Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Snarky, idiotic, anti-clerical post from the former Chairman of the National Historical Institute

Ambeth Ocampo was the former chairman of the National Historical Institute and the National Commission for the Culture and the Arts.  He is a historian and an academician.

But this kind of a clear and obvious anti-clerical comment on his Facebook account just shows his real colors.

Maybe next time, he'll recommend those going to the vin d'honneur at Malacanang to dress in their shorts and bikinis!

Can he even show any proof that the Church even wanted all women to wear veils and men to wear tunics like those in sacred images.

Does wearing the write dress for the right occasion a medieval thing nowadays?

Does decency and propriety not in the books of the National Commission for CULTURE and the Arts?

PS:  He must be thinking of the cosplayers and adult perpetually obsessed to serve as Altar Boys/MC for eternity guys.

No.  Catholic bishops and priests and even the laity just want to return decency and propriety when dressing for the church.

Can he even make that same stupid sanrky remark agains the Mormons and the Iglesia ni Cristo version ni Manalo?

He wouldn't dare get a visit from the private armies of Manalo, no?

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Supreme Court decision on RH actually favors Pro-lifers

Which simply means, contraceptives that have a primary and secondary mechanism to kill the fertilized ovum is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Goodbye IUD!

Goodbye pills!

DKT, the maker of Trust condoms and pills and injectables, admits what their pills do!

Take note what is encircled.

"Trust pill stops ovulation, thins the lining of the uterus and thickens the cervical mucus. In combination, these actions prevent pregnancy."  (emphasis mine)

Take note the words thins the lining of the uterus.

The thinning of the uterine wall prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted and become viable.

That exposes the strategy of Edcel Lagman in the first place!  For him, life begins at implantation, but the Supreme Court does not buy that.

The SC then effectively struck down the provision of RH that says:

"At this juncture, the Court agrees with ALFI that the authors of the
RH-IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the meaning of
abortifacient. The RH Law defines "abortifacient" as follows:
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the FDA.
Section 3.0l(a) of the IRR, however, redefines "abortifacient" as:
Section 3.01 For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be defined as follows:
a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [Emphasis supplied]
Again in Section 3.0lG) of the RH-IRR, "contraceptive," is redefined,
j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientifically proven modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether natural or artificial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mother's womb in doses of its approved indication as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The above-mentioned section of the RH-IRR allows "contraceptives" and recognizes as "abortifacient" only those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb.
This cannot be done.
In this regard, the observations of Justice Brion and Justice Del Castillo are well taken. As they pointed out, with the insertion of the word "primarily," Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR173 must be struck down for being ultra vires.
Evidently, with the addition of the word "primarily," in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualifier "primarily" will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such qualification in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will only be considered as an "abortifacient" if its sole known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
For the same reason, this definition of "contraceptive" would permit the approval of contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because of their fail safe mechanism.174
Also, as discussed earlier, Section 9 calls for the certification by the FDA that these contraceptives cannot act as abortive. With this, together with the definition of an abortifacient under Section 4 (a) of the RH Law and its declared policy against abortion, the undeniable conclusion is that contraceptives to be included in the PNDFS and the EDL will not only be those contraceptives that do not have the primary action of causing abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb, but also those that do not have the secondary action of acting the same way.
Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting abortion, and in line with the principle that laws should be construed in a manner that its constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its implementing rules must be consistent with each other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word "primarily" in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR should be declared void. To uphold the validity of Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those contraceptives that have the primary effect of being an abortive would effectively "open the floodgates to the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution."
To repeat and emphasize, in all cases, the "principle of no abortion" embodied in the constitutional protection of life must be upheld.

The Supreme Court effectively banned contraceptives that have secondary abortive mechanisms, something which the contraceptive pill has.

And with this decision, this is how the pro-RH group reacted.


So who is the real winner in the SC decision?

The unborn!

Because the SC has decided that contraceptives that kill the fertilized ovum or prevent the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterine wall are all abortifacients and are therefore in violation of the Constitutional provision of protection of life!

Beware folks!

Lagman et al will try to change this Constitutional provision.

Make no mistake about it.

The devil does not sleep.

A request to a TPC reader


Mary Kris....

Please re-send your comment to email @

I'll be waiting for it.


PS:  For those wanting to send GULP photos and questions or suggested topics for discussions, email these to me, please.  Don't send it via the comments box.  It's getting full and it is hard for an old man like me to read them.

Thanks for all the support and trust!

The hard work and persecution amounts to nothing because of your trust to The Pinoy Catholic blog.

Thank you.

God bless us all!

Monday, April 14, 2014

GULP Alert: Was it of utmost urgency to celebrate the Holy Mass here?

And on that bird cage, or whatever?

I have this nasty vision of seeing the Bee Gees as the choir...

And John Travolta doing some liturgical dance.

That is Christoph Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna.

Ain't he such a peach for traditionalist Catholics?

And...what are those on top of the, uhm..."altar"?

Anybody know where this was held?

Holy Week in a 1 minute video

Friday, April 11, 2014

What is wrong in the picture?



Nobody was able to come up with the correct answer to last week's GULP Exam.

It is not about the tabernacle placement or the church structure, but the concelebrants.

In the image above, the Main Celebrant is a priest observing his Sacerdotal Ordination Anniversary.  Most, if not all, of his concelebrants are bishops.

What does the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments say about this?  Let me refer you to page B2 of CBCP Monitor dated May 10-23, 2010 Vol. 14, No. 10 wherein this same question is raised, and answered using Notitiae, the official organ of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dated 2009.
Question: "Whether it is licit for a bishop to concelebrate on occasion of a priestly jubilee in which he takes a place among the priests ceding the role of principal celebrant to the priest celebrating his jubilee?"
Reply: Negative 

  • This norm, which is rooted in theological principles and the wisdom of the Church Fathers, is that the bishop either presides over the Eucharistic celebration or refrains from celebrating.
  • The Bishop has the fullness of the priesthood.
So there you have it.



Thursday, April 10, 2014

GULP Exam: Spot the not!

I think this one is easy!

Redemptorists in Cebu celebrating the Mass.

But have to be very meticulous to spot something there...

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

RH Law constitutional....not really!

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines—The Supreme Court upheld Tuesday the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 but nullified some of its provisions.

“The Court, after scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties…unanimously held that Republic Act No. 10354 is not unconstitutional,” high court’s Information Chief Theodore Te said, announcing a ruling that struck down more than a dozen petitions against Republic Act No. 10354 by church groups.

A total of 14 petitions were filed in the high court and a series of oral arguments was held to determine the constitutionality of the controversial birth control law that supporters said would transform the lives of millions of poor Filipinos, in a stunning defeat for the powerful Catholic Church.  [Ha! You think!]

The Supreme Court first stopped the implementation of the law for four months after it took effect on March 18, 2013. It issued a status quo ante order after Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. and Catholic Church groups questioned the law, saying it violated the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to life. Before the four months was over, the Supreme Court extended indefinitely its status quo ante order last July.

Sex education
The law requires government health centers to hand out free condoms and birth control pills, as well as mandating that sex education be taught in schools.

The law also requires that public health workers receive family planning training, while post abortion medical care is also legalized.

The Catholic Church had until Tuesday led a successful campaign for more than 15 years against any form of family planning laws in the Philippines.  [Huh?  They forgot the Magna Carta for Women?]


Among the provisions declared unconstitutional are:
• Section 7 which is about access to family planning, as well as Section A and A of its implementing rules and regulations . Section A requires private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life threatening case to another health facility which is conveniently accessible. Section B allows minor-parents or minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or guardians;  [Medical facilities operated by religious groups are free from government coercion to offer artificial contraceptives!  And minors who have become parents need parental consent when requesting contraceptives!  Boom!]

• Section 23 Punishable Acts (a) (1) and corresponding provision in the RH-IRR particularly Section 24 insofar as it punishes any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs;  [Health workers cannot be forced to violate their religious convictions!  Boom!]

• Section 23 (a)(2)(i) and a provision in the IRR with regard to allowing a married individual, not in an emergency or life –threatening case to undergo reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;  [Ergo, spousal consent is still needed when availing contraceptives!  Boom!]

• Section 23(a)(3) and the provision in the IRR which punishes any health care provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life threatening case to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious beliefs;  [If a health worker does not want to violate his religious convictions, you can't force them to!  Boom!]

• Section 23(b) and the provision in the IRR which punishes any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;  [this law is really a form of religious discrimination!]

• Section 17 on Pro bono services of indigent women and corresponding provision in the IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono reproductive health service, insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; [health care providers are FORCED to give RH service!  Ain't that slavery?]

• Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the IRR insofar as it uses the qualifier “primarily” for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law specifically the definition of abortifacient and violating Section 12 on right to life and protection of life from conception.  [For violating right to life and protection of life from conception!  Meaning pills and IUDs are gone!  Too bad for RH supporters and funders!]

• Section 23 (a)(2)(ii) insofar as it penalizes a health service provider who will require parental consent from the minor in not emergency or serious situation.  [this is a socialist law that is why it is outlawed by the SC!]



The landmark decision of the Supreme Court renders makes the RH Law a funding law and a public information campaign law.  All punitive provisions have been stricken out and everything that coerces an individual to practice RH that may violate his religious convictions are gone.  And the SC also rules against the use of artificial contraceptives that kill the fertilized is still under the watch of the FDA which, IMHO, can be biased.  Why?  Can you still see Chinese medicines being sold?  Yeah.  That says it.

This law becomes a starting pistol for those who truly value human life from conception to natural death and the traditional family, to go out into the streets, or as Pope Francis put it "to get dirty".  It is time to educate and catechize the masses who will be the primary audience of this constitutional law.   And add to this the fact that our Catholic schools should stay true to their mandate of transmitting the teachings of the Church to their students and not be a mere venue for "academic freedom and discourse".  St. John Paul II cemented the Catholic school's mission in the Apostolic Constitution "Ex corde ecclesiae".

St. Paul reminded Christians that they are meant for battle.  He used the imagery of weapons for battle when he reminded the Ephesians about this (cf. Eph. 6:17).  We are now to cower into our own hermitage or caves and pursue our own holiness by being fence-sitters and Facebook commentators.  Don't just say "Let's pray."  Say "Go out!" and "Let's teach and preach!"

"No one lights a candle and puts in under a bushel basket..."  Whatever "light" you shine, share it!  That is your vocation as a Christian!  And the RH Law is one reason for you to go out!

PS:  You think this blog is everything I have for the Church?  Think again.  I spend much of my time signing "papers" for so many...

Monday, April 7, 2014


On the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law, some of our bishops have spoken, asking us to gather in prayer and fasting against this demonic law.

However, the first among equals among them remains mum and cannot be found anywhere near the battle for life.

HOW TRUE IS IT THAT ONE BISHOP who has always been vocal in the fight for life and has courageously fought against the then RH Bill, and other anti-life measures HAS NOT BEEN ATTENDING THE BI-ANNUAL PLENARY ASSEMBLY because he is DISGUSTED, yes folks, DISGUSTED at their chief for singing instead of fighting that fateful day not so many months ago?

Thank you Your Excellency for leading the fight even when your brother-bishops including your eldest brother prefers to sit on their thrones. 

Why the INC hates the cross?

Almost all Christian denominations, save for the Mormon Church, which the INCM (Iglesia ni Cristo ni Manalo) has copied in doctrine and practice, use the cross as the symbol the church...

Makes you wonder what is in the cross that the INCM is afraid of.

This meme found in an FB group captures it EXCELLENTLY.

Kudos to the one who designed this!

Prayer power against RH Law!

The Dioceses of Baguio and Bacolod and the Archdiocese of Lipa has also called for a prayer vigil.

How about the other dioceses?