Monday, December 05, 2016


Who does not know about the simple and insistent  teaching of the Church on the reasonable as well as ethical mandate of the responsibility of parents for the well-being of their children they bring into the world, specially in terms of dutifully providing their sufficient food and clothing, their decent housing and education?  And who is not aware of the plain and insistent affirmation of the Church about every couple thus duly planning the number of their children via the likewise reasonable and natural premise on the monthly long infertility and short fertility periods of the woman/wife  as precisely established by nature itself?

In other words, who does not know that the Church wherefore continues teaching the prudence and rationality of Responsible Parenthood precisely through Natural Family Planning?  The opposite is something not only irresponsible but also irrational – exercising and enjoying  the conjugal right without however minding the responsibility that usually goes therewith afterwards.  Rights and obligations go hand in hand.  Separating them is for the selfish, the egoistic, the irresponsible.  In fact, when viewed in general, such separation between rights and obligations whereby someone only thinks of exercising his rights without however fulfilling his obligations – this errancy is even the root cause of a good number of retrogressive and detestable social adversities.

Hence: “We thank the Supreme Court for having urged caution and circumspection in the enforcement of the recently passed RH Law.  The Catholic Church continues to insist that parents make responsible choices both with respect to the number of children and to the spacing of births.” (CBCP Statement on “Our Country and Our Faith”, 22 November 2016)

Why?  The aforesaid downright Population Control legislation under the cover-up of “Reproductive Health Law” (RH Law) which is patently against  human reproduction specifically  through the in-take of unhealthy contraceptive pills – which have intertwining financial reward with their manufacturers and their large-scale  corporate patrons.  But something truly detestable and really abominable is that according to reputable and competent medical practitioners, there are pills in the world market that are not simply contraceptive but also causative of abortion in the event of contraception.  This is not to mention the possible contra health effects of such pills on women taking them.  There is also the recently forwarded information that more and more individuals with Gender Identity Difficulty are precisely another ill-effect brought about by the in-take of certain contraceptive pills.

It is a big embarrassment if not downright shame  to take note of the phenomenon that fowls, animals, and other supposedly irrational creatures observe Responsible Parenthood as postulated by nature.  For example:  When a mama hen has laid her eggs, is hatching them and thereafter taking care of her chicks, she will decidedly allow no rooster of any looks and standing to be but even near her.  Only when her chicks are grown up and are  already on their own, will she allow a rooster to be around her – for another possible mating, another possible egg laying and chicks caring.  Is this not Natural family Planning?  If this is not Responsible Parenthood – even among irrational creatures! 

Friday, December 02, 2016


To our distinguished ladies and  gentlemen of the Legislative Department  who are long since addicted to changing the inherent nature and essential attributions of marriage in accord allegedly  with “modern” thinking and “updated” value system, we ask:  Do they look at themselves as above the imperative of Natural Law, beyond the reach of reason and pursuant ethical standards?  More.  Have they become avid believers of and subscribers to the downright amoral thinking and individualistic options of some people in some countries where certain sick and sickening practices – such as “No Fault Divorce”, “Renewable Marriage Vows”, “Group Marriage”, “Same Sex Marriage”, and the like – are now in vogue.

Even the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines expressly and clearly provides:  The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution...” (State Policy, Section 12)

Or is the Philippine Constitution itself simply something subject to the  whims and caprices of the said ladies and gentlemen such that they simply change any provision therein that does not suit their likes or dislikes, that they find inconvenient or dissonant with their personal options and preferences?  Or is there nothing more sacred and noble in their thinking and consequent actions  and reaction patterns?  Are there no more objective truths in their thinking process?  Do they wherefore consider themselves as the supreme norm in defining what is right or wrong, the ultimate reference point of legislating with sublimity or ignobility?  As to the nature, attributions, and consequences of marriage, the following simple and short observations are in order:

1.  It is the most commonly opted way of life.  While there are individuals who decide to be single or celibate, most people prefer marriage and thus get married.

2.  It is the most natural origin of human life.  Even with the truth that human life can come to fore without marriage, this still remains as its most common origin.

3.  It is the most universal start of a family.  As a matter of course, the mere mention of a true and real domestic unit presumes marriage as its origin.

4.  It is the most standard component of society.  It is a given that society in the local, provincial, regional and national levels are the composite output of marriage.

5.  It is the most demanding as well as rewarding way of living.  Married couples know too well that theirs is both a trying and endearing state of life.

6.  It is the most common source of happiness and lamentation.  It is far from a secret that marriage is the source of joys and sorrows, laughter and tears.

7.  It is the most complicated state of life.  Mentally and emotionally, spiritually and materially, personally and conjugally, marriage is anything but a joke.

If our dear and endearing, most celebrated and blessed legislators think and/or believe otherwise, they must have come from another planet.   

Wednesday, November 30, 2016


It is not really a secret that the immediately previous administration – with its well-chosen and much rewarded allies in the two other branches of government – has apparently demonstrated its definite and defined competence particularly in the following three main agenda – the living reality of which are its lamentable legacy  to the People of the Philippines:  One, the institutionalization of widespread graft and corrupt practices.  Two, the incarnate nonchalance on illegal drug manufacture, distribution and use.  Three, the official affirmation and endorsement of gambling in the Republic.  The incumbent administration is definitely not having fun in neutralizing the said three major socio-ethical aberrations.  In fact, it is receiving not only defiance and resistance but also understandable opposition and ill-will for so doing. When wrong has become the normal, it is anything but easy to replace it with what is right.

Specifically on the matter of gambling, this has special reference to Casinos with its On-Line branches – something recently brought to the attention of the general public with even a good number of therein actually involved.  It also has particular relevance to the infamous – covetous, odious, vicious – Jueteng in all its different forms and different nomenclatures as well.  So it is that it has become irrelevant if gambling – be this legal or illegal – is infallibly associated with vice not virtue, with cheating not honesty, with deception, not integrity.  Time and again, voices were raised against gambling.  Repeatedly, pleadings were made to clean the Country from gambling.  But the same previous administration went its merry way – coming out even with the then already infamous hurrah of “Daang Matuid”.

So it is that considering the social evil and amoral value system brought about by gambling, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)  itself recently issued a Pastoral Statement with the heading “Blessed be the nation whose God is the Lord!” (Psalm 33:12).  Among other supplications, it says:  “We appeal for concerted police and  local government efforts to destroy the web of illegal gambling in our barangays, towns, and cities.  We re-state our previous Statements denouncing illegal gambling in all its forms and opposing its legalization.  We must vigorously combat the expansion of organized and systematic legal gambling, such as e-bingo, small town lotteries, and casinos.” (22 November 2016)

Those who think that casinos are but a “game” – considering the interesting translation of “PAGCOR” as “Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation” – even such a cover-up alone of downright vicious corporate gambling already exhibits the shame and hypocrisy behind gambling advocated and promoted particularly by the previous government itself – with the present one apparently still remaining rather neutral about.  So it is that to writing, there still are no less than 35 operational Casinos all over the Country – not to mention its quasi numberless “On-Line” affiliates here and there.

By the way, who patronage legal or illegal gambling?  Not the virtuous but the vicious.  Not the industrious but the indolent.  Not the hardworking but the opportunists.  Not the productive but the lethargic.  Gambling is certainly not for the serious and upright, whereas the term itself already forwards the avaricious spirit of winning or getting someone else’s money, keeping and enjoying it as much as possible – with no sweat, no toil.  This is disgusting – to say the least.  

Monday, November 28, 2016


The truth of the matter is that what is really important and truly significant is whether someone dead is resting in peace or not, whether he is with God or away from Him – which is infallibly known only to the dead individual himself and the ever living God alone.  This is neither profound to know, nor complicated to understand.  In the last analysis wherefore, what definitely matters is not if someone is buried here, there, or anywhere, if people celebrate or demean his name, or if the same is a hero or not.  Symbols are good.  But objective reality is certainly not changed by mere symbols no matter how famous – or infamous – these are.  Truth ultimately prevails.  Reality is what truly counts.
This is but promoting the significance of truth, enhancing the imperative of justice, underlining the implications of peace – none of which is abrogated but by mere symbols, by mere words.  This is simply meant to say that what is true or false, that what is just or unjust and what is promotional of harmony or disharmony are not in the infallible domain either of the majority of society nor by the minority thereof for that matter.  Just as those who shout the loudest are not always right, in the same way, those who keep their silence are not always wrong.  For any member of humanity to believe, act and behave as if he knows anything and everything even – this in fact is a public curse specially so when the same exercises executive, legislative, or judicial power in the local or national level.

It bears repeating time and again – specifically as to the so-called “Libingan ng mga Bayani” – that not all heroes are therein buried.  In the same way, not all those therein in fact buried are honest-to-goodness heroes in accord with the intrinsic significance and objective implications of words. What about those honest-to-goodness Filipino heroes who died long before the said “Libingan” was even thought of?  Where are they buried?  What about the good number of heroes in word and in fact who were killed by guillotine even, during the Spanish colonization?  Where are they buried?  And what about the thousands of Filipinos slaughtered by bullets and bayonets during the Japanese regime?  Where are they buried?  Furthermore, is it  enough to have but a symbolic tomb for “Unknown Heroes”?  If they are in fact even unknown, how could they be really considered as heroes?

So it is that what truly and really matters, what eventually and finally counts is whether someone dead – be this a king/queen or a slave, a billionaire or a garbage picker – is resting in peace or not.  In other words, so what if someone is buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani?  Does that necessarily mean that he is resting in peace, enjoying the company of saints, marveling at the vision of God?  And when somebody is not therein buried, would this ipso facto mean that the individual concerned is damned to the unquenchable fires of hell?

The Philippines is far left behind in socio-economic development.  A good number of Filipinos are wallowing in misery and hunger.  The Country is besieged by the curse of gross graft and abominable corrupt practices.  There are so many progressive agenda  left undone.  Let the living attend to them.  Leave the dead in peace. Please!     

Friday, November 25, 2016


Let it be noted that strictly speaking, just as the ethical actions or moral actuations of someone are brought to actuality in doing what is good, in the same way, the acts and actuations of society achieve their ultimate finality when they bring about the common good of its constituents.  So it is that the common good is understood as the “social and community dimension” of the ethical norms or  moral standards of a given society.  In other words, the common good – its nature and import – has immediate reference to every major aspect of social life in line with the dignity of every human person, the latter’s well-being as a whole in substantive equality with everybody else.

Equal opportunities for all members of society to benefit from as equitably as possible – this is the “Principle of the Common Good” in plain and simple language.  But more categorically speaking, the common good indicates the sum total of the social conditions which allow people either as groups or as individuals to reach their self-fulfillment more fully and more readily.  Otherwise, the good would favor but a privileged few.  Otherwise, the bad would be a burden to all others.  It is nevertheless assumed that the said fulfillment accept variance from one individual to another – in the sense that while there are some individuals whose self-fulfillment is readily felt with few and simple social benefits, there are however those who have some kind of a strong feeling and consequent conviction plus the perceived consequent vested right that they need and wherefore demand so much more to be fulfilled.  It is good that these people are by and large the exception to the rule of ordinary individuals in pursuit of ordinary personal good.

It has to be pointed out that beneficial social conditions are the major agenda of public authority precisely because the latter do not only have the commitment to do so but also because they have the ethical force and moral authority and obligation to do  it. This in no way means that every individual should not contribute their possibilities for the emergence of the common good in society.  It simply says that the reality of the common good is the direct concern and responsibility of public officials committed and obliged to render public service which can be said as the motor of the common good.

The observation made above notwithstanding, considering the composition and objective of human society, it remains a realistic truth that every member of the human community has his/her responsibility for the reality, the emergence, improvement, and continuity of the common good therein.  Otherwise, there would be no honest-to-goodness tenable reason why someone who thinks and acts as if he/she has nothing to do in order to promote the common good, could legitimately claim any right to be benefited by the same beneficial reality.  Such an individual is ultimately a social liability in the sense that he/she claims something without in effect giving anything – just like someone who shouts his rights while not minding his obligations which is some kind of a hypocrisy incarnate.

One thing is clear and certain, after all is said and done: The common good is strictly and closely  connected with the respect for every human person – more concretely in conjunction with the protection and promotion of his/her fundamental rights, the summit of which is the right to life.