the birth of Another, the apathy of Otherness —

this altercation of the unconscious Self,

born of the irrational Yet:

the vague paradigm of Nothingness

as it unfolds, this phenomenon of alterity

embodied subjectivity of the ephemereal Doom

utterances coalesce with infinity;

impending Dread : anxious metanoia of Becoming

the All revolves, in this orbit of anamnesis

poignant reverie of what Was, and yet to Be

this-being-I, caught in the transitional flux ; between act and potency

the dynamic interpolation of mind and will; pervading Absence

— ,God; ? (It not is if what not is Be if what not is become of yet! )

I elude this context of  preconceptual knowing;

this frailty that succumbs to the Appearance

the unified multiplicity of understanding the Cogent:

derivatives of a preexistent Nous: language

and, as horizons, concrescence of reaching the Beyond

dissolution in the complexity of the Cogent, the face of its pull

all understanding converges in the evolution of mind

ideas converge in the Becoming;

but, not shall it Be for Yet it not is, what is yet not to Be

is not Shall, in the Be of the end and all of what is Yet —

to cry in the miscontextual co-promise; this Belonging

a failure of the messianic, redemptive fulfilment of what is bound to Become,

but is not Yet, 

— as faith dies, only to be reborn in the ashes of reason.

The endless meddling of the CBCP in the affairs of the supposedly secular State from one presidency to the next drives people to angrily invoke Article II Section 6 of the 1987 Phlippine Constitution: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. But as tempers cool down and rationality takes over, one begins to wonder if the CBCP is indeed violating this rule.

I am reminded of an article written by one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Dean Emiritus of Ateneo Law School and amicus curiae Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., where he says:

It is sometimes thought by some that separation of church and state means that church people should not get involved in the hurly-burly of public and political life. In other words, they should confine themselves to the sacristy. But to understand the subject properly one must begin with what the Constitution says. The constitutional command says: “No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion …” Immediately it can be seen that the command is addressed not to the church but to the state. It is the state, after all, which passes laws.

And on other parts of the article he wrote:

That is the “separation part” of the constitutional command. The other part is the “free exercise clause.” Both are embodied in one sentence which says: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

…the negative command of the Constitution is addressed not to bishops or priests but to the state and those who exercise state authority. As to bishops and priests, the pertinent part of the constitutional command is the guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

It does make sense, at least to me. The command was for the State, not the Church, and it is the former that seems to be violating this command by giving weight to what the latter dictates, as can be seen from the following statement of Fr. Bernas:

The fundamental meaning of the clause is the prohibition imposed on the state not to establish any religion as the official state religion.

Of course, the state hasn’t really declared Roman Catholicism as the official state religion – just the official consultant on issues and policies that affect all Filipinos, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Fr. Bernas explains:

The constitutional command, however, is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

So it seems that we freethinkers have been barking up the wrong tree all along. While we’ve been making noise about the Church’s meddling, it is actually the State we should be blaming. (Besides, it is the Church’s moral obligation to meddle and try to impose its dogma.)

But the State is highly influenced by the Church, and we can’t touch the Church since it is merely exercising freedom of religion. The picture says it all. While there seems to be a wall of separation between Church and State, God is straddling that wall. This ought to be tolerable, but the problem is that this isn’t just the generic God as the creator of the universe; it has to be a particular brand of God even more specific than the Judeo-Christian God. It is, of course, the Roman Catholic God who says that contraception is evil because the main (sole?) purpose of sex is procreation between married couples and that overpopulation and poverty and the spread of STDs are all caused by immorality and can only be solved if people turn from their evil ways.

So what do we do now? Aside from taking the necessary legal steps to make sure the State observes the separation, I guess we could go for the source of the Church’s power. And I don’t mean God. I’m talking about the followers, who happen to make up the majority of the electorate and whose votes the state politicians are desperate to get. If we could open the eyes of enough people, we will be able to reach critical mass. It may be a long, uphill battle where we gain and lose ground one step at a time, but once we begin to weaken the Church’s influence, I imagine it will be all downhill from there.

Update: According to a GMA News TV article, Secretary Valisno was misquoted by the CBCP article: “The DepEd is not putting the sex education program on hold. Sec. Valisno clarified that no such decision has been made,” Malaya said. “It appears that she was misquoted in the CBCP article.”

An assistant secretary working for the DepEd also confirmed this when I spoke with her briefly at this morning’s hearing on the petition for a temporary restraining order on DepEd’s pilot-testing program. She also told me that we (civil society) will be invited to the forum to discuss the sex ed modules. If I can’t get some seats for you guys, you can be sure I’ll represent.

The GMA article also says that the plan to upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website has been cancelled because it might be accessed by those who are not old enough and be corrupted by it. DepEd, I know your modules are controversial, but I’m pretty sure those horny kids could find something more sensational to be corrupted by.

When the CBCP meddles in government, it’s almost always a contest between democracy and theocracy. It’s certainly been the case in their recent “partnership” with DepEd as sex ed consultants. We’ve all been rooting for DepEd and the democracy that their sex ed program represents. But the game is over; score one for theocracy.

Thanks to pressure from the CBCP, DepEd has decided to suspend its sex ed program until after CBCP has given the go signal. “We decided to hold sex education module in abeyance until a final decision is made on the consulting process.”

That was Education Secretary Mona Valisno. Before deciding to suspend the sex ed program, she attended a mass in Manila Cathedral. She sat in the front row while Archbishop Rosales delivered a sermon:

“All of us in this cathedral are either teachers or students or collaborators of church. Ang misyon ng kristiyano ay ganito: isang engkwentro kay hesus, hindi mo maaaring ipagpalit mo ‘yun. [This is the mission of a Christian: one encounter with Jesus, which you cannot replace with anything.] This is addressed to all the schools, let them meet jesus, the compassionate person.”

Any doubts that Secretary Valisno (and her department’s sex ed project) was the target of that sermon was erased by what Archbishop Rosales did after: In front of all the teachers and students in attendance, he gave her a potted plant , which according to him, symbolized the sanctity of life. To me what the action symbolized is this: democracy sacrificed on the altar of theocracy.

Immediately I was reminded of COMELEC’s decision to disqualify Ang Ladlad. Ang Ladlad was not allowed to run for representation on religious grounds — for the religious bigots who made the decision, members of the LGBT community are immoral and are a danger to the youth. Yet Ang Ladlad was able to run, thanks to the Supreme Court’s more democratic ruling, one that obviously bears repetition (emphasis mine):

“Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our nonestablishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”

We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects…

As far as this court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.“

That decision was a victory not only for the LGBT community, but also for our country’s democracy, and the secularism that guarantees it. I hoped that the issue was controversial enough for the decision to echo in the halls of government much longer. But in less than three months, it appears the voice of secularism has already been silenced.

What’s happening now is essentially a repetition of COMELEC’s mistake. Even the language being used is familiar: “Anything that will not be in accordance with moral values then we will remove it,” said Secretary Valisno.

But who decides what is in accordance with moral values? Here’s an answer from an article on the CBCP website:

Valisno said they are willing to modify the contents of the program if the church should find topics that contradict Christian values.

Note that what Valisno actually said was “moral” values. But the indirect quotation on CBCP’s website makes it clear: as far as the CBCP is concerned, what is moral is what is Christian, and what is Christian is what the CBCP says it is.

So until the CBCP approves the sex ed modules, DepEds sex ed program is on hold. And from the CBCP’s initial assessment, it looks like sex ed is on hold indefinitely. Here’s CBCP spokesman Msgr. Pedro Quitorio:

“Marami kaming hindi sinasang-ayunan sa modules na ito. Sa pagtatantiya namin ay hindi ito pasado [There are many things in these modules we don't approve of. This program will most likely not pass.],” he said.

I can only imagine what kind of program will emerge from the CBCP’s censorship process. But one thing’s for sure: it won’t be the sex education program that our country needs.

So as far as sex education is concerned, theocracy 1, democracy 0. But maybe the game is not yet over. Maybe it’s only half-time. Secretary Valisno said that her department would upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website for public scrutiny, in a way employing the public as sex ed consultants. I’m not sure how, but if this is going to be worth the effort, they’re going to find a way for the public to have a valid voice in this debate.

This may be her way of evening the playing field, giving everyone a say. But I’d like to see it as her way of recruiting allies. In the first half, the DepEd was alone in facing the CBCP, Ang Kapatiran, and all those other Pro-lifers. The DepEd’s going to need our help. I’m in, and I hope so are you. Let’s win this for democracy.

The CBCP began fulfilling their duty as sex education consultants by doing three things: (1) urging President-elect Aquino to scrap sex ed, (2) filing a class suit against Education Secretary Mona Valisno and Undersecretary Ramon Bacani, and (3) telling the DepEd (and anyone who will listen) that there shouldn’t be sex education in the first place.

The geniuses at Malacanang who thought consulting the CBCP on sex ed was a good idea made an obvious mistake: they weren’t being realistic. Why? Because the CBCP is not compatible with sex ed, DepEd, and reality in general.

The CBCP is not compatible with sex education. Asking the CBCP to be consultants on sex is like asking creationists to be consultants on evolution. Not only is the CBCP as ignorant of sex as creationists are of evolution, they have the same aversion toward the topic they’re supposed to consult on: both dogmatically ignore scientific evidence about said topics, both think that teaching said topics has lead to the moral degradation of our society, and both prefer that the public remain just as ignorant.

The CBCP is not compatible with the DepEd. The DepEd is a democratic, secular organization. The CBCP is a theocratic, religious organization. The DepEd is responsible for all Filipino citizens, while the CBCP, although it also tries to be responsible for all citizens, favors only Roman Catholics, ignoring the rights and beliefs of those who have different faiths, or who have none at all.

To implement its projects, the DepEd uses unbiased scientific evidence from experts around the world. To perpetuate its dogmas, the CBCP chooses only the evidence that is consistent with its myopic worldview.

The CBCP is not compatible with reality. By ignoring scientific evidence about sex and sex education, they are denying the truth; by making claims based on tenuous evidence or no evidence at all, they are spreading lies.

But apologists will say that they do consult experts, they do listen to evidence. Whose experts? Which evidence? The Vatican’s? Who can forget the Pope’s irresponsible comments about the condom?

They say that sex education will result in children being exposed to sex too early. The truth is, earlier than ever, children are not only exposed, they are bombarded by sexual ideas — from their peers, the media, video games, the internet, and so on. And this will happen whether or not our children are educated enough to deal with it. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

Another fallacy based on wishful thinking is the idea that sex education should be left to parents. How likely is it that a Filipino parent has accurate information on sex and sex education? How likely is it that a Filipino parent will actually talk to their children about sex properly, if at all? Just because the CBCP believes that parents should teach their children about sex does not mean that they will.

The spread of sexually transmitted infections, unwanted teenage pregnancies, the rapid growth of the population — these are real problems that need real solutions. If only the CBCP could stop its wishful thinking and finally accept reality, they will realize — sex education is the best real solution that we have.

Malacanang’s experiment has failed: making the CBCP sex ed consultants was a gross mistake. They have betrayed their partners not only by asking for the suspension of the project they’re supposed to work on, but by filing a class suit against the people they’re supposed to work with. Yet the appointment was a mistake from the start — a failed hypothesis. Their way of thinking is antithetical to the success of a secular, science-based sex ed program (or any secular, science-based program for that matter).

Malacanang must revoke CBCP’s appointment immediately. If the CBCP can be consultants on anything, it’s not sex education — it’s sex ignorance. But if the DepEd wants to keep them as consultants, the best way to go about it is this: measure progress by how much the CBCP is pissed off. If they’re filing lawsuits and pressuring politicians, you’re doing a great job.

When classes start today, sex education will be integrated into the curriculum of 159 schools, while thousands of others will continue to lack this much needed education.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education (DepEd) continues to compromise its integrity by trying to appease their official sex ed consultants, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP):

In a letter to Bishop Odchimar dated June 4, 2010, DepEd Secretary Mona D. Valisno said their noble intention to introduce sex education in public schools “caused some misperception about our planned actions.”

Secretary Valisno said both the government and the Church “care for the welfare of our youth who are facing the realities of the modern times and who may not have control of the factors that could cause continuous degradation of our moral decadence in this era.”

She added she looks forward to seal agreements with the Catholic Church “on how to safeguard the physical and moral wellbeing of the country’s youth. She asked for an audience with Bishop Odchimar within the week.

When Valisno talks about “degradation of our moral decadence,” she panders to the bishops by using their language. And when she looks forward to sealing agreements with the Catholic Church on our youth’s moral wellbeing, she considers them more than just mere consultants — she grants them authority as gatekeepers of morality.

This has led to a castrated version of sex education — in both scale (only 159 schools?) and breadth (contraceptives not taught in sex-ed?). But it’s a start. Yet Valisno only succeeded in pilot-testing the program this year by ignoring Malacanang’s mandate to consult the CBCP — at least until classes open.

Now that she’s begun the consultation, I hope Valisno can take the pressure until June 30, when her term ends with Arroyo. And I hope that unlike Valisno, the next DepEd secretary won’t compromise too much in the wrong direction.

In his first public event following his divorce with wife of forty years Tipper Gore, Al Gore went to the Philippines to preach his message about climate change and man’s responsibility to do something about the pressing problems of the changing times. For the most part, regardless of what side you’re on in the climate change debate; you can more or less see that Gore’s conviction is sincere.

In what was touted to be an updated version of the Inconvenient Truth – an Academy Award winning documentary back in 2007. There were some issues that were rebuked in recent years so Gore had to go back on his world tour caravan to put the stamp on his landmark advocacy. The speech that he delivered at the SMX Convention Center was supposedly a more nuanced and contextualized take on the hot button issue of climate change.

What Gore did while he had the floor last June 8 was almost insulting and degrading to the intelligence of the Filipinos in attendance. While Gore did show a good amount of slides showing breath taking and dramatic contrasts of glacial thaw and ice sheet melting; the conclusion of his speech left much to be desired.

In the end, Gore suggested that it was a “spiritual” obligation of the people to do something about the climate change crisis. Regardless of how compelling the argument was, it was quite degrading for Al Gore to try to coerce of coax people into action with the relative standards of morality despite the supposedly strong empirical evidence that much care should be taken.

He may have been given a heads up that Filipinos are mostly religious but at the same time, most Pinoys would know that a spiritual imperative would not be necessary if an empirical reason to take action is already present.

After watching him speak for roughly 90 minutes, I was left unimpressed with his ability to convince people – he was merely preaching to the choir and he barely even responded to the criticism against his philosophy. The speech sounded like something that a televangelist would deliver to his already devoted flock. I doubt if he inspired new believers. It’s possible that he came into the even thinking it was and would be an all out Gore love fest.

Sex education will be pilot-tested by the Department of Education (DepEd) in several schools starting June. This news should have been great. But thanks to CBCP Meddling™, it’s merely good.

The long overdue sex education desired by most Filipinos will reach relatively few — only 80 of the almost 38,000 elementary schools and 79 of the almost 6,000 high schools. That’s a tiny drop in the ocean of students expected this schoolyear — 13.1 million in elementary, 5.6 million in high school. (source)

But if it were up to the CBCP, not a single student would get sex education at all. And we barely avoided this fate — Malacanang recently ordered DepEd to consult the CBCP on sex education. (Yes, seriously.)

But despite the disagreement of the newly appointed sex education consultants, Education Secretary Mona Valisno said the project would push through. She added that “consultations are now set to immediately start after the opening of classes.”

So they’ve so far ignored the CBCP’s protests. But what happens when our education department finally takes the CBCP’s expert advice? Will DepEd suddenly suspend sex education? Will they ensure that all scientific evidence and ethical advice passes the Roman Catholic Church’s standards? Will they encourage natural family planning or abstinence-only sex education?

Whatever happens, I don’t see any good coming out of consulting the CBCP. For starters, a lot of Filipinos are not Catholic. Even those who are don’t necessarily agree with the CBCP’s views on reproductive health — surveys have shown that most Filipinos want sex education in public schools.

And not only is this consultation a violation of our secular constitution, it’s just plain wrong. What kind of educational advice can you expect from an institution that doesn’t want sex education in the first place? Simply this: that sex is only moral when it allows the possibility of procreation by a husband and wife ; and that contraceptives do not work in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

This is most (if not al) of the advice the DepEd will get from the CBCP. Call it unscientific, simplistic — even stupid. But if sex education is to happen at all — if the CBCP is to allow it — this is necessary. One of the main reasons the CBCP politically campaigns against sex education is their assertion that the responsibility belongs not to the schools but to the parents.

But think about it. Where do most Filipino parents get their sex education? Which institution outside of schools obsessively teaches about sexual matters, wielding absolute ethical and scientific (they have studies) authority? The Roman Catholic Church. So the bishops are OK with parents doing the teaching because they’re teaching the parents anyway.

But what if these parents were to teach their children something unCatholic (read: secular and scientific)? What if children were taught at home that homosexual sex and contraceptives are not evil? Would the CBCP still think sex education should be left to the parents then? Of course not.

When the CBCP says it’s against sex ed in schools, what it’s actually saying is this: no one has the right to give sex education — except us. And with their recent appointment as DepEd consultants, they just got their chance. So finally — reluctantly — they will allow it.

Yet whatever the CBCP has done or will do to castrate sex education, our country has taken a step in the right (read: secular and scientific) direction. Whatever happens this year in DepEd’s pilot testing, things can only get better.

So I take it back. This is great news. Still, a part of me is reluctant. The sexual well-being of almost 20 million children and adolescents are being entrusted to an insular institution of bishops and priests. Why does this bother me?

Risa Hontiveros may be a devout Roman Catholic but her values are very inclusive in the sense that she believes in the individual’s right to self-determination and freedom of speech; thought and action have to be defended in the law. While she may have had socialist and left leanings, this does not detract from the fact that she has done her homework as a member of congress representing the Akbayan! party list.

She was hardly a prominent national figure as the surveys showed. In Pulse Asia polls conducted just a few weeks before the elections, her awareness rating (determined by an affirmative response to “do you know this person?”) was at 62% – easily the lowest in the bunch that had a statistical chance of winning in the May polls.

She ran a spirited campaign but what did her was probably how the Iglesia ni Cristo poured in votes into the elections. The religious sect has always practiced bloc voting in national and local elections. Each member of the religious organization is strongly encouraged to vote for the sect’s ticket for the sake of unity and the common good.

Eleven of the twelve senators that the INC endorsed are likely winners. The only candidate to have crashed into the top twelve is Serge Osmena – a former senator. Ruffy Biazon who is currently in a distant 14th is the only one from the INC’s list that is likely to fail in winning a seat. Risa Hontiveros is sitting idly in 13th – over 800 thousand votes behind erstwhile 12th placer TG Guingona.

The estimates regarding the Iglesia’s support are varied. Some quarters peg it at over four to five million while more realistic numbers approach 1.5 to 2 million supporters. Regardless, in an election where Lito Lapid (author of one bill in six years) and Tito Sotto is ahead of Risa Hontiveros, a solid voting bloc is absolutely a game changer.

It’s really hard to say whether or not serious manipulation is happening. For one, the people voting are consenting adults who for some reason or another decided to give up the right to think for themselves and let their overseers decide what’s best for them and their congregation. It’s hard to knock them for driving mental and spiritual slaves into precinct to vote for the sect’s choices if the freedom and individuality of the member are willingly given up for the common good.

Free thought is the very thing and the only thing that Freethinkers hold most dearly. But what happens when a person chooses to give it up? Is it still free though in action? In the name of justice, the person still is exercising his right to self-determination in that sense. Whether or not he is aware of the other options is moot; it would have been a wiser decision had there been no monopoly of perspectives before the choice was made.

Photo by Richard Grimaldo / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

As the votes start to get tallied for one of the biggest elections in Philippine history, Filipinos are already in an uproar over the projected results. The second place position of the convicted plunderer and ousted president, Joseph Estrada, in the presidential race has people all over the country scratching their heads in sheer incredulity. And though the predicted landslide victory of Noynoy Aquino has some in rapture, others have been overtaken by pessimism, with the impending defeat of their bets. In the face of seemingly bleak prospects, Filipinos once again turn to God.

While the Appointed Son of God Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy’s “next president” continues to slip in the polls and the hope of the Evangelical right wing, Eddie Villanueva, braces for another multimillion peso rout, prayers still continue to stream from people hoping that the Creator of the entire universe will make good on the promises they had imagined made to them. To be fair, the Lord of all seems to have delivered good news to the Iglesia Ni Cristo in spades.

Incompetent candidates seem to have flooded the top ranks of the election results and there is no other way to rectify this situation with an omnibenevolent God than to say that “He has a plan” — the glorious exemplar of non-thinking that appears at the end of every wild theodicean goose chase.

“Lord, Ikaw na bahala.”

“Jesus, take care of the Philippines”

“I will accept the will of God.”

These are some professions of faith one would find through a cursory look at a Facebook or Twitter feed as we wait for the final results from COMELEC. Apart from a classic depiction of the Filipino at a loss, grasping for any semblance of control, however illusory, these prayers are thinly-veiled admonishments by the religious against people who didn’t follow their will. Behind the ostensible humility portrayed by each of these declarations is a believer bewildered and disappointed that their focused psychic intentions appear to have no sway over the direction of the universe.

Prayer permits people to think that they are doing everything in their power to turn the tide without leaving the election coverage on television. Faith that, whatever happens, God will work things out in the end has replaced critical thought and activism. It has allowed people to compromise on platforms and ideologies in favor of celebrity and facade. For as long as people rely on the year-round Santa Claus to fix everything, we will remain mired in the society that we deserve — one with Congressman Manny Pacquiao on the floor of the House of Representatives.

…

It is a common warning that when drinking, one should avoid any talk on religion or politics because that’s a recipe for disaster. These topics are very personal to some people, and if someone criticizes their deity or candidate – add to that the effects of alcohol to everyone - it is often just a matter of time before a drunken remark is taken the wrong way by the drunk listener, leading to more hostile exchanges that won’t be limited to words.

Interestingly, religion, politics, and alcohol have one thing in common: they get people drunk. The religious followers get drunk on the promise of salvation and wellbeing amid all their problems – while the religious leaders get drunk with power. The political followers get drunk on the promise of an end to corruption and poverty – while the political leaders get drunk with power.

And of course, if there’s the intoxication, sometimes there’s also the hangover. This may exclude the deeply religious who never ’sobered up’ until they died, but oftentimes the faithful are sooner or later confronted with the problem of evil and gratuitous pain, and many suffer from cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile this with the existence of a loving and powerful deity. On the other hand, when politicians fail to deliver their promises, their supporters wake up with a splitting headache to an ugly reality.

On May 10 many will get drunk with hope - hope for a better government and a better life. A lot is at stake here and there are forces trying to jeopardize this hope, so people get emotional and wary at the same time. And this is where the liquor ban makes sense because you wouldn’t want to add any more intoxication to all the excitement.

* * * * *

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this article represent the views of the author ‘innerminds‘ and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipinofreethinkers.org.

When religious leaders endorse political candidates, there is an implied underlying assumption that they are ‘merely’ announcing the will of God to the people. And underlying that assumption is the unstated premise that these leaders are true recipients of divine revelation, hence, they appoint themselves as “Messengers of God”.

Although I have already quoted it before, I guess it doesn’t hurt to revisit what the deists have to say about ‘revelation’:

Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.

Unfortunately, a lot of people do not seem to appreciate this. They take their leaders’ words in good faith – as the true word of God – because who would dare use the name of God in vain?

Now I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the candidate a certain minister is endorsing does not win. Will this undermine the will of God – or just the preacher’s status as recipient of divine revelation?

Possibly neither. Just as the Problem of Evil never really succeeded in sowing skepticism in the minds of people who believe in an all-powerful and loving God, unfulfilled prophecies will probably do little damage to these evangelists’ credibility – at least among their followers. If they were able to come up with sophisticated theodicies whose logical fallacies escape even the supposedly smart people, it doesn’t seem like a leap of faith to imagine that they are already crafting “divine answers” in case their endorsements do not fare well on election day.

* * * * *

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this article represent the views of the author ‘innerminds‘ and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipinofreethinkers.org.

A conviction over a sex abuse scandal more than 20 years ago continues to hound an American Catholic priest who was ordained in and continues to serve in the Philippines.

[Joseph] Skelton was ordained in the Philippines, with Bishop Leopoldo Tumulak ordaining him without knowing about his conviction.

Here’s my reaction to the sex abuse Catholic priest found in the Philippines: not surprised.

I’m only surprised that our local media hasn’t caught on to the Filipino priests who have been accused of sexual abuse within our borders.

Based on this comprehensive (but almost outdated) 2004 report by the Catholics for Free Choice and Likhaan, no priest accused of sexual abuse in the Philippines seems to have been successfully prosecuted.

Most of them have overcome their cases in different ways: settled out of court, acquitted, or moved to other parishes by their superiors, or have cases pending but are quietly reinstated to pastoral duties.

After acquittal, settlement, or a wait of a year or so, the priests mentioned in the report have mostly been reintegrated into active ministry within the Catholic Church.

Here’s a brief run-down of the priests mentioned in the report, and the results of a morning’s Googling of their names. Assuming the search hits reflect the same people mentioned in the Likhaan report (insert margin of error here), it’s my opinion that the Catholic hierarchy’s actions show a tendency to minister to the wolves at the expense of the sheep.

AGUSTIN CUENCA

According to the CFFC/Likhaan Report:

On 1 August 1990, Fr. Agustin Cuenca, OFM, a parish priest assigned to the Our Lady of the Abandoned Church in Sta. Ana, Manila, was accused of sexually molesting two of his teenaged acolytes. The complaint alleged that his accusers, 15 and 16 years old, were abused sexually for a period of two years starting in December 1988 until June 1990 by Cuenca.

A certain Agustin Cuenca OFM is attached priest at St. Anthony Padua Shrine in Sampaloc, Manila. As of 2006, Cuenca was the director of the Franciscan Missionary Union. Claretian Publications lists a Fr. Cuenca as the house bursar of St. Gregory the Great Friary in Quezon City. Here’s a Flickr image of a Fr. Agustin Cuenca blessing a privately-owned icon of St. Anthony.

MACARIO APUYA

According to the CFFC/Likhaan Report:

In the city of Dagupan, north of Metro Manila, Fr. Macario Apuya, SVD of the Saint Therese Parish, was accused of two criminal charges, one charge of rape and one of child abuse as defined under R. A. No. 7610.... The case had historical significance since it was the very first time that a priest was being prosecuted for pedophilia in the Philippines.

A priest with Apuya’s name is seen here celebrating the Jubilee Mass for the Divine Word Missionaries. A Macario Apuya is currently serving in Mary Consolatrix Convent in La Union – if it’s the same Apuya who was accused of raping underage girls, is it wise to have him running loose in a cloistered convent?

POLIENATO BERNABE

According to the report’s overview of reported cases of sexual abuse by priests: “Florida officials issued a warrant for the arrest of Fr. Polienato Bernabe, 61, a native of Pangasinan, who had been charged with sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl more than two decades ago in Gulfport, Florida.” Bernabe took shelter in the Philippines and died – avoiding  trial to the end – in 2006.

ARWYN N. DIESTA

The overview cites that Fr. Diesta was the subject of a request from a US lawyer regarding an accusation that Diesta had abused him when he was a boy. Another report, issued by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, maintains that “Plaintiff reports that he was sexually abused by Fr. Diesta from approximately 1982-88.”

A certain Fr. Arwyn Diesta is still active in the Parish of St. Raymond Nonnatus in Sorsogon. Other Google search hits turn up a Fr. Arwyn Diesta who said a funeral mass in 2008. A Father Diesta is also mentioned as an English professor. A priest named Arwyn Diesta is seen here celebrating a Mass in Sorsogon in 2006 – the blog entry shows a clear picture of Fr. Diesta.

APOLINARIO MEJORADA

The overview cites the case of Fr. Apolinario Mejorada, who was accused of sexually abusing altar boys in Cebu between 1995 and 1998. “About a week later, Mejorada’s superiors admitted he was involved in some ‘transgression’ and paid Php 120,000 pesos in settlement.” Where is Mejorada today? All we know is that a certain Apolinario Mejorada is currently a parochial vicar somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna.

The following priests were involved in cases that went public AFTER the CFFC/Likhaan report was issued.

JOSE BELCIÑA

In 2006, Jose Belciña was charged with rape and child abuse – the rape charges were later dropped for lack of evidence, but the child abuse charge was allowed to stand. Belciña laid low for a while – to quote SunStar columnist Bong Wenceslao: “When asked by the authorities on the whereabouts of Fr. Jose Belciña, Msgr. Achilles Dakay answered: I am not his custodian. Reminds me of Cain’s answer when asked about the whereabouts of his brother Abel: Am I my brother’s keeper?”

As of 2008, Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal has restored Belciña to pastoral duties in Minglanilla, southern Cebu – a move that has stirred up more controversy.

BENEDICTO EJARES

In 2007, Fr. Benedicto Ejares was accused of sexually harassing teenage girls under his charge in a “Life in the Spirit” seminar in Cebu. Despite orders not to publicly say Mass, Ejares did so in a government building in 2008. Ejares has contested a ruling finding probable cause in charging him with child abuse.