So I was reading today’s paper when I chanced upon the day’s selection of letters to the editor. As it turns out, PDI has picked up new feedback regarding the RH Bill, one of which is the usual rhetoric priests have been stating to the press and, sadly, during homilies:
“…Each and every Catholic, from the Pope to any simple lay man, is bound to abide by the teachings being taught by the Church. Any believer who does not abide with the teachings 100 percent is not a genuine Catholic. He is a Catholic only in name. There is no traditional or modern Catholic. What I know is, one is either a Catholic or a non-Catholic.
Noynoy Aquino has the right to explain his side. But the explanation he gave is not right. The Reproductive Health bill has anti-life provisions. Ricardo Cardinal Vidal is right in describing Noynoy as one with a tendency to be anti-life. The intention might be plausible, but the end or intention does not justify the means.
A person who cannot stand firm, and with conviction, on his faith cannot be trusted. A person who is not afraid of offending God, Who will ultimately judge him on the basis of his actions, will certainly, 100 percent, offend the rights and feelings of human beings who cannot see everything.
Yeah, I know – same old, same old. I was reading through his letter again so I could fire off a rebuttal for PDI’s next print, and what was when this other letter caught my eye:
I will try to be civil and remain respectful, but I must admit that I seethed with anger when I saw Ricardo Cardinal Vidal on TV, threatening to tell people not to vote for Noynoy Aquino because the latter supports the Reproductive Health bill. He also said that those who have the tendency to be anti-life would not receive any support from the Church.
The cardinal is not supporting Noynoy because of a “tendency,” yet he continues to wholeheartedly support and remain blindly loyal to President Macapagal-Arroyo whom subordinates have called evil and a bitch, and who cheat and lie and steal and tolerate the countless killings of innocent civilians. So who is now more anti-life? The regime which has caused extrajudicial killings and disappearances, or a person whose only mistake, if mistake it is, is to throw his support, in good faith, to the RH bill?
And was it not Cardinal Vidal who ordered the priests in Cebu not to say Mass for Jun Lozada? And what made him think I will not vote for Noynoy because he said so? The cardinal and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines should stop deluding themselves that they still have influence over the millions of Filipinos who continue to steadfastly cling to their faith despite the corruption in the Church.
I would say that the Church has become the biggest coddler of corrupt politicians who, for as long as they continue to be generous to the Church, will continue to occupy preferred seats in churches. As for the not-so-generous faithful, the Church will reserve for them the dilapidated and broken pews.
How many people has the cardinal converted in his life as a priest? Isn’t it a fact that many Catholics are leaving the Church?
Gentlemen, there is a word in the gamer’s dictionary that succintly describes Mr Bonite’s letter:
The clincher here is that despite his tone, Mr. Bonite here is not some angry nonbeliever. By his own admission, he’s a full-blooded Catholic:
…”I am not leaving the Church, but I have resolved to continue to denounce the abuses of our Church leaders who, in the first place, are the single biggest reason the country is in its present pitiful state.
Cardinal Vidal’s standard of morality allows him to continue to blindly support the excesses of the present dispensation, and yet he is too quick to raise a howl against Noynoy for his support of the RH bill, he whose name has never been associated with any shenanigan. This makes me really angry.
It’s one thing for the RCC to receive flak from outsiders and non-Catholics; they can easily tell us that we have no right to criticize them since we don’t understand their theology, we’re not under the Vatican, etc.
But when they’re called out for their unabashed hypocrisy by their own flock, I can’t help but feel that there’s hope for our country yet. That and a tinge of Schadenfreude, but that’s besides the point.
That’s why I prefer not to use blanket statements when I diss religions – because (hopefully at least), even the must theologically communities ones will always have its own dissenting voices, the brave men and women who hope to change their belief for the better.
I don’t know about you, but Bonite’s letter made my day. His email’s available in the link in case you’re planning to extend some kudos, or if you think he deserves an invite to Filipino Freethinkers.
there is a deeper reason why the church is waging a war against the rh bill and this is to be faithful to its founder's teaching of the truth about human sexuality. it is to be used with due respect to the natural cycle of the woman, in the context of marriage. this i think is to protect against the cheapening of the conjugal act and the abuse of women.
another point of view to consider, some catholics will think this catholic is "Ruining it" for the faithful.
denial is so powerful
If they're so interested in politics and government policies, let them pay their admission price like everyone else
Well, we can always fire back that the Catholic Church is conditioning the Philippines to become theocracy, like Iran.
Indeed it is…
do you have any inkling about why they insist that RH Bill will teach sex to children pre-elementary or from grade 2?
my copy says that it will teach reproductive health (sex educ) in an age appropriate manner starting from grade 5…
@Igme
Wouldn't that be called the Slippery Slope argument?
one step towards rationality indeed…
guys, help me with this one…
there has been a lot of fuss from the church about the RH Bill… but for some reasons that are still unknown to me, they keep saying that the RH Bill will legalize abortion and will teach pre-elementary (or grade 2 as that priest was rambling about..) about sex…
my problem is that none of them was really citing a specific guidelines in the RH Bill to support their claim… i mean i have a copy of the House Bill 5043… can't see what the heck they are saying… do the church have another copy / version of the bill??
I don't think they can quote a provision….If memory serves at least one anti-RH bill personality says the bill will be one step closer to abortion, not abortion per se. If I got that right I think it means there is nothing wrong they can quote specifically but in the long term (as if they can do that) it is mentally conditioning the culture to accept abortion.
Oops! My bad… 🙂
First, I didn't write that, one of our new writers Tim (Twin Skies) did 🙂
I agree with you completely John. This is still a problem, but a more manageable one. To me every step in the direction of more rationality is not wasted, especially if it brings them to the edge of the fence.
fcuk those theist. pati ba naman mga policies at laws na gusto ipatupad ng gobyerno e papakialaman nila, ang pangit pa sa mga reaksyon nila e biased, di man lang ata nila binasa yung bill. the government must tax those madapakers.
Red, you see hope, I can't help but see a bit of hopelessness.
Simply because while most of his letter is exactly what I would say myself, Mr. Bonite said it himself "I am not leaving the Church".
WHY???? This problem is not isolated to Cardinal Vidal. Heck it's not isolated to the Philippines either. THE VATICAN AND THE POPE HIMSELF decries the use of contraceptives and population control.
If one can be soooo pissed at your church leaders, but STILL is not able to reject it outright, I see it as a problem.
What you don't see is that the church and the people who supposedly represent the church are two different things. the church is supposed to represent the religion, the belief, not the people who supposedly stand behind that belief. that's what the writer refuses to leave. he believes in the Catholic faith. Remaining faithful to the essence of the Catholic faith does not mean you will blindly follow the human beings who currently head the Catholic community. after all, these people are still human…still subject to their own biases and prejudice. so, just because the writer doesn't agree with the church leaders shouldn't necessarily mean losing faith in the religion and principles for which the church was built.
One significant step at a time.
The Catholic hierarchy is a hierarchy of nutcases. The higher you go up, the more qualified you are to be the primero nutcase, the pope.
@lucius ferrer
I can only think of two reasons:
1. They haven't read the bill themselves, and are simply parroting whatever ugly rhetoric their (slightly) more intelligent bishops and archbishops – who probably haven't read the bill either – are saying.
2. They have read the bill, but have resorted to lying because it's the only way they can push their agenda.
I believe that like most of everything in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
@lucius
Here's link for a copy of House Bill 5043: http://jlp-law.com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-n…
I've already looked it over, and from where I'm standing, the bill explicitly states abortion only in the sense that it aims to PREVENT unwanted abortions; the act itself is still considered illegal:
To quote one of the bill's tenets:
"m. While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner."
I think the church's stance of this bill being pro-abortion stems from their belief that contraception in any form IS recognized as a form of abortion. You can blame the Humanae Vitae encyclical for this bit of Catholic reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae
The irony is that when the Vatican was debating on revising their stance on Humanae Vitae, a large number of priests were actually against their own institution's conservative reasoning when it came to abortion and contraception. In the end though, Pope Paul VI folded to the whims of the conservative minority within his ranks.
More details on that here. http://www.viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html
So in short, he Vatican cant even seem to agree with its own batch of progressives, as sensible as their assertions are. Talk about an ivory tower.
ah, a voice of reason. hear, hear…