Comments on: How the CBCP turned our Congressmen into Cowards

By: Jude

Jude — Mon, 16 May 2011 04:16:39 +0000

Rather, “look at the facts before bullshitting”.

By: Jude

Jude — Mon, 16 May 2011 04:07:52 +0000

“I think the stance of the church is an objective one.”

Hardly. The stance of the Church is entirely based on the 1965 Papal Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, which is in turn based on the writings of Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine and “Casti conubii” encyclical by Pius IX. The key points rest on:

-Their opinion that contraceptives is not God’s Will because it contradicts their opinion of marriage.(Mater et Magistra)

- Their opinion that contraception, proposed as a solution for the development of third world countries, does violence to human dignity (Mater et Magistra) and misses the problem of social justice.

In other words, it it based on the belief that what the Pope declares is fact. The Pope could fart out any random thought and as long as it’s in an encyclical, it’ll be dogma.

In fact ou’ll find objection to Humanae Vitae WITHIN the Catholic Church itself.

- From Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens, who questioned whether moral theology took sufficient account of scientific progress, which can help determine, what is according to nature; and begged the Vatican to avoid another Galileo affair.

-From the Catholic University of America, led by Rev. Charles Curran, which issued a statement claiming that Catholics’ individual consciences should prevail in such a personal and private issue.

-From the Bishops of Winnipeg, in the “Winnipeg Statement”, stating that those who cannot accept the teaching should not be considered shut off from the Catholic Church, and that individuals can in good conscience use contraception as long as they have first made an honest attempt to accept the difficult directives of the encyclical. The view was echoed by Dutch and German Bishops.

that’s to name just three.

it’s not objective. it’s theocratic bullshit at its finest.

By: raul

raul — Mon, 17 May 2010 04:40:11 +0000

what a stupid article. first of all, the very first paragraph is an irony unto itself. how can the Speaker of the House – yes, the SPEAKER – make such a ridiculous proposal! he is the Speaker of the House, for God’s sake, and yet he would cower in fear of the CBCP? what a moronic proposition.
congressmen are cowards only because they don’t care about the welfare of the people, except how to make money out of using them as an excuse. for their projects, their so-called proposed laws (that really favor big business, or put increasing pressure on the national coffers through inane legislation like witness compensation or compensation for illegal arrests – when the more important laws, such as the proposed pre-need law, investment act, etc. that protect consumer and investor, i.e. public, interests remain unacted upon). this moronic proposition of nograles – himself of dubious reputation – is just a ploy to feed the egos of those in the CBCP, and pretend that he is afraid (kuno) of its influence.
in truth, the true cowards are the filipino people, the CBCP and all other so-called civic groups, who cannot go to the streets and seek the relief of plundering politicians and bureaucrats. long ago, we should have chopped off the heads of these people, these thieves who have swindled us for too long. then throw their heads in manila bay, where the fish would make better use of them, and where their sickening virus would never infect us all.

By: GabbyD

GabbyD — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:17:06 +0000

presumably, the RCC will pick candidates based on the positions they take on issues of importance to catholics.

in which case, its religious purpose.

note that this behavior, “vote for X coz of religious principle A” is prohibited under the IRS code.

the irs code is confusing to me, but thats something to discuss another time…

By: nosibalasi

nosibalasi — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:47:55 +0000

pero mahilig sila sa photo ops, pumunta pa sa Roma para magpa-picture :)…kanya-kanyang gamitan yan…ngayon…nasa tao naman talaga ang desisyon…sa mga nakakakita…kaya lang may Garci talaga eh…di ba?

By: joseph

joseph — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:24:25 +0000

we are assuming of course that they were brave to begin with. cbcp doesn’t emasculate a person much less an entire institution because cbcp as an institution has no power/ jurisdiction – it doesn’t have any authority over individual catholic. of course the bishop in his diocese is a different story. but the thing again is- do they (congressmen) ever really listen to the bishops? of course not. they kow tow today because it’s politically convenient for them to do so.
now, are they cowards?- no, they are FOOLS!

By: darwin25

darwin25 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:13:17 +0000

No Ryan. That “I practice my religion as I see fit” isn’t an admission that I have a religion. That simply means I choose and practice what I believe. That also means that I am a church going atheist because my family are devout catholics. No Ryan, I am not an impostor. What I am is a hypocrite.

And as far as I can remember, all you got on me are accusations of bigotry and being an impostor and no real arguments. Do you have any? I have answered all your questions and comments with arguments but you are yet to give me a counter argument. Unless you wanna focusing on mudslinging, that I cannot indulge you. But otherwise, give me a counter-argument and lets get it on.

By: Ryan Tani

Ryan Tani — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:48:38 +0000

Gabby D,

Take this situation, for example. Say from now until the elections, all the Churches do during mass is talk about who their flock should vote for. In effect, they are using the Churches as campaign headquarters.

Would this be ok? If campaigning can be considered a religious purpose, there is nothing wrong. But obviously, this is not.

Either endorsing or opposing a candidate is a religious purpose or it is not. And either you exclusively perform the allowed purposes, or you do not.

You also have to consider why tax-exempt status is given to non-profits. It is considered that they are benefiting the public, not participating in partisan politics, which only benefits certain groups of individuals.

By: GabbyD

GabbyD — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:45:50 +0000

the prohibition on profit is an example of a restriction of the definition of “exclusively religious purpose”.

the prohibition on profit is explicitly stated in the philippine tax code, separately from the clause re “exclusively religious purpose”, because it is meant to guide us in our understanding of “religious purpose”

further restrictions, such as those in the IRS code, are exactly what is lacking here.

finally, you write: “Take note that endorsing or opposing candidates are prohibited not just for religious organizations but all non-profit organizations, a classification religious organizations also belong to under the corporation code.”

nothing in the philippine law says they are prohibited — other than the word ‘exclusively’, which can be interpreted as to include outright endorsement, unless explicitly restricted.

By: Ryan Tani

Ryan Tani — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:51:34 +0000

GabbyD,

By your reasoning, the CBCP can also make a profit for themselves if they classify this as a “religious purpose.”

It’s one thing if all the law said was “it should be used exclusively for religious purposes.” It’s another if it actually enumerates all the allowed purposes. And partisan politics clearly does not fit into any of the said purposes.

Take note that endorsing or opposing candidates are prohibited not just for religious organizations but all non-profit organizations, a classification religious organizations also belong to under the corporation code.