows you to choose your own religion. That would contravene - go against - the principle of being able to freely choose your own religion,  because that particular leader would make into secular law what he personally believes as a matter of faith.

Thereby, forcing a person of a different faith to follow that particular leader's religious rules.

As an example: vegetarianism is self imposed by some faiths because they believe that animal cruelty is heinous. (I find that reasoning odd - what about cruelty to plants, then? - but we'll save that for another time.) If a leader of such a faith became, I don't know, Secretary of Trade and Industry, would that person, based on his or her religious beliefs, be allowed to ban livestock trading because it "offends" his or her faith?

(4) It cannot be a numbers game.

One particular religion is saying that since they claim the most number of adherents in this country, "majority wins".

Aside from the reasons already stated, here's another one: what if that particular religion became number two in terms of claiming their "number of sheep"? If laws were enacted and made to suit that particular religion, should we overhaul these laws and repeal them if they aren't "top dog" in terms of membership?

Already, this one particular religion is losing members - just Google the statistics - because of its flock losing faith in its human leaders, child molestation cases, inability to follow their own advice to members about frugality and the temporary nature of earthly riches, and so many more reasons. It is not at all farfetched - maybe not in this country but worldwide - to think that they will soon be toppled off their supposed vaunted position and standing.

As my friend who voiced this out said, ano to, magririgodon tayo depende kung anong relihiyon ang inaangkin ng mayorya? (what's this, will we go on a carousel depending on which is the most "popular" religion?)

Secular laws - by definition free from any religious bias - should be able to withstand on its own regardless of where the faith-based winds may howl.

(5) Secular democracy is essentially agreeing to disagree.

Since we all have different "views" about beliefs, to each his or her own. Secular laws are the ones we all agree upon regardless of religious affiliation.

I hope that this very short primer on our way of government will help you conduct yourself in matters of the State.

While I do not claim to be an expert who can make perfect arguments, as a reasonably intelligent member of this country, I feel it is my duty to let you know how I think and feel.

Any mistake in my interpretation of our existing laws and social systems can be traced to the fact that I am not a lawyer or a social scientist by trade. It does not mean that I cannot participate in legal matters or cannot be a social observer, in the same way that not all our senators are lawyers, or how astute observations can come from the unlikeliest of sources.

It only means that I care for the direction that this country is headed.

Sincerely,
A Citizen of a Secular Democracy (known as the Republic of the Philippines)

Let's Get "Real" About The RH Bill

Last Saturday, the Catholic Church mounted its forces and called for a "prayer rally" in order to make a statement to the government that they are prepared to fight tooth and nail in opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

I don't even know what to say to this.

(Courtesy of raissarobles.com)

I know of many friends who are actually against the RH Bill. I cannot and will not begrudge them their opinion, based on their religious beliefs and what their (religious) leaders have told them, based on what they perceive the bill to be all about. I don't know if any of them actually managed to make it to the said show of protest at the EDSA Shrine, which was befitting as the event venue since it was clearly a religious-based opposition.

I am directing my comments and questions to the Catholic leadership in this country.

As can be gleaned by various news articles and pronouncements, there is an overwhelming support by various sectors for the passage of this bill. 

The United Nations figures in today's headline of the country's most read paper, recognizing how family planning contributes to development.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/243039/un-weighs-in-on-ph-birth-control-dispute)

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has come out to refute how his words have been presented to suit the needs and biases of those against the bill, with special mention of the CBCP.

(http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/33-editors-pick-moveph/9859-nobel-prize-winner-contradicts-cbcp)

Business groups have publicly declared their support for the measure.

(http://www.interaksyon.com/business/39510/big-business-calls-on-congress-to-pass-rh-bill)

As this is a democracy, there are other religious groups existing as well, and some of them have given their support for the RH Bill.

(https://www.facebook.com/efraim.tendero/posts/10151161259219612)

Survey after survey have shown that majority of Filipinos want the bill to pass.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101201-306256/Pulse-69-favor-RH-bill)

My questions/comments, then, are:

(1) If you are truly against contraception, why do you support natural methods of family planning?

This has always been my biggest concern (if that's the word I should be using) whenever the prelates would start preaching against the condom, the pill, the IUD.

Why are you so vigorously opposed to modern methods of preventing conception, calling it "anti-life" even, when they have exactly the same end as the natural methods?

I never understood why you always seemed to be on some moral high ground. I remember how, in an online forum, one of your defenders was haughtily proclaiming that because of some Catholic doctrine and how natural methods are "open to life", it is perfectly fine to push these methods.

I countered that I am not a Catholic, so I am just going by what I see as someone "not immersed": Isn't that hypocrisy?

You are basically saying that one method is better than the other, but you do realize that both those methods have the same end? Namely, not letting the egg meet the sperm. It is spelled out clearly in the term contraception.

Contra = Against

Ception = Conception

It would be akin to someone defending his method to kill another person using his bare hands ("natural" method) to wring out the life of the intended target, but saying that he is morally superior to someone who employs a gun or a hacksaw (using weapons) to achieve the same end: murdering someone.

How can you sit on your moral high horse? I see no difference.

(2) You do know that the government and (any) church are separate in any democracy?

I need to point this out because whenever you make your pronouncements on how candidates should fear your "influence" should any of them decide to vote for the RH Bill's passage, you are clearly establishing a threat - it's not even a subtle one - that secular lawmakers in a democratic country have to bow down to one specific religion's doctrine.

Or else.

Do you understand what the terms "secular" and "democracy" even mean?

Yes, even though you are in denial of it, it means one thing: You in the Catholic leadership are in the same position as every other religion in the country. You are on equal footing, no one religion is supposed to be "better", and neither is one supposed to be favored. You only have an advantage in that Catholicism - imported via Spain - has been here since Magellan landed so you have almost 5 centuries of a headstart.

And I deliberately inserted the fact that Catholicism is a foreign concept to these islands, as many of your defenders like to say that it is "foreign influence" that is pushing for the modern methods of family planning. If these same people are so adamant about being "controlled" by concepts that are from other shores, they should be renouncing Catholicism this very instant.

The silence - and the hypocrisy - is deafening.

(3) Have you tried raising children or ever applied for a job?

I mean that question in the most non-antagonistic way possible.

Going with this post's title, it behooves me to wonder how is it that you think yourselves so well-versed in advising people on the ways of family life, or making claims like "contraception leads to corruption", as mentioned in last Saturday's rally.

Have you ever had a baby wake you up at night? Have you had 10 children simultaneously asking you where your next meal will be coming from? Have you had to fend off feelings of guilt, knowing in the pit of your stomach you can only send one of them to school, and just to elementary school at that? Have you tried walking around in the searing sun and horrendous rains, handing out your resumes and not hearing about a positive development in your job hunt for weeks, months, and even years? Have you even worried about where to sleep or what to wear?

The posturing, as if you had such a wealth of experience in these matters, is what is most offensive to my eyes, ears and most of all, heart.

Millions of people in this country - almost 100 million as of last count - are struggling to make it through the next day, even the next meal. Until you have come face to face with those stark realities, in an authentic way, that you have actually experienced and lived through, all your platitudes just come off as armchair pronouncements, one that is devoid of real world experience.

(4) Do you think subsidizing the distribution of modern methods of family planning is a waste of money?

Then you should be equally consistent and call for the immediate end of all subsidies provided for by government.

I highlight this because I read an online comment, saying that "condoms are legal and can be purchased anyway, don't use tax money to buy them, anyone who wishes to buy them should pay full price!"

Following that logic, we should tear down all public schools, demolish public hospitals, declare public health centers as a large deficit contributor, and so on.

These services have been provided because in a democratic government, it falls on the state to ensure that each citizen has a fighting chance of getting educated, having good health services, and everything else that make one not only have an existence, but a life. And they are given to support the most financially disadvantaged of its citizens.

Let me repeat that: it is the duty of the State to empower and equip its citizens with the right and basic tools to make it through life, whatever and however a person fashions that life to be. It is also responsible for managing the taxes it collects to fund these services - these are not "Catholic money", as some of your supporters claim they do not wish to "fund condoms" (as if that is the only thing the RH Bill provides). Public money, tax money - these are all property of the government, our "admission price" for being citizens in a democratic country. No religion can dictate a secular, democratic government what to do with it.

The RH Bill is meant to provide information and services regarding reproductive health for the country's poorest, those who don't even know where to get their next meal, much in the same way that public schools are meant for those who cannot afford it. You do not say "everyone should pay full price!" - have you seen what Catholic schools charge as tuition fees?

5. Lastly, the Philippines is not Catholic property. Deal with it.

Isn't Katie A Non-Entity?

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, that is.

Reminds one of Groucho Marx.

(Courtesy of cwebnews.com)

Even if you were the least bit interested in showbiz news, anyone who is wired and connected the way this generation has become to the online world cannot escape a recent buzz: the divorce of Katie Holmes from actor Tom Cruise, who is considered a "senior" member of the Church of Scientology, if what I heard on a news item was correct.

Speculations were rife (they still are, even though the Church has issued a denial) that the biggest reason for the separation was the belief system of Cruise. There is no official word from either of the divorcing parties, hence the free-wheeling speculations.

But now comes the news that Katie has "registered" (is that the right term) as a Catholic "again" (this was the religion of her childhood and she converted to Scientology, and apparently, now wants out).

(More here: http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/katie-holmes-turns-back-on-scientology-by-registering-with-catholic-church-7935580.html)

I'm not a Catholic, so help me out here.

If you get a divorce, doesn't that make you non-existent in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

If you're not considered "existing", how does that same person get a membership?

Anyone? 

Anyone at all?

This "Bulaga" Doesn't Come From Sotto

Just when we thought we had heard it all from the anti RH camp.

Now comes the news, really more a nasty surprise (which is what the Filipino word bulaga would approximately mean) from Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who, as of last count, was one of the senators against the RH Bill. (Ironically, his sister, Pia, also a senator, is one of the two main proponents in the Senate of the same bill. The title of this post is a reference to vocal anti-RH Senator Sotto, who was a mainstay of the noontime variety show "Eat Bulaga!", before heading out to more, uhm, legislative pastures.)

(Photo courtesy of inquirer.net)

Cayetano wants the RH Bill to be "supported" by the Catholic Church, on the grounds that the Philippines is "a country where majority of the population is Catholic". (See the article here: )
http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?articleid=731807)

The senator is lighting the fuse on something that should not even be on the table.

In a way, I am "glad" he brought this out, as it gives everyone a chance to see, once and for all, why he is hideously wrong in bringing this point up. And I am coming from the perspective of someone who has never been a Catholic, which makes my voice the perfect counterbalance to what the senator is suggesting.

To Senator Alan Cayetano:

I am a citizen of this country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this country has a democratic form of government. One of the basic tenets of democracy is the Separation of State and Church, and one of the freedoms we enjoy is the freedom of religion. I would think that you, a Senator of this Republic, would know this first hand, seeing as the position you now enjoy is a result of a largely convoluted but still democratic process.

Your contention that the RH Bill should be "supported" by the Catholic Church is thrusting an unnecessary spear into my freedom to choose a religion of my own. If what you want should come to pass, you will unwittingly make me, nay, FORCE me to become a Catholic, against my wishes. Why should I be subjected to rules and regulations that, supposedly, are only under the jurisdiction of a particular faith - the Catholic one, specifically - when I do not wish to become a Catholic in the first place?

Many belief systems, faiths and paradigms do not find it "immoral" to use artificial contraception. But with your proposal, you would be empowering the Catholic Church in this country to dictate and impose its own religious views onto those who have elected - freely, under a democracy - to follow other faiths. That is a clear contravention into my right and freedom to have my own faith.

Also, this position of yours blurs the line between State and Church. Aren't religions, in a secular, democratic form of government, supposed to follow our secular laws? I would think that if any religion were to practice cannibalism or child molestation, and claim that these were not "answerable" to secular authorities, under the perverted mantle and guise of reasoning out that "our religion calls for it, we only answer to OUR God, we have freedom of religion!", not only would we find this monumentally laughable, but extremely offensive and of the highest disrespect for the secular laws of our land as embodied in the Constitution, particularly those that seek to punish murderers and pedophiles.

But this is exactly what you are doing, by saying that before the RH Bill is to be passed, that it should be "supported" by the Catholic Church. On what grounds should we consider the Catholic position on this, and any other matter, superior to the stand of other faiths, when the entire point of having freedom of religion is to enforce the legal truth in a democracy that no faith should be given preferential treatment, and should not even be a "deciding factor" when it comes to discussing secular matters? Should President Noynoy Aquino now pay homage to our bishops and subsume his decisions in deference to their preferences?

Your suggestion is, at its core, proposing a radical shift in our form of government; if you cut out any rationalizations, you are essentially endorsing a Catholic theocracy, where what Catholic leaders say become the law of the land, where no bill can be passed without their "support".

If that is what you wish, you may renounce your citizenship to this democratic country and move to the Vatican.

Until we officially become that theocracy, you would be well reminded of the FACT that this is still a democracy, and are a direct beneficiary of that form of government. You do not have the right to disregard me, or any one else who does not share the Catholic faith, on account of Catholics being the majority. In fact, BECAUSE this is a democracy, you actually have to make sure that those in the minority are to be heard and are to be included in any and all secular decision making laws and agenda.

You work for the citizens of this country, the Republic of the Philippines. You DO NOT work for the Catholic Church. You are obligated to us, not to them.

Do not just hear these words.

Listen.

Debate The RH Bill - In Any Language

Last week, the major dailies were all abuzz with one particular news about the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill debates: Actor-turned-Senator Manuelito "Lito" Lapid publicly acknowledging his weakness in English, and therefore his hesitation to go further into the RH Bill debates, since English will be considered "the" language to be used for questioning and interpellation. (See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/62167/sen-lapid-dying-to-enter-rh-bill-debates-but-pia-miriam-scare-him)

(Photo courtesy of newsaroundus.com)

He is particularly hesitant to go head to head with two lady senators who have been at the forefront of chamipioning the RH Bill, Senators Miraim Defensor-Santiago and Pia Cayetano. Santiago, in particular, is well known for her sting with the use of the English language.

I say go ahead and let him debate in Filipino (which is Tagalog in terms of dialect, much to the frustration of the other dialects in the country).

Language should not be used to hinder someone from participating in something of such importance. That sounds to me as something "elitists" would do, and this Bill concerns ALL Filipinos, so the more people involved in the debate, the better. As a Senator - one I did not vote for, but he is one - he should make his voice known, if only to represent the people who did vote for him.

Both Santiago and Cayetano have said that they find no issue if he decides to use Filipino to engage them in debates.

Personally, I welcome it because I admit as well my weakness in the national language (one of them, since both Filipino and English are considered our national languages). I do not like learning it from inane telenovelas and local dramas, because while some of them may use terms I have never heard before, the insipid plotlines and endless caterwauling make my teeth literally hurt, and it's all I can do to stand through 5 minutes of the same drivel in every channel, every night, over and over.

I welcome the chance to learn it, as it will be used in discussions of a bill that I have great interest in - and most Filipinos should have that same interest as well, given how almost everyone I know has an opinion or something to say about it, nowadays.

One of the considerations switching from language to language is that some of the nuances and "hidden meanings" may be lost as they try to communicate in different ways. But that works both ways: an English speaking senator like Santiago would also find it hard to put her points across in Filipino without losing some of its intended meaning in English - that is both the bane and boon of languages.

And while I remember being punished severely as a youngster for speaking in "Taglish" (a bastardized form of speaking in English and Filipino intermittently) - my mom would always reprimand us that we should either speak in straight English or Filipino - this is one instance where the form should pay homage to substance, and if using "Taglish" will be something that will communicate an idea better without losing much of the translation for what the speaker intends to say, then I am all for it.

What would be deplorable, given this leeway, is if there is no substance behind the form.

Our senators should remember that the RH Bill is also a measure that respects ALL religions - and I know this acutely well, being a non-Catholic. I know exactly when something is being imposed on me, it is something I have lived with all my life in a country that proudly carries its "we are true blooded Catholic" credentials. (My past blogposts already relay this in more detail.) An overwhelming amount of the opposition to the RH Bill had been based on religious views, specifically the Catholic view that is it "immoral" to use or promote artificial contraception.

Our senators would do well to remember that our government is still a democracy, NOT a Catholic theocracy. The tenets and practices of one religion should NOT be forced  and enforced on others who do not share this particular faith. Many Catholics themselves are supportive of the RH Bill, if we go by current, scientific surveys. How they resolve this with the statements of their anti-RH leaders is a matter of personal choice, faith and conscience. I find it odd that that those who are rabid in opposing the RH Bill based on their faith keep invoking the "freedom of religion" as their basis for opposing it - while seeing nothing hypocritical about what they wish to happen as being disrespectful to others who do not share the same faith and see nothing wrong with using artificial contraception.

The RH Bill is a PUBLIC HEALTH issue. Period. Our lawmakers should keep this in mind when they make their debates and their decisions about the bill.

In whatever language.