
Last October 1, Intramuros tourist guide Carlos Celdran staged a shocking, stupid, and shameful stunt all in one when he disrupted Holy Mass at the Manila Cathedral, where Apostolic Nuncio Edward Joseph Adams and Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales were present. Styling himself as the “new” Jose Rizal and dresssed in the national hero’s characteristic European attire, he broke up the solemn Mass and carried around a placard with the inscription “Damaso,” a reference to the friar-character in Rizal’s novels, and shouted at the bishops and clery on the altar, “Stop involving yourselves in politics!” He was referring to the Church’s opposition to the Reproductive Health bill, several versions of which have been refiled in the new Congress, as well as criticism of President Aquino’s statements during his US trip that he’s in favor of “responsible parenthood,” or some form of birth control.
Even if he clearly does not agree with the Church, Celdran could have just let his mind known by a letter to the editor: after all, the Church representatives only made known their stand when they were interviewed by the media. But arrogantly enough and without regard for religious sensibilities, Celdran did the brazen act of desecrating the Church, her priests and liturgy. As a result, he landed in jail for committing a crime against religious worship, a violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
But what was more alarming was that many Catholics did not condemn Celdran’s “shameful deed,” as described by the Manila clergy.
Even more terrible was that at the time of Celdran’s detention, about 6,500 people, apparently Catholics, had immediately supported a Facebook fan page calling for his release. Moreover, feminists rallied in front of the building of the Church’s episcopal conference in Intramuros with obscene placards directed at the bishops such as, “Get your rosary out of my ovary.” Even harlots would not use such language!
In what planet are Celdran and his supporters living? Perhaps they should repeat their stunt in a Muslim mosque or an Iglesia ni Cristo service. Let’s see if they would not get lynched.
Celdran’s arrogance was not only an affront to religion; it was an insult to the national hero. Even if Rizal was a Mason, a liberal secularist, and an anti-cleric, he would not have disrupted the Holy Mass and cursed the clergy. In his distasteful, unseemly blog, Celdran styles himself and those opposed to the Church’s stand on population control as “the new Jose Rizal.” What megalomania! Even the diehard Rizalista would not make such a claim. Apparently Celdran and his ilk have been making the fantastic claim inside the Mandaluyong sanatorium.
The apathy of many Catholics to denounce Celdran’s outright assault of the Church is a reality check on the Church both as a hierarchy and as people of God: Catholics are woefully ignorant of the Church’s teachings. The Catholic Church and her leaders have failed to educate Catholics on the teachings of the Church.
This problem may also stem from the failure of schools, particularly Catholic schools, to impress upon the students the position of the Church on issues such as the RH bill, which goes against the Church’s teachings on the basic right to life.
Closer to home, has UST, which prides itself as the Catholic University of the Philippines and a Pontifical University no less, done its job in teaching the Church’s pro-life stand as it confronts issues such as population control?
In the University, a minimum 15 units of theology subjects are mandated. Despite this, a study of former Arts and Letters Dean Armando de Jesus last year revealed that many Thomasians are “religious but not moral”––a finding which implies the tendency of Thomasian students to support the RH bill.
To be sure, this disturbing situation in the academe should force the Institute of Religion, the office in charge of the theology subjects, to start rethinking its curriculum and method of instruction, particularly SCL3 (The Social Teachings of the Church) and SCL9 (Marriage and Family).
All of the subjects are treated in an abstract manner, without reference to pressing issues of the day. For example, the chapter on natural family planning in the Marriage and Family textbook does not really explain why there should be family planning at all, it does not explain the geopolitcal context that has forced couples more and more to limit their family size. The discussion does not reveal the population-control mindset that occasions the discourse on family planning, whether natural or contraceptive.
Moreover, the chapter does not explain really why natural family planning is best. It does not even make reference to the natural law that underpins the Church’s moral teachings.
Theology professors appear to be ignorant of the issues around the RH bill and population control, considering that these issues are pressing to young Thomasians who have impressionable minds. Corollarily, UST doctors and bioethicists have largely evaded the issues. Most UST doctors, who receive perks from drug companies some of which produce contraceptives, don’t even go out of the way and explain to the public the side effects and risks of chemical contraceptives.
The Church, her leaders and teachers should tell Catholics that alleged overpopulation is not the cause of the poverty in the country but corruption, mismanagement and poor public policy. As columnist Atty. Jose Sison, a loyal Thomasian, said, “overpopulation” is the wrong term to use for the congestion of Metro Manila and urban centers, which is a migration and development phenomenon. In any case, he said it is wrong to blame the poor people for their poverty: the corruption and mismanagement of public officials are the culprits.
World-class economists such as Simon Kuznets and Jacqueline Katzun have denied any negative correlation between population and economic growth. Meanwhile, Nobel-winning economists Amartya Sen and Gary Becker have recommended that funds for birth control would be better used in directly addressing poverty.
Moreover, the RH bill is draconian and violative of human rights. The version by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman bill forces employers into providing contraceptives to workers under their collective bargaining agreements. How can UST, a Catholic institution, offer contraceptives to its employees?
Catholics should understand that natural family planning teaches husbands to respect their wives’ body cycles. It teaches trust, discipline and fortifies the family as an institution contrary to the RH bill, which advocates shortcuts, fosters irresponsibility, and weakens the family. Therefore, natural family planning humanizes us while artificial methods, which RH bill espouses, make us look like sex-starved rabbits.
House Bill 5043 carries a provision in which a spouse can get a vasectomy or ligation without the consent of the other spouse, which is tantamount to legalized treachery.
In addition, the bill also wants to muzzle the opposition by providing a provision that punishes those who allegedly spread “disinformation.” In addition, foreigners who speak against the bill may be deported. (What if the Pope visits the country and calls population-control measures anti-life? Can Lagman kick the Supreme Pontiff out of the country?)
Catholics are duty-bound to study the many anti-life and anti-human-right provisions of the RH bill and uphold with conviction the stand of the Church against it and other social-engineering measures of the state. Thomasians and other Catholics should rouse themselves from their apathy. Let the biblical injunction be their guide: “If you are neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.”
Readers' comments posted in this site do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the Varsitarian. The Varsitarian does not knowingly publish false information and may not be held liable for the views of readers exercising their right to free expression.
This is horrific.
This is an op-ed article.
I don't get your main point...
What a SHAME!
Come on!
confused???
What's up with the
Keep Church opposition to public laws inside the Church
ASS FACE!
ummm...
'explain about this thing'
yoww!
I was in doubt when abortion
Barking UP the wrong tree
Google may be a good
Google
RH Bill
...
however, the truth is you are
This article is "stupid" as well, maybe more stupid than RH bill
RH Bill
FOOL!
FOOL!
Barking at the Wrong Tree
YOU claim to speak for the student body?
I hope that...
I am Thomasian and I proudly
i beg to differ
Can we get the other side?
not all students favor the RH Bill, sir.
Church are Hypocrite and
oo nga...
a matter of discourse
exactly, it *is* a matter of discourse
You're right -- and the RHB won't stop people from procreating who want to. It isn't designed to *force* people not to procreate. It is about enshrining in law the *choice* so that noone has authority but the individual. So why would you even suggest otherwise? What does that conjecture do for you? This isn't the creation of a government agent that sneaks into everyone's house and jams a condom on them while they're sleeping and says 'ha ha! now you can't ever have children'! It's about providing choices and options to people who do not currently have the luxury of those choices and options.
Further, a layperson can indeed support their stand. No-one, to my knowledge, said they couldn't. So why does open dissent -- opposing views which are necessary for discourse, if you will -- suddenly equate, in your mind, to a bunch of people trying to stifle discussion? People are trying to create discussion, which is the opposite of what you seem to think is going on. Throwing your arms up and saying 'well, if you guys just don't want to talk about it [note: this isn't true], you clearly must be opposing just for the sake of opposing [note: also not true]' misunderstands the point entirely. Who is encouraging discussion of the matter? Not the church, that's for sure.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
I'd like to invite the church to get off its high horse and come up with a solution for all the kids who will be born into poverty and hunger if a solid family planning bill isn't passed.
You've got it backwards.
we should clearly see that
no interference -- are you crazy?!
Face it, they're not only trying to dictate government policy, but they're doing so by using the same underhanded tactics you'd expect of criminal syndicates such as the Mafia, which like the Church, is also run by Italians.
With all of the pedophilia controversies surrounding the church, they should maybe just shut up, clean up their ranks, and leave governing the country to governments.
Thank you for reinforcing the
Hey, why would that Lagman
Sophomoric!
i totally agree, let the RH
ovary, ovary, ovary -- hey, look, the world didn't stop turning
So you oppose a law granting each partner full, legal, sexual autonomy, in part because you believe husbands and wives cannot make decisions independently from one another and -- moreover -- unilaterally if necessary? Let's be clear here, there's a crucial moral difference between cannot and should not. There are lots of things people should not do that are not explicitly dealt with by law, and lots of things that are explicitly forbidden biblically (read: cannot do) that people do anyway. You claim it is treachery to make independent decisions, which implies 'cannot', where instead a couple in a respectful relationship 'should not' make those decisions but remains able to ('can') if required.
By saying 'cannot' instead of 'should not', you implicitly suggest that a husband owns a wife's body, and a wife owns a husband's body, and that neither one has autonomy independent from the other? The New Testament would have some issues with that, given that you suggest that free will is implicitly treacherous/illicit/immoral and that neither are capable of making informed, moral decisions independently of the other.
If we suppose that no autonomy exists and that each partner owns the other, you give traction to husbands raping wives because they are merely property or wives insisting on having children that neither can afford regardless of what the husband wishes because it is her right. Both of these pitfalls can be avoided through unilateral contraceptive use -- and while they are not ideal choices, we don't live in an ideal world where every relationship is respectful and loving. The Catholic Church doesn't offer citizens any recourse in these situations, and you oppose legislation that would give victims an alternative? Ridiculous. Not every wife who is raped wants their husband jailed and removed from their lives entirely. Not every husband whose wife wants to be a good catholic and have oodles of children wants to watch his children starve when he can't afford to feed them.
"In any case, he said it is wrong to blame the poor people for their poverty: the corruption and mismanagement of public officials are the culprits."
If, as the rest of the world rightly sees it, the Philippines is essentially theocratic and has been that way for ages, who is responsible for the corruption and mismanagement of officials endorsed in-part or in-full by the Catholic Church? Is it the secular community somehow, and not the Catholics? That is ridiculous on the face of it.
6500
celdran
Inevitable as It Is
human law + divine/law of the faith
About that Qur'an...
if indeed Muslims believe
Post new comment