Michael Voris shares his views on why the hippie liberals hate faithful Catholics and brand those who faithfully observe the precepts of the Church as the same as those lunatics who strap bombs on women and children in order to kill those who do not believe what they believe in.
And it also involves why they hate the Traditional Latin Mass.
The blog of a group of Filipino Catholics and their frank commentary on anything that affects their lives as a citizen of the Philippines and as a Roman Catholics.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Taliban Catholics?
Ever heard this said?
Yup. That is how the pro contraception, cafeteria Catholics here in the Philippines label pro-life, faithful Catholics.
These people are CHEAP!
Yup. That is how the pro contraception, cafeteria Catholics here in the Philippines label pro-life, faithful Catholics.
These people are CHEAP!
Pray...
Just like the entire nation and other Filipinos worldwide, I am closely monitoring the developments regarding the three Pinoy OFWs condemned to death by the Chinese government for acting as drug mules of an international drug syndicate.
Please pause for a moment and offer a prayer for the three Pinoys and their families.
Please pause for a moment and offer a prayer for the three Pinoys and their families.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Iglesia ni Cristo shows its true colors!
Here is a transcription of the statement of the "Executive Minister" (yeah, as if THAT was in the Bible) of the "Iglesia ni Cristo".
Immediately below is a scanned image of the statement.
Take note folks that this was not even brought into the mainstream media aka MSM. This was a statement given to the House Committee Cahit on Population and Family Relations.
***
12 October 2010
HON. ROGELIO J. ESPINA, M.D.
Chairman
Committee on Population and Family Relations
House of Representatives
Republic of the Philippines
Dear Congressman Espina,
We would like to thank the Committee on Population and Family Relations for requesting our position concerning the Bills of Reproductive Health. We are all well aware of the dire situation of our country caused by overpopulation. [Here is where you hold on to your seats and grab a barf bag because it will really get nasty.] Many of society’s worsening ills—from homeless families starving in miserable conditions and children not in school but instead begging day and night in nearly every major street to the rapidly spreading problems with drug abuse and rising crime rates—can be traced to families growing so large that an increasing number of parents cannot provide the most basic human needs to their families. [Good heavens! My parents came from huge families. And I mean huge! My father had 15 siblings while my mom had 9. And they were well taken cared of! This statement is not only sweeping, it reeks of stupidity! If a large family like those my mother who came from a family of farmer, all worked in the farm, tilled the soils and sold their produce, was able to get a good education, they were able to provide for their families. Therefore, a large family is not equal to a family suffering economically that parents cannot even provide for their children's basic needs! This is simply absurd!]
We consider it commendable that our lawmakers care enough for our fellow Filipinos that they are doing what they can do to alleviate the hardships so many of our countrymen are facing. IN what they propose, they can bring about not only an economic good for our countrymen but also a moral one. We are ready to support the Bills on Reproductive Health as long as there would be no immoral elements in them. [See how dumb this cult is?]
What are the moral aspects of the proposed bills that we support? We believe that it is moral imperative for parents to watch over all their children and provide them with food, shelter, and clothing, as well as proper education and religious and moral training. [Non debatable. This is a truism and therefore we do not have to even discuss this.] Hence, parents todayhave (sic) a moral obligation to plan the number of their children and keep it under control. [And the Catholic Church does not say that? John Paul II in an Angelus address said: Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.] The Bible states that a parent who does not provide for the needs of his own household is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8). Since modern methods of contraception—by preventing married couples from having any unplanned pregnancies [This is one thing that so-called Bible believing people do not get. There is no such thing! Why? Because man is not an instinctive animal who just acts out his urges without thinking of the consequences! The Iglesia and those who support the RH Bill, presume and even publicly declare that we need the RH Bill because Filipino couples are like animals who cannot control their urges. Short of saying that we are a horny race folks!] —assist in supporting this Christian principle, we support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient. [Obviously they do not know that the pill and the IUD ARE abortifacients since they do make the womb very hostile for a fertilized embryo to survive.] Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).
We do not support the natural family planning method and all its variants. [BARF BAG ALERT!!!] These so-called birth control methods depend upon abstinence on the part of the married couple when the woman is fertile but allows marital relations only when she is not. These methods are not only unnatural [Wha?!?!?! How is it unnatural? The sperm stays in the womb of the woman but there would be no fertilization since there is NO FERTILIZATION INVOLVED!] and ineffective but they also are immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples. The Bible instructs married couples not to deprive one another of intimate marital relations for long, extended periods of time; further, any abstinence at all for a married couple is supposed to be with the mutual consent of husband and wife and not for the purpose of preventing pregnancies (I Cor. 7:3-5). [Eh? Couples do not talk over the spacing of their children's birth? And since this group used 1Cor. 7:3-5, then...
Here is what that text says:
We appreciate the Committee’s gesture of soliciting our stand on this timely yet controversial issue.
Very truly yours,
(sgd) EDUARDO V. MANALO
Executive Minister
***
Hey Mr. Manalo! I know a large family of your members who have a hard time meeting their basic needs and yet YOU STILL FORCE THEM TO GIVE TITHES TO YOUR CULT!
Cut off the forced tithing because that is immoral!
For all I care, the INC issues this statement for the sake of contradicting the Catholic Church... for the sake of siding with what the "survey says". That was how they did it during the recent presidential elections. They did not give out their political endorsements until the last nationwide survey was released.
You might wonder if they are the ones who run the program "Family Feud".
And by the way, the INC has their own fair share of dissidents. Yup, I have friends who are womanizers, gambles, drinks booze... That is ok for their ministers because my friend does not get caught.
But he makes sure he worships on his appointed schedule. Or the deacon or deaconess assigned to him would pay him a house visit.
Natural Family Planning is "not only unnatural and ineffective but they also are immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples"
And I thought the statement "Felix Manalo is the angel from the East" tops my list of funniest yet most nasty jokes of the century!
Immediately below is a scanned image of the statement.
Take note folks that this was not even brought into the mainstream media aka MSM. This was a statement given to the House Committee Cahit on Population and Family Relations.
***
12 October 2010
HON. ROGELIO J. ESPINA, M.D.
Chairman
Committee on Population and Family Relations
House of Representatives
Republic of the Philippines
Dear Congressman Espina,
We would like to thank the Committee on Population and Family Relations for requesting our position concerning the Bills of Reproductive Health. We are all well aware of the dire situation of our country caused by overpopulation. [Here is where you hold on to your seats and grab a barf bag because it will really get nasty.] Many of society’s worsening ills—from homeless families starving in miserable conditions and children not in school but instead begging day and night in nearly every major street to the rapidly spreading problems with drug abuse and rising crime rates—can be traced to families growing so large that an increasing number of parents cannot provide the most basic human needs to their families. [Good heavens! My parents came from huge families. And I mean huge! My father had 15 siblings while my mom had 9. And they were well taken cared of! This statement is not only sweeping, it reeks of stupidity! If a large family like those my mother who came from a family of farmer, all worked in the farm, tilled the soils and sold their produce, was able to get a good education, they were able to provide for their families. Therefore, a large family is not equal to a family suffering economically that parents cannot even provide for their children's basic needs! This is simply absurd!]
We consider it commendable that our lawmakers care enough for our fellow Filipinos that they are doing what they can do to alleviate the hardships so many of our countrymen are facing. IN what they propose, they can bring about not only an economic good for our countrymen but also a moral one. We are ready to support the Bills on Reproductive Health as long as there would be no immoral elements in them. [See how dumb this cult is?]
What are the moral aspects of the proposed bills that we support? We believe that it is moral imperative for parents to watch over all their children and provide them with food, shelter, and clothing, as well as proper education and religious and moral training. [Non debatable. This is a truism and therefore we do not have to even discuss this.] Hence, parents todayhave (sic) a moral obligation to plan the number of their children and keep it under control. [And the Catholic Church does not say that? John Paul II in an Angelus address said: Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.] The Bible states that a parent who does not provide for the needs of his own household is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8). Since modern methods of contraception—by preventing married couples from having any unplanned pregnancies [This is one thing that so-called Bible believing people do not get. There is no such thing! Why? Because man is not an instinctive animal who just acts out his urges without thinking of the consequences! The Iglesia and those who support the RH Bill, presume and even publicly declare that we need the RH Bill because Filipino couples are like animals who cannot control their urges. Short of saying that we are a horny race folks!] —assist in supporting this Christian principle, we support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient. [Obviously they do not know that the pill and the IUD ARE abortifacients since they do make the womb very hostile for a fertilized embryo to survive.] Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).
We do not support the natural family planning method and all its variants. [BARF BAG ALERT!!!] These so-called birth control methods depend upon abstinence on the part of the married couple when the woman is fertile but allows marital relations only when she is not. These methods are not only unnatural [Wha?!?!?! How is it unnatural? The sperm stays in the womb of the woman but there would be no fertilization since there is NO FERTILIZATION INVOLVED!] and ineffective but they also are immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples. The Bible instructs married couples not to deprive one another of intimate marital relations for long, extended periods of time; further, any abstinence at all for a married couple is supposed to be with the mutual consent of husband and wife and not for the purpose of preventing pregnancies (I Cor. 7:3-5). [Eh? Couples do not talk over the spacing of their children's birth? And since this group used 1Cor. 7:3-5, then...
Here is what that text says:
For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. [St. Paul reinforces the traditional teaching of "The Two shall become one."] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, ["except perhaps by agreement for a season", like planning the birth spacing, like considering the physical conditions of the other couple. And St. Paul says more...] that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. [Lack of self-control! Ooooo...Now you do not need self-control if you have contraceptives, do you, eh?] I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. [St. Paul puts himself as an example for other Christians.] But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [Like celibacy. And the INC declares the discipline of celibacy as "demonic". Yup, I saw one of their episodes in Net25. Thank God I did not have an aneurysm listening to two INC ministers scratch the back of their church just to save their jobs.] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. [And the INC says it is demonic. And you think they are who they really are? Church of Christ? Really? Felix Manalo...an angel? Really? Maybe Mr. Bean teaches theology in their seminary.]
We appreciate the Committee’s gesture of soliciting our stand on this timely yet controversial issue.
Very truly yours,
(sgd) EDUARDO V. MANALO
Executive Minister
***
Hey Mr. Manalo! I know a large family of your members who have a hard time meeting their basic needs and yet YOU STILL FORCE THEM TO GIVE TITHES TO YOUR CULT!
Cut off the forced tithing because that is immoral!
For all I care, the INC issues this statement for the sake of contradicting the Catholic Church... for the sake of siding with what the "survey says". That was how they did it during the recent presidential elections. They did not give out their political endorsements until the last nationwide survey was released.
You might wonder if they are the ones who run the program "Family Feud".
And by the way, the INC has their own fair share of dissidents. Yup, I have friends who are womanizers, gambles, drinks booze... That is ok for their ministers because my friend does not get caught.
But he makes sure he worships on his appointed schedule. Or the deacon or deaconess assigned to him would pay him a house visit.
Natural Family Planning is "not only unnatural and ineffective but they also are immoral, since they contradict the commandment that God has given to married couples"
And I thought the statement "Felix Manalo is the angel from the East" tops my list of funniest yet most nasty jokes of the century!
Armless lady pilot gives her award to the Holy Father!
And she is half Filipina! Read about Jessica Cox here.
"Imperfections" such as this would mean "elimination" for Planned Parenthood and their minions here in the Philippines?
You will hear the line: "Better she be not born rather than suffer for the rest of her life because of THAT!"
What if they are the ones being decided whether they should live or not?
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Ateneo de Manila on the RH Bill
You guys might be wondering for my few days of silence.
Yup, I was super super busy with the major major major upheaval the Church led against the RH Bill.
I will post about this later.
In the meantime, here is something from my fave University!
***
24 March 2011
MEMO TO : THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FROM : THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT : STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL 4244
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There is a recent article in the press that “UP, Ateneo Profs call for passage of RH Bill.” The article also lists the signatories from the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila.
A similar position paper was issued by Ateneo faculty on October 15, 2008 and, on that occasion, I issued a statement to the Ateneo community to clarify the stance of the University. In that memo, I said that the position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:
1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill. [to draw from?!]
2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University. [And that does not create any scandal or something?]
3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”
We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.
4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043. [Which is actually House BIll 4244.]
5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity. [Uhm...yeah. We'll take it as it is.]
6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion [aka common ground. Isn't that how Obama works things out with the legalization of abortion and gay marriage?] of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.
The position of the Ateneo de Manila remains the same. In matters of faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus. [Stands with their society? But what if the Society is in stark contrast with what the bishops teach? What do we have now?] At the same time, we recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University. [Do it outside of the University and stop using the name of the University as a Catholic institution. The Rabid Harlots are using it claiming support from "Catholic University professors".
BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.
President
***
This is one of the reasons why I am frustrated with the Filipino Jesuits. They are brilliant, yes, no doubt about it. But in all their brilliance runs the guessing game of: which side are you really on?
They say one thing but here comes another.
As the University president, Fr. Ben can just say to his professors: "You can express your views, but you cannot use the name of the University." Hey, it won't trample upon their right to free speech. But the University has the right to protect its name and identity. Why can't he just do that?
This has been going on even before the dawn of the RH Bill. That gay professor, Danton Remoto, who screams vitriol against the Church is still employed by the University. Was he ever sanctioned or even told to cool it down? Nope.
I guess free speech is better than protecting your own Mother's honor.
And might I tell the Jesuits, that in this RH debate, there will never ever be a room for discussion and study because what the RH Bill pushes for is a non-negotiable matter with Catholic morals. None! And the same goes with the proponents of the RH Bill, which in fact are agents of Planned Parenthood.
Artificial contraception will never be allowed by the Church. Whether you agree with Humanae Vitae or not, wait till you sit on Peter's Chair. But until then, stop creating your own church!
Why can't you just put your money where your mouth is?
In this important chapter of our lives as Catholics, can you just either be white or black?
Stop being gray!
Yup, I was super super busy with the major major major upheaval the Church led against the RH Bill.
I will post about this later.
In the meantime, here is something from my fave University!
***
24 March 2011
MEMO TO : THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FROM : THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT : STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL 4244
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There is a recent article in the press that “UP, Ateneo Profs call for passage of RH Bill.” The article also lists the signatories from the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila.
A similar position paper was issued by Ateneo faculty on October 15, 2008 and, on that occasion, I issued a statement to the Ateneo community to clarify the stance of the University. In that memo, I said that the position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:
1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill. [to draw from?!]
2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University. [And that does not create any scandal or something?]
3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”
We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.
4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043. [Which is actually House BIll 4244.]
5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity. [Uhm...yeah. We'll take it as it is.]
6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion [aka common ground. Isn't that how Obama works things out with the legalization of abortion and gay marriage?] of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.
The position of the Ateneo de Manila remains the same. In matters of faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus. [Stands with their society? But what if the Society is in stark contrast with what the bishops teach? What do we have now?] At the same time, we recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University. [Do it outside of the University and stop using the name of the University as a Catholic institution. The Rabid Harlots are using it claiming support from "Catholic University professors".
BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.
President
***
This is one of the reasons why I am frustrated with the Filipino Jesuits. They are brilliant, yes, no doubt about it. But in all their brilliance runs the guessing game of: which side are you really on?
They say one thing but here comes another.
As the University president, Fr. Ben can just say to his professors: "You can express your views, but you cannot use the name of the University." Hey, it won't trample upon their right to free speech. But the University has the right to protect its name and identity. Why can't he just do that?
This has been going on even before the dawn of the RH Bill. That gay professor, Danton Remoto, who screams vitriol against the Church is still employed by the University. Was he ever sanctioned or even told to cool it down? Nope.
I guess free speech is better than protecting your own Mother's honor.
And might I tell the Jesuits, that in this RH debate, there will never ever be a room for discussion and study because what the RH Bill pushes for is a non-negotiable matter with Catholic morals. None! And the same goes with the proponents of the RH Bill, which in fact are agents of Planned Parenthood.
Artificial contraception will never be allowed by the Church. Whether you agree with Humanae Vitae or not, wait till you sit on Peter's Chair. But until then, stop creating your own church!
Why can't you just put your money where your mouth is?
In this important chapter of our lives as Catholics, can you just either be white or black?
Stop being gray!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Another dissident Filipino "Roman Catholic" theologian priest
Filipino Priest: Sex a Good Thing; the Church Made it 'Bad'
By Santosh Digal
BAGUIO CITY, THE PHILIPPINES -- There are a handful of Catholic priests in the Philippines who will tell you sex is a “good thing.” A few will even admit that it’s the Church’s fault for making sex “a bad thing.” [Now this really dumbed the hell out of me!]
Teachers and pastors here in Baguio (North Philippines) met one of these outspoken priests last week during a training retreat sponsored by the Institute of Women’s Studies that was devoted to gender sensitivity. [Red flag!]
Some of the participants appeared surprised to hear a priest reveal how the Church had propagated sexism in Philippine society. [Huh?!]
Fr. Percy Juan Bacani, a moral theologist and superintendent of high schools operated by the Diocese of Baguio, said the Catholic doctrine on “guilt” had very much eroded Filipinos’ appreciation for, and even enjoyment of, sex. [Oh brother! The Euntes Wiccan priest! The former CICM of MST who broke away from the CICM Congregation to form the Missionaries of Jesus, a society of, uhm, let's say...oh brother!]
[This is your captain speaking. Please fasten your seatbelts and hold on to your faith, brothers and sisters, because its gonna be a rough ride! Too much turbulence being caused by a priest masking as a Catholic.] The Church, he said, is a male-dominated power center where the female plays a far diminutive role. [Like Mama Mary? Ha!] It is this ideological foundation which explains why Filipino women today are less valued than women of an ancient Filipino culture where they were revered. [Not my mother or wife! Maybe yours MISTER I mean Fr. Bacani! Ha!]
Women who shine in Catholic societies only achieve their ambition by imbibing the male culture, or by sustaining the myth “that the only good women are virgins,” Bacani said. [This guy has real issues with his dad, doesn't he? Like most angry nuns. Don't you love to put them on slingshots like the Angry Birds?]
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, he said, is more “man-like” in her shrewdness at politics. [Now hold on a jiminy second brother! Don't you dare compare me to a crook!]
More were surprised when the priest suggested that the devoted turn back to the spiritual nature of indigenous Filipino worship in order to unlearn the Christian dogma that has made some religious Filipinos abhor sex. [Wiccan. Pagan. EXCOMMUNICATED. Period.]
Bacani cautioned his audience that his lessons about religion and sex were based on “my struggles to be a man in the right way.” [Wait! Let me get a pen and paper for that...Hmmm... "struggles to be a man..." okay? Uhm..How about to be a faithful and non dissident Catholic? How about that?]
Bacani, 49, is one of the outspoken members of the “Missionaries for Jesus,” a group of Filipino priests who broke away from the Society of Jesus, citing “principled” issues. [Oh boy. The reporter did not get the facts straight before writing this highly "principled" story.]
He said only 10 to 15 priests in the country had been advocating gender rights aggressively since 2004 when sex scandals implicating priests surfaced.
Bacani said sex scandals fueled a campaign among young priests to evaluate Church-dictated concepts of sexuality, but the hierarchy discouraged them. [Oooooo. Dan Brown and Carlos Celdran are so giddy right now!]
Society’s strong reaction to these scandals were too brief, he said, citing a local priest who was convicted by a Baguio court of sexual misconduct but who still won the mayoral race in a Benguet town. [So what do you want to do? Hang him?]
Bacani said he had been asking Baguio Bishop Carlito Cenzon to allow him to counsel local priests about sexuality, using his radical module, but has yet to receive a response. [Try it first on yourself then let's see! Good for Bishop Cenzon. Wait! Let's have a deal! Why don't you celebrate the Traditional Mass in the Baguio Cathedral before we consider your module? I heard his module and the other paper entitled "Misa ng Sambayanang Pilipino" will be contributing a lot to save the planet...being used as recycled paper and all. Right, Fr. Bacani? You love saving "mother" nature, do yah?]
“I taught some priests about gender rights, and I spoke about it in my lectures at a seminary, but some seminarians protested the direction these discussions would take,” Bacani said. [The seminarians had their "lunacy" vaccine shots.]
A pastor challenged some of Bacani’s core message by stressing that the country progressed better under the Church compared to the period when Filipinos revered a matriarchal leadership. [Imagine that! A pastor! Hah!]
Raymundo Rovillos, a history professor at the University of the Philippines-Baguio, described Bacani’s advocacy as “a hard path” and said he was subverting centuries-old principles. [Remember that Modernists and the kumbaya priests who can't get over the fact that Vatican II hoopla is on life support have one common denominator: Shun the Traditional, Invent something New, Make People Laugh, Dance During Mass. Generate Publicity, Leave your Parishioners Hanging and Be on TV ALL THE TIME. Kaching, Kaching! $$$$$$]
Bacani said being tolerant of all sexual preferences meant accepting homosexuality.
He said that while the Church acknowledged homosexual orientation, it frowned on homosexual acts. He said this view was deceptive. [Wait. What part did we miss.]
Modern Christianity, he said, had fashioned its concepts about life, society, women and power around the patriarchy or a society run by males. [If this guy flew on promo, he'd be left in the check in counter. Too much baggage! Over the weight limit.]
Historically, Bacani said, the Church’s ideological foundation is defined by the gender of Jesus Christ, who is male. [So?]
The Church’s language reveals this bias, he said, because God is always “The Father,” [because Christ said so!] and the Church’s roster of saints is composed mostly of men. [And you blame men for that?] Sexuality also follows a patriarchal conceit, Bacani said. [Ugh!]
Virginity is a doctrine that has no real value to society, [being pure is of no real value? Boy, I am sinning right now thinking of how this 'priest' lives this life. I mean, seriously, is he even CELIBATE right now? STOP! Don't give me that MST mumbo jumbo about thee OTHER definition of celibacy! What I mean here is not having sexual relations with a woman and certainly with another MAN or even an animal! Goodness gracious!] but it persists under Church teachings, the priest said.
Bacani said this had made society frown at men who are aroused by a naked woman. Real sin, he said, takes place when a man obsesses and objectifies the woman. [and your point is? Oh yeah, I forgot. Sorry, too much stink blurred my vision. Ha!]
He said his lessons were not attacks on Christianity, [WHA?!?!?!] but were discussion points for the faithful “because we need to revisit our religion... we need to review our faith.” [With you as "reviewer"? Please, I'd trust Gapus on this one rather than you! If Martin Luther were alive he'd even excommunicate this guy from the Lutheran Church! Such a wacko!]
The Episcopal Church is closer to emancipating all gender when it allows homosexuals and women to become part of its clergy, Bacani said. [Wrong! Not all! Remember that thing called Anglicanorum Coetibus? I know Doc Ben will be ranting with me against this Looney Tune reject.]
He said indigenous Filipino concepts in the Cordillera taught the faithful about sex far better than theological books could because Cordillera society allowed women a say in communal decisions. [Maybe the cold weather of the Cordilleras got to his brain. He was a missionary in Africa, so it maybe the heat. Or maybe he is just plain nutty! Have you ever been to the Visayas or the Tagalog, Ilocos region, Father Bacani? Have you seen how old women, the matriarchs are treated by the clan? I feel so sorry for you. Very lonely childhood I guess.]
Rovillos said Cordillera women had a far healthier concept of sex.
“They do not have a word for ‘rape’ or ‘incest’ because that just never happens. But rape and incest now occur in the modern Cordillera world, and that is tragic,” he said. [Let's ask Father Bacani what caused that professor. Maybe he will say that most in the Cordilleras became Catholic and were taught by traditional Catholic catechists and missionaries and that is why they have an unhealthy view of sex! Hey, fact check Fr. Bacani? Have you ever heard of this invention called TV, DVD and Internet?]
***
SHAME ON YOU BACANI! GET OUT OF THE CHURCH!
ANATHEMA SIT!
YOU ARE A HERETIC?
***
Now will anyone suggesting that we have an inquiry about this?
Isn't this enough?
By the time you start the "investigation", Elvis has already left the building.
Remember those Filipino movies, where the protagonists, a group of young skinny women, beat the hell out of a group of burly thugs with sticks. And by the time the cops arrive, all the thugs are in lala land, beaten by the calorie deprived women?
Yup . That is how it looks if we become too "charitable" and give this Babaylan his right to due process...to process more time to spread his filth!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
And she wants more attention...
From Inquirer.net
***
MANILA, Philippines—Carlos Celdran strikes again.
The sought-after [he is? Yuck!] Intramuros tour guide and reproductive health (RH) rights advocate ripped out an anti-RH bill tarpaulin outside the compound of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in Manila on Friday, two church workers said Wednesday. [And he was caught by CCTV cameras. The fag admitted it on her Facebook account.]
A closed-circuit television camera (CCTV) also caught a man who looked like Celdran running away with the banner toward his car. He was wearing a polo barong and black short pants.
“I was surprised to see Celdran. I recognized him because he has been in the news. He was the one with the ‘Damaso’ (placard),” Richard Mari told reporters.
Celdran shocked top Catholic Church leaders in September last year when he disrupted an interdenominational religious service attended, among others, by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, at Manila Cathedral. [And the Papal Nuncio was also in the cathedral when he did it.]
In front of the altar, Celdran shouted and waved a placard that read “Damaso,” referring to the reviled Spanish friar Padre Damaso, a fictional character in national hero Jose Rizal’s celebrated novel, “Noli Me Tangere.” [Because he is an idiot that really does not know anything about history and Rizal studies and feeds vitriol on his audience who don't know jack squat about Philippine history.]
He was protesting the Church’s lobbying against the RH bill, which administration allies are pushing in Congress.
After reporters called him Wednesday, Celdran put a status message on his Facebook account that he “was caught taking down an anti-RH sign at CBCP on CCTV camera.”
“Big deal. I’ll do it again. Stop getting involved in politics and spreading lies and I’ll stop ripping down your signs. That’s all I have to say,” Celdran said. [Now that is utter arrogance and stupidity rolled into one fat blob of walking fat! He'll stop the profanities if the Church stops Her opposition to the RH Bill. And he calls himself someone standing up for someone else's rights? The rights of Catholics end when he begins to demand his rights? Is this what Celdran wants?]
Celdran’s latest caper happened at around 3:40 p.m. as Mari and another church worker, Richard Villaruel, were going out of the CBCP headquarters for a snack.
The two said they saw the tourist guide trampling on the tarpaulin to remove its frame before fleeing with it.
“Why did he remove the tarpaulin? Nananahimik ang tarpaulin tapos ginalaw niya (No one was bothered by it and look what he did),” Mari said.
Villaruel said he and Mari did not accost or chase Celdran. “I was just wondering why he removed the streamer. I knew it was Celdran because I often see him on television and in Intramuros for tours,” he said [You were wondering?! Dude, have you been under a bomb shelter for decades?! The cold war has already ended? Geez! Someone give him a dossier of Celdranisms. Good grief! I am working a few meters away from where this happened. If I saw this happened right before me, I would have given this Bad Cholesterol a UFC tackle! And I am sure you would have seen me on TV and that fag would have known who The Pinoy Catholic really is!]
A CCTV camera of Ironcom Builders and Development Corp., whose office is across the CBCP headquarters on General Luna Street, caught a man running away with the white tarpaulin, which read: “Choose Life, Reject the RH/RP Bill—Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.”
As he was crossing the street toward the parking lot beside the CBCP compound, he was nearly hit by a motorcycle. The man then boarded a black car.
“Seriously. They have me on CCTV and got witnesses to ‘confirm’ it was me. Dang. I did it 3 p.m. Who says I was trying to hide it? I am coming clean. The damage I did to that signboard is nothing compared to the damage they have done to our society,” Celdran said in his Facebook account.
“I hope the CBCP does not make a big deal of this. For their own sake,” he added. [Now that sounds like a threat!]
The CBCP president, Bishop Nereo Odchimar, declined to comment on the incident and instead referred reporters to the Manila Cathedral rector, Msgr. Nestor Cerbo.
Celdran was charged with offending religious feelings in the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court for his protest at the cathedral, but he and Church officials were supposed to have reached a settlement.
He was supposed to submit a letter of apology, a draft of which has been reportedly submitted in court by his lawyers, saying that the tour guide had not carefully thought of his protest at the cathedral.
The Church officials have to accept the letter as sufficient for the settlement to push through. But after what happened on Friday, it was not clear if they were still ready to accept Celdran’s apology.
***
Is this the same guy who asked for forgiveness and is even brokering a plea bargain for his publicity stunt at the Cathedral?
She said in its Facebook account that he is willing to go to jail for this latest escapade.
Then so be it!
Let that cheap blob of lard rot in Hell!
To the CBCP, don't think twice! Send the fag to jail!
***
MANILA, Philippines—Carlos Celdran strikes again.
The sought-after [he is? Yuck!] Intramuros tour guide and reproductive health (RH) rights advocate ripped out an anti-RH bill tarpaulin outside the compound of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in Manila on Friday, two church workers said Wednesday. [And he was caught by CCTV cameras. The fag admitted it on her Facebook account.]
A closed-circuit television camera (CCTV) also caught a man who looked like Celdran running away with the banner toward his car. He was wearing a polo barong and black short pants.
“I was surprised to see Celdran. I recognized him because he has been in the news. He was the one with the ‘Damaso’ (placard),” Richard Mari told reporters.
Celdran shocked top Catholic Church leaders in September last year when he disrupted an interdenominational religious service attended, among others, by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, at Manila Cathedral. [And the Papal Nuncio was also in the cathedral when he did it.]
In front of the altar, Celdran shouted and waved a placard that read “Damaso,” referring to the reviled Spanish friar Padre Damaso, a fictional character in national hero Jose Rizal’s celebrated novel, “Noli Me Tangere.” [Because he is an idiot that really does not know anything about history and Rizal studies and feeds vitriol on his audience who don't know jack squat about Philippine history.]
He was protesting the Church’s lobbying against the RH bill, which administration allies are pushing in Congress.
After reporters called him Wednesday, Celdran put a status message on his Facebook account that he “was caught taking down an anti-RH sign at CBCP on CCTV camera.”
“Big deal. I’ll do it again. Stop getting involved in politics and spreading lies and I’ll stop ripping down your signs. That’s all I have to say,” Celdran said. [Now that is utter arrogance and stupidity rolled into one fat blob of walking fat! He'll stop the profanities if the Church stops Her opposition to the RH Bill. And he calls himself someone standing up for someone else's rights? The rights of Catholics end when he begins to demand his rights? Is this what Celdran wants?]
Celdran’s latest caper happened at around 3:40 p.m. as Mari and another church worker, Richard Villaruel, were going out of the CBCP headquarters for a snack.
The two said they saw the tourist guide trampling on the tarpaulin to remove its frame before fleeing with it.
“Why did he remove the tarpaulin? Nananahimik ang tarpaulin tapos ginalaw niya (No one was bothered by it and look what he did),” Mari said.
Villaruel said he and Mari did not accost or chase Celdran. “I was just wondering why he removed the streamer. I knew it was Celdran because I often see him on television and in Intramuros for tours,” he said [You were wondering?! Dude, have you been under a bomb shelter for decades?! The cold war has already ended? Geez! Someone give him a dossier of Celdranisms. Good grief! I am working a few meters away from where this happened. If I saw this happened right before me, I would have given this Bad Cholesterol a UFC tackle! And I am sure you would have seen me on TV and that fag would have known who The Pinoy Catholic really is!]
A CCTV camera of Ironcom Builders and Development Corp., whose office is across the CBCP headquarters on General Luna Street, caught a man running away with the white tarpaulin, which read: “Choose Life, Reject the RH/RP Bill—Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.”
As he was crossing the street toward the parking lot beside the CBCP compound, he was nearly hit by a motorcycle. The man then boarded a black car.
“Seriously. They have me on CCTV and got witnesses to ‘confirm’ it was me. Dang. I did it 3 p.m. Who says I was trying to hide it? I am coming clean. The damage I did to that signboard is nothing compared to the damage they have done to our society,” Celdran said in his Facebook account.
“I hope the CBCP does not make a big deal of this. For their own sake,” he added. [Now that sounds like a threat!]
The CBCP president, Bishop Nereo Odchimar, declined to comment on the incident and instead referred reporters to the Manila Cathedral rector, Msgr. Nestor Cerbo.
Celdran was charged with offending religious feelings in the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court for his protest at the cathedral, but he and Church officials were supposed to have reached a settlement.
He was supposed to submit a letter of apology, a draft of which has been reportedly submitted in court by his lawyers, saying that the tour guide had not carefully thought of his protest at the cathedral.
The Church officials have to accept the letter as sufficient for the settlement to push through. But after what happened on Friday, it was not clear if they were still ready to accept Celdran’s apology.
***
Is this the same guy who asked for forgiveness and is even brokering a plea bargain for his publicity stunt at the Cathedral?
She said in its Facebook account that he is willing to go to jail for this latest escapade.
Then so be it!
Let that cheap blob of lard rot in Hell!
To the CBCP, don't think twice! Send the fag to jail!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Vatican observer to UN: Catholics being attacked for their belief!
Geneva, Switzerland, Mar 22, 2011 / 04:58 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A Vatican representative to the United Nations spoke out today against “attacks” on freedom of conscience and religion, directed against Catholics and others who hold traditional beliefs about sexual morality and human nature.
Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi [pictured at right] spoke out in a March 22 meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council, calling attention to what he described as a “disturbing trend” in debates over social life and human rights.
“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex,” Archbishop Tomasi told the council.
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatized, and worse – they are vilified, and prosecuted.” [Neo Nazis!]
The archbishop stated that these attempts to silence Catholics, and other critics of homosexual practice, were a human rights violation according to the council's own standards. [maybe it would be good for the archbishop to know that there are "Catholic" priests and nuns who would call for "tolerance" and '"dialogue" with these groups who attack the Church. What they actually mean is we compromise our beliefs so there would be..peace. *belch*]
“These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session,” he pointed out.
“The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.”
The archbishop's remarks came as the council revisited the subject of “sexual orientation” as a human right, a subject that has caused tension between the Vatican and the U.N. in the past. [true right you are!]
Church officials do not support the criminalization of homosexual activity. [See that Señora Celdran?] However, they fear that the concept of a universal right to “sexual orientation,” under certain interpretations, could lead to international action against Christians and others who regard homosexual acts as immoral. [Sexual orientation per se is not bad. But if you act out that orientation and even demand that nature's law of copulation between two heterosexuals be an accepted norm and even be supported by the State! No! No! No!]
“There has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term 'sexual orientation,' as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the U.N. human rights system,” Archbishop Tomasi noted in his March 22 remarks. [What I love to call "literary time bombs", terms that are open to a LOT of interpretations. Sounds like how Modernists are working in the Church, right?]
But he pointed out that the term “sexual orientation” refers properly to “feelings and thoughts, not to behavior” – a distinction he said was especially important to make, in order to avoid the complete deregulation of all sexual behavior.
“For the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other,” Archbishop Tomasi explained.
“A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings.”
“But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.”
While countries should not attempt to regulate thoughts or feelings, he said, they must avoid regarding sexual behavior as something completely private, and not subject to any restriction. [Supporters of the Bill of Death, aka RH Bill always say that the Church should leave the couples in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Oh yeah? Then why women cry out for justice if they get beaten up by their abusive husbands in the privacy of their own bedrooms? The Church will never be dumb in issues of Faith and Morals. Get that!]
“Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension,” said the archbishop. [Great one!]
The Vatican representative explained that those who deny the voluntary and moral character of sexual acts – by treating them, instead, as inevitable expressions of an “orientation” – are actually undermining their own claims about human freedom and dignity.
Archbishop Tomasi also reiterated the Vatican's position on human sexuality – which the Catholic Church regards not only as an article of faith, but as a universal matter of natural law. [Even if theologians in MST and their lot think otherwise, the Church will not waver on this issue!]
“Human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage,” he stated. [And that is why celibacy is both a sacrifice and a gift in order to achieve a greater good! Get that pro-married priest advocates!]
***
Remember the points raised by the archbishop!
The same rebuttal he uses is very useful especially against those pushing for the RH Bill. Remember that those who support this bill are either gay, lesbian, transexuals, radical feminists, Modernist "catholics" who hide under the veil and the cloak, Cafeteria "catholics" who attract attention to give a boost to their dying tour business, INC (yuck!), and plain bigots!
It is their hatred of the Catholic Church that drives them to push for their radical agenda. They do not reason based on reason. It is based on pure hatred for our Faith!
Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi [pictured at right] spoke out in a March 22 meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council, calling attention to what he described as a “disturbing trend” in debates over social life and human rights.“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex,” Archbishop Tomasi told the council.
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatized, and worse – they are vilified, and prosecuted.” [Neo Nazis!]
The archbishop stated that these attempts to silence Catholics, and other critics of homosexual practice, were a human rights violation according to the council's own standards. [maybe it would be good for the archbishop to know that there are "Catholic" priests and nuns who would call for "tolerance" and '"dialogue" with these groups who attack the Church. What they actually mean is we compromise our beliefs so there would be..peace. *belch*]
“These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session,” he pointed out.
“The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.”
The archbishop's remarks came as the council revisited the subject of “sexual orientation” as a human right, a subject that has caused tension between the Vatican and the U.N. in the past. [true right you are!]
Church officials do not support the criminalization of homosexual activity. [See that Señora Celdran?] However, they fear that the concept of a universal right to “sexual orientation,” under certain interpretations, could lead to international action against Christians and others who regard homosexual acts as immoral. [Sexual orientation per se is not bad. But if you act out that orientation and even demand that nature's law of copulation between two heterosexuals be an accepted norm and even be supported by the State! No! No! No!]
“There has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term 'sexual orientation,' as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the U.N. human rights system,” Archbishop Tomasi noted in his March 22 remarks. [What I love to call "literary time bombs", terms that are open to a LOT of interpretations. Sounds like how Modernists are working in the Church, right?]
But he pointed out that the term “sexual orientation” refers properly to “feelings and thoughts, not to behavior” – a distinction he said was especially important to make, in order to avoid the complete deregulation of all sexual behavior.
“For the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other,” Archbishop Tomasi explained.
“A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings.”
“But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.”
While countries should not attempt to regulate thoughts or feelings, he said, they must avoid regarding sexual behavior as something completely private, and not subject to any restriction. [Supporters of the Bill of Death, aka RH Bill always say that the Church should leave the couples in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Oh yeah? Then why women cry out for justice if they get beaten up by their abusive husbands in the privacy of their own bedrooms? The Church will never be dumb in issues of Faith and Morals. Get that!]
“Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension,” said the archbishop. [Great one!]
The Vatican representative explained that those who deny the voluntary and moral character of sexual acts – by treating them, instead, as inevitable expressions of an “orientation” – are actually undermining their own claims about human freedom and dignity.
Archbishop Tomasi also reiterated the Vatican's position on human sexuality – which the Catholic Church regards not only as an article of faith, but as a universal matter of natural law. [Even if theologians in MST and their lot think otherwise, the Church will not waver on this issue!]
“Human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage,” he stated. [And that is why celibacy is both a sacrifice and a gift in order to achieve a greater good! Get that pro-married priest advocates!]
***
Remember the points raised by the archbishop!
The same rebuttal he uses is very useful especially against those pushing for the RH Bill. Remember that those who support this bill are either gay, lesbian, transexuals, radical feminists, Modernist "catholics" who hide under the veil and the cloak, Cafeteria "catholics" who attract attention to give a boost to their dying tour business, INC (yuck!), and plain bigots!
It is their hatred of the Catholic Church that drives them to push for their radical agenda. They do not reason based on reason. It is based on pure hatred for our Faith!
What has the INC got to do with an impeachment?
from Inquirer.net
***
MANILA, Philippines—All means are being exhausted to stop the looming impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in the House of Representatives lest former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo end up on trial, a senator said Sunday.
Ahead of this week’s vote, a high-ranking official of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) had been calling House members to kill the impeachment complaint, according to Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chair of the justice committee. [What's religion got to do with it?]
“All efforts are being undertaken to abort the impeachment of Gutierrez because in effect it will be GMA (Arroyo) on trial,” Sen. Franklin Drilon said in an interview, referring to the former president, now a Pampanga lawmaker. [You bet!]
Drilon said the charges in the impeachment complaints—the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal, and the Mega-Pacific contract—were linked to Arroyo, her husband Jose Miguel and their cronies. [And the Iglesia wants this stopped? But why? Could be? Really? Is it a bird? A plane? Or...oops! wrong script.]
“Even if it is Merceditas Gutierrez who will be the respondent in an impeachment, it will be in effect GMA on trial. All of the allegations are connected to her and her husband and her cronies,” said Drilon, a colleague of President Benigno Aquino III in the Liberal Party.
The House is set to vote in plenary this week on whether to approve the justice committee’s finding of probable cause to impeach Gutierrez and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. [The House just did. This is old news that I just dug up.]
Gutierrez has been accused of inaction on a number of cases, particularly the scandals that marred the Arroyo administration, and of betraying public trust and violating the Constitution. [In the private sector, you slack, you get fired. In the government, you sit on the job, the Iglesia ni Cristo defends you. HOORAY!]
A lawmaker, who asked not to be named, said Gutierrez appeared to have the backing of the INC.
Proof of this was the fact that she was represented in the House by former Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas, who acted as counsel for the INC a number of times, the lawmaker said. [He also was the lawyer of deposed president Joseph Estrada.]
“Serafin Cuevas indicates the hand of Iglesia ni Cristo. He is known to be the lawyer of Iglesia ni Cristo,” the lawmaker said. “Merci has the full support of Iglesia.”
In the face of intense INC lobbying, members of the ruling Liberal Party remain positive of getting the one-third vote, albeit below the initial target of at least 150 votes or more than half of the House.
“The phone calls made by a high-ranking official of Iglesia ni Cristo to kill the impeachment case may affect the vote of some House members but we are still confident that we will get the required number of votes to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial,” Tupas said in a text message. [Thank goodness this congressman has the gut to stand up against these Pharisees!]
A House source, who requested anonymity, said the INC was egging some lawmakers to call in sick or leave after the roll call.
“That’s a game changer. The evidence of that (INC intervention) is so manifest. Last week, the proponents were boasting of a slam dunk. Today, they are now prefiguring that the battle will be tight,” said Isabela Rep. Georgidi Aggabao of the Nationalist People’s Coalition.
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, whose group is one of the complainants in the impeachment case, said the INC stand would have a minimal impact on the voting “because it would be difficult for a congressman to be absent because all eyes are on us.”
Solon upset
Akbayan party-list Rep. Walden Bello was upset that the INC would intervene in the business of Congress.
“Why are religious blocs crossing the line dividing the church and state, the INC in the case of the impeachment issue and the (Catholic) Church on reproductive health? Can’t these pressure groups stay on the sidelines and allow Congress to do its work?” asked Bello, whose group is the second complainant in the case. [This idiot of Celdran's same garment (get it Pinoys?) is really annoying. How could he compare the fight of the Catholic Church against RH, which is an issue of morality, with the meddling of the Iglesia ni Cristo against the impeachment of an inutile public servant? Did not know that the Iglesia Bible teaches against impeachment! What stupid reasoning will we see on Net25 this time!]
Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay, [an arrogant and irritating lawmaker!] a member of the minority, found nothing wrong with the INC’s intervention. “Everyone is a stakeholder in this,” she said. [And she is mad if the CBCP talks against the RH Bill. There's your kind of Catholic, folks!]
Cavite Rep. Joseph E.A. Abaya, a key Liberal Party official in the House, said the vote could “go either way.”
Mr. Aquino’s deputy spokesperson, Abigail Valte, shrugged off reports that the Palace would withhold the pork barrel of lawmakers who would not support the impeachment of Gutierrez.
“It’s not the policy of the administration to use the pork barrel to sway (lawmakers) one way or the other,” Valte said. With a report from Christine O. Avendaño
***
I know there are INM or INC members who read the blog and heckle me for the INC Masonic connection.
I dare you!
WHAT IS RELIGION'S INTEREST IN THIS ONE, HUH?
Since you love answering things from the Bible...WHERE IS THIS IN THE BIBLE?
Now where are those Rabid Harlots and FreeDumbers who shout at the Pinoy Catholic bishops to stop meddling in politics?
The Iglesia ni Manalo hordes are doing it right under our noses blatantly!
Where is that fat obnoxious attention hungry, black board carrying dude when you need her?
***
MANILA, Philippines—All means are being exhausted to stop the looming impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in the House of Representatives lest former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo end up on trial, a senator said Sunday.
Ahead of this week’s vote, a high-ranking official of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) had been calling House members to kill the impeachment complaint, according to Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chair of the justice committee. [What's religion got to do with it?]
“All efforts are being undertaken to abort the impeachment of Gutierrez because in effect it will be GMA (Arroyo) on trial,” Sen. Franklin Drilon said in an interview, referring to the former president, now a Pampanga lawmaker. [You bet!]
Drilon said the charges in the impeachment complaints—the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal, and the Mega-Pacific contract—were linked to Arroyo, her husband Jose Miguel and their cronies. [And the Iglesia wants this stopped? But why? Could be? Really? Is it a bird? A plane? Or...oops! wrong script.]
“Even if it is Merceditas Gutierrez who will be the respondent in an impeachment, it will be in effect GMA on trial. All of the allegations are connected to her and her husband and her cronies,” said Drilon, a colleague of President Benigno Aquino III in the Liberal Party.
The House is set to vote in plenary this week on whether to approve the justice committee’s finding of probable cause to impeach Gutierrez and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. [The House just did. This is old news that I just dug up.]
Gutierrez has been accused of inaction on a number of cases, particularly the scandals that marred the Arroyo administration, and of betraying public trust and violating the Constitution. [In the private sector, you slack, you get fired. In the government, you sit on the job, the Iglesia ni Cristo defends you. HOORAY!]
A lawmaker, who asked not to be named, said Gutierrez appeared to have the backing of the INC.
Proof of this was the fact that she was represented in the House by former Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas, who acted as counsel for the INC a number of times, the lawmaker said. [He also was the lawyer of deposed president Joseph Estrada.]
“Serafin Cuevas indicates the hand of Iglesia ni Cristo. He is known to be the lawyer of Iglesia ni Cristo,” the lawmaker said. “Merci has the full support of Iglesia.”
In the face of intense INC lobbying, members of the ruling Liberal Party remain positive of getting the one-third vote, albeit below the initial target of at least 150 votes or more than half of the House.
“The phone calls made by a high-ranking official of Iglesia ni Cristo to kill the impeachment case may affect the vote of some House members but we are still confident that we will get the required number of votes to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial,” Tupas said in a text message. [Thank goodness this congressman has the gut to stand up against these Pharisees!]
A House source, who requested anonymity, said the INC was egging some lawmakers to call in sick or leave after the roll call.
“That’s a game changer. The evidence of that (INC intervention) is so manifest. Last week, the proponents were boasting of a slam dunk. Today, they are now prefiguring that the battle will be tight,” said Isabela Rep. Georgidi Aggabao of the Nationalist People’s Coalition.
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, whose group is one of the complainants in the impeachment case, said the INC stand would have a minimal impact on the voting “because it would be difficult for a congressman to be absent because all eyes are on us.”
Solon upset
Akbayan party-list Rep. Walden Bello was upset that the INC would intervene in the business of Congress.
“Why are religious blocs crossing the line dividing the church and state, the INC in the case of the impeachment issue and the (Catholic) Church on reproductive health? Can’t these pressure groups stay on the sidelines and allow Congress to do its work?” asked Bello, whose group is the second complainant in the case. [This idiot of Celdran's same garment (get it Pinoys?) is really annoying. How could he compare the fight of the Catholic Church against RH, which is an issue of morality, with the meddling of the Iglesia ni Cristo against the impeachment of an inutile public servant? Did not know that the Iglesia Bible teaches against impeachment! What stupid reasoning will we see on Net25 this time!]
Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay, [an arrogant and irritating lawmaker!] a member of the minority, found nothing wrong with the INC’s intervention. “Everyone is a stakeholder in this,” she said. [And she is mad if the CBCP talks against the RH Bill. There's your kind of Catholic, folks!]
Cavite Rep. Joseph E.A. Abaya, a key Liberal Party official in the House, said the vote could “go either way.”
Mr. Aquino’s deputy spokesperson, Abigail Valte, shrugged off reports that the Palace would withhold the pork barrel of lawmakers who would not support the impeachment of Gutierrez.
“It’s not the policy of the administration to use the pork barrel to sway (lawmakers) one way or the other,” Valte said. With a report from Christine O. Avendaño
***
I know there are INM or INC members who read the blog and heckle me for the INC Masonic connection.
I dare you!
WHAT IS RELIGION'S INTEREST IN THIS ONE, HUH?
Since you love answering things from the Bible...WHERE IS THIS IN THE BIBLE?
Now where are those Rabid Harlots and FreeDumbers who shout at the Pinoy Catholic bishops to stop meddling in politics?
The Iglesia ni Manalo hordes are doing it right under our noses blatantly!
Where is that fat obnoxious attention hungry, black board carrying dude when you need her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)