Wednesday, September 28, 2016


As commonly and simply understood, divorce is the legal definitive ending of marriage-in-fact.  It is the division of a coupled man and woman, the disunion of spousal unity, the dissolution of marital commitment – plus the division of nothing less than a family as a whole, with the children born therein suffering the most for the split of their own parents.  It is disuniting an intimate union.  It is breaking up a composite unit.  It is breaking a domestic community.  That is divorce.  It does not build but instead break-up a serious and deliberate consummate unity.  Much less does it affirm but instead undermines human dignity and integrity in the matter of a spousal solemn promise, a deliberate conjugal commitment previously made with celebrated glee and much expectation.

This is in no way meant to despise, much less to condemn those who subscribe to and thus practice divorce – including those who have been long since longing and proposing the legislation of divorce in the Country contrary to the sound culture and noble tradition of majority of Filipinos.  It is but telling the ground reality of divorce – with romanticism set aside and with but objective reality in mind.  In other words, while it is somehow unfair to condemn divorce promoters, it is neither easy to admire them in sincerity and truth.  Instead of building up a conjugal relationship, divorce eventually destroys it.  Rather than reconcile a couple having difficulty living together, divorce simply cuts their marriage bond.  In lieu of strengthening the conjugal bond and promoting the stable and continuing parental – supporting, caring and formational role of a couple, divorce simply does away with all these.  It is not easy to find children rejoicing for the divorce of their parents.

It is the connatural or innate longing of human emotion that makes a man and a woman fall in love, to eventually express their mutual affection and bilateral longing through a formal marital union – for “as long as they both shall live”.  The meaning and implications of questions such as “Who knows what happens next?”  “Why not give it a try?”   “So what if it does not work?” plus such statements as “There is always a way out.”  “It is not the end of everything.”  “It is better to try and fail than to not have tried at all,” and the like are neither the right thoughts nor the proper disposition on the part of a man and/or woman getting married.  Reason:   The said questions and statements are thought of and asked by couples who ultimately believe in and subscribe to a divorce option when there come to fore the so-called “Irreconcilable Differences” in their marriage – notwithstanding the latter’s inherent and substantive attributes of unity and indissolubility.  Those who subscribe to divorce should not get married at all, much less have children from their de facto union.  This is but an advisory.  But such is the truth and reality.

Truth to say, attraction specially when but sexually inspired – be this but simple longing and/or downright desire – is not really enough to enter into an indivisible and insoluble Marriage Covenant even but considering the saying that “No couple can live on love alone.”  In the world of realities, marriage commitment evidently presumes and accordingly demands normal personality constitution and conjugal competence, common domestic concern and industry, standard enduring concern and understanding – to name a few attributions for marriage intents and purposes.  In other words, those who do not believe in marriage for life, who takes marriage but as personal matter, who get married for convenience, who look at marriage as but a last recourse, who enter marriage for having nothing else better to do – these are the men and women who cannot but believe in and subscribe to what marriage is really all about, should be the last ones to get married.

So it is that by merely taking into account the words and nuances of more known and popular genuine love songs – like, “I’ll be loving you always...”, “Dahil sa iyo, hanggang mamatay...”, “I’ll be loving you eternally...”  and so many other love songs of the same substance and ardor plus the standard Marriage Vow professing love “...until death do us part,” it is not really to see that by Natural Law, such genuine love is the premise of the Marriage Covenant anchored on indivisibility and indissolubility – both of which realities automatically and emphatically a priori excludes divorce from honest-to-goodness marriage.          

Monday, September 26, 2016


Reason and ethics, morals and faith, criminal law and constitutional policy – all these personal and social, rational and spiritual, legal and judicial provisions are against deliberate and procured abortion.  Translation:  Do not kill.  Do not kill yourself, your neighbor, your fellowmen.  But over and above all, do not kill the unborn who did not ask to be conceived, who is innocence unborn but whose life you grossly ended, whose being you licentiously destroyed.  This is criminality incarnate.  This is inhumanity unlimited.  Abortion is definitely a heinous – gross, repugnant, abominable – crime.

“You shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13).  There are practically  a million and one things that are vicious and devious, and wherefore categorically considered as outlawed, taboo, anathema.  But the Sacred Scriptures recorded nothing more but the Ten Commandments given and imposed on man by God Himself.  And one of them is precisely on the matter of respect for and protection of human life.  Life is precious.  Life has no price.  Life is singular in nature and implications.  So it is that without life, what is there left if any at all?

“The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Phil. Constitution, State Policies, Sec. 12).  The Constitution defines the nature and attributions of a nation, specifies the rights and obligations of the citizens – among other significant and relevant  national realities.  And there is the 1987 Philippine Constitution that precisely found it not simply relevant but definitely imperative to protect the life of the yet unborn human being – absolutely without reference as to who and why, when and where.

“A person who actually procures an abortion incurs an ipso facto excommunication.”  (Canon 1389 CIC).  So it is that as far as the Church is concerned, the downright murder of an unborn is such an abominable crime that once done, the following are therein involved – such as the father and/or mother, the physician and/or the nurse, the abortive pills provider and/or herbalist concerned – all these, yes, all of them, incur the penalty of downright exclusion from the life and spirit of the Church.  They are thus “Ousted” from the Church.

It is interesting to note that even brute animals – such as pigs and monkeys, dogs and cats and the like – do not commit abortion.  When pregnant, they take care of themselves, they behave accordingly and eventually give birth to their offspring and care for the latter.  Translation: Abortion is contrary to nature such that even irrational animals do not commit it.  Conclusion:  Plain and simply said, animals are better than humans who engage in abortion.  This is abominable but true.  It is understandable then that  Divine Law and Civil Law plus Canon Law all censure the heinous crime of abortion.

A  man and a woman, a husband and a wife consummated their union with joy, with pleasure and delight.  Thereafter, they become three with their conceived and yet unborn child.  But hereafter, they have the latter killed one way or another – or ask others to kill the same at the option of either or both parents.  Too bad that their  fathers and mothers were allowed by their grandparents to be born.  Too bad that nobody else than the parents had the unborn killed.  Instead of loving, caring, and protecting their yet to be born child, they themselves had this aborted, killed, murdered and thrown away.  How shameless!  How gross!    

Friday, September 23, 2016


This is marriage in truth and fact – a state of life entered into by a good number of people, some of whom are either barred or disqualified from so doing:  Marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and  which by its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children. (Cf.  Canon 1055 CIC).  Such is the objective gravity, standing attributions and pursuant obligations of marriage as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.  So it is that Marriage is nothing less than a “Covenant” which certain individuals are not meant to enter into – for one grave reason or another.  And so it is that the following may not validly  have a Church marriage:

The following are known as Diriment Impediments for valid marriage.  When either or both parties are below 18 years old. If the man and/or the woman suffer from relative or absolute impotence.  In the event that either or both parties are in fact already married to someone else.  In case the man and/or the woman are not baptized.  When even but one party has the obligation of clerical celibacy or the vow of chastity.  In the case when the woman is abducted for marriage purposes.  If one party kills his own wife or her own husband to get married to another.  When the parties  are blood related up to the 4th degree, collateral line – or in any degree in the direct line.

The following are the Defects of Matrimonial Consent that also invalidates de facto marriage from its very beginning:  Someone who lacks the use of reason, who is affected by the lack of due discretion for marriage intents and purpose, who is suffering from physical incapacity for the marriage covenant.  Somebody who is ignorant of the nature and/or finalities of marriage.  Anyone who commits an error about the identity of the other the former is precisely marrying.  Somebody who is deceived in order to get married to someone.  Anyone who on account of error, married someone else other than the party really intended.  Somebody who merely simulated his/her consent to marriage.  Anybody who gets married but subject  to a condition in the future.  Somebody who gets married due to force and/or fear.

The following are the three substantive and composite requirements for  valid Church Marriage in terms of the observance of the prescribed Form of Marriage – the absence of anyone  of which renders the marriage itself null and void from the start:  One, the presence of a duly authorized Cleric – Deacon, Priest, Bishop – who formally and expressly asks the bilateral consent to get married to one another.

To get married is rather easy.  But to stay married, to establish and live a conjugal partnership for a lifetime, to continuously work for and bring  about the well-being of both the spouses plus to care for the welfare of the children born of their union – all these are not for anybody, much less for everybody.  The preparation for marriage is exciting.  The celebration of marriage is breathtaking.  The honeymoon period is thrilling.  Thereafter, married life is trying.  So it is said and rightly so, that to get married is easy, to stay married for a lifetime is hard – if not very hard.        

Wednesday, September 21, 2016


Every now and then, a voice is heard here and there that a sect, a movement, a church will be founded – invented or re-invented – by this and that inspired individual, by this and that known personality.  History is however the standing witness that such pietistic, spiritualist as well as individual ventures actually come and eventually go with the coming and the going of their founder/founders for one reason or another, on account of this and that cause, this and that reason.  Among the many realities in accord with this historical fact is that while the founder/founders may be convincing speakers, good attention callers or distinctive personalities, their successors however one after another eventually prove to be less inspiring, less convincing – and the churches, the movements, the sects they founded, slowly and gradually loosen up, finally vanish and gone.

Such is definitely not but religious bigotry but factual history, not merely sectarianism but objective reality.  By the way, as duly recorded by dependable historians, there were then many attempts to do away with the Catholic Church which is now some 2016 years old and counting.    Those who thus attempted to do away with her were no less than Churchmen themselves – some members of the hierarchy included.  But miserably fail they did.  And the Catholic Church remains existent and alive – in addition to the fact that the institution remains not only one as a foundation but is in fact grounded in all the four corners of the globe.  In fact, a celebrated Geneva Convention formally elevated the Vatican City into a State – with ambassadorial Representatives to different Countries the world over.  Thus stands the principal and official home address on the one and universal Catholic Church:  Vatican City State, Europe.

Going back to the thinking of someone to establish his own “Iglesia” or something the like – be that but a big joke or an honest-to-goodness intention – some pieces of advise come to order.  Again, nothing here is meant to belittle any church already existent, any sect already founded, any religious or spiritual grouping already in operative stage – in this Country or elsewhere.  Below is a three-fold doctrino-practical advisory merely intended for the would-be founder to take into serious consideration in order to attract as many people as possible to join his “Iglesia” – probably with big interest and celebratory glee:

First is the doctrine that there are no less than ten gods – the father, the mother and the eight children.  Why?  To have but one god is not fair even but considering the so many petitions of so many people.   Having but one god is over-working the latter.

Second is the teaching that there is but one commandment:  “Do what you want.”  Why?  Life is already hard here and now.  It should not be made even harder by the hereafter and the beyond.

Third is the belief that there is no such thing as damnation but only salvation.  Why?  This is the updated reality.  This is the positive approach.  This is but being kind, understandable and forgiving.

It does become a very positive Iglesia – very reasonable, very understanding, very lovable.  These are modern times that rightfully demand   a modern Iglesia that altogether conform with the signs of the times.

Monday, September 19, 2016


The well-known and often-quoted “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, 4th Ed., APA, has a Section on Impulse Control Disorders”, one of which is specifically called “Pathological Gambling”.  This gambling fixation is in effect equals unquenchable avarice, which in practically all cases eventually ends up in the obsessive desire of more and more gambling ventures.  This ever-needing and wanting more and more money is what makes the gambler receptive of practically all recourses from any source through means precisely in order to finance his obsessive gambling venture.  This is when pathological gambling goes to the extent of salivating for more and more money on account of eventually more and more gambling losses.  After all is said and done, the gambler ends up the loser and the gambling institutions like Casinos rake in the money – as usual.  One has still to know of classy Casinos ending up the losers.

Persistent pre-occupation with gambling, with everything else in life thereto subordinated.  Continuous need to gamble with more money and more excitement.  Repeated unsuccessful intentions or resolves to stop gambling.  Irritability or restlessness when attempting to do away with gambling.  Gambling as a way of escaping problems and pacifying anxieties.  Gambling to win back the money previously lost but instead eventually losing more money.  Customary lying to the family, to employers and friends about one’s gambling addiction.  Dependence on others – any one, anyhow, anytime – to have money for more gambling due to more gambling losses.  Commission of illegal acts to effectively finance the vice of gambling, to give in to the addiction to gambling.  Such is Pathological Gambling. 

Given the above more salient psycho-pathological disposition and consequent behavioural pattern brought about by the obsession to gamble, there is something that should be well-thought of and duly acted upon, now that there is a new national government – considering that the avid self-admiring past administration has bequeathed to the Country no less than thirty-five (35) luxurious Casinos all over the land in line with its infamous and tiring hurrah of “Matuid na Daan”. 

There is the certainty – not simply possibility – that pathological gamblers  always need more and more money precisely in order to finance their unquenchable gambling addiction.  So it is that there is also the practical imperative to check the following:  The big possibility that such inveterate gamblers are thus involved as well in the big drug menace in the Philippines that is precisely the underlying cause of the now obtaining lawlessness in the Country.  In other words, considering that the quest for money is the prime motor of illegal drugs and that pathological gambling is synonymous with the quest for money – would the public authorities concerned with illegal drug production and sale like to check those immersed in the pathological gambling if the latter are connected with drug dealers such that the former are in effect their drug providers for distribution and sale?  Politicians and gangsters, professionals and hoodlums, businessmen and cheats – there are known pairings of such individuals for mutual benefits.  Why not pathological gamblers and illegal drug promoters  whereby the former sell what the latter have to offer?  There are illegal drug connections among public officials and police officers.  There are illegal drug searches in practically any neighbourhood.  Why not try looking for verifiable illegal drug connections among inveterate gamblers  and illegal drug providers?