RSS Feed

Celdrán’s comedic act and the RH Bill’s empty orgasmic promises

Posted on

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
—Romans 12:1-2—

Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God.
—Evangelium Vitae—

My good ol’ “friend” Caloy is at it again.
But this time, he hit it BIG time.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that I’m a semi-celebrity like Carlos Celdrán. And since I’m a semi-celeb wielding what petty knowledge I have about advocacy and what heroism really is all about, what I will do is pull up a stunt in order for me to be talked about, just like many desperate petty celebs do to make it big, to get noticed, to skyrocket to celebrity status, to be the cream of the public eye.

If I were sincere with what I am fighting for? I will fight for it tooth and nail, but fair and square, with a sincerity that will be (and should be) respected not just by onlookers but even by my most bitter and scornful of enemies.

Sadly, it seems that respect for one’s self —especially for others— was far from the holier-than-thou mind of Celdrán when he pulled a rather wacky publicity stunt yesterday at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros. Dressed like Rizal, Celdrán interrupted an ecumenical service being administered by both Catholic and Protestant leaders. Moving up to the altar, he drew up a placard which bore the name “Damaso” in reference to the unlikeable friar in Rizal’s first novel, obviously mocking the Catholic hierarchy present at that time.

With that large frame of his, it would have been better for Celdrán if he had dressed up as Padre Dámaso himself instead of Rizal. Más bagay.

It was a stunt that would have made Celdrán’s idol, himself a Catholic convert, turn over in his grave in the Luneta.

In what he thought was a heroic act, Celdrán belted out against the Catholic presbytery in frustration: “Stop getting involved in politics!” He was promptly arrested by the police who were present.

To Celdrán’s “heroic” mind, his arrest must have been his shining moment. Overnight, he became a hero to many a sex-starved individual belonging to an asinine generation who, having just read a couple of lines or pages from, say, Sartre or Marx or Hume, picture themselves as all-knowing intellectuals. These WASP-educated youngsters —misled by a secular adventurism foolishly supported by an equally WASP-controlled State— still cling to, and celebrate, the riveting pleasures guaranteed by the Sexual Revolution brought upon by an erroneous Occidental shift in our country’s extrapolitical affairs (way back in 1898), a shift that was to become a sad turning point for our country’s mangled history.

The bone of contention: contraception

If we may use a bit of Joaquinesquerie here, Celdrán had “gone for lost” because of his zeal for the passing into law of the highly polemical House Bill 5043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health Bill, that is still hanging on for dear life (no pun intended).

In response to an unbridled poverty, hunger, and depleting natural resources, RH Bill advocates claim that curbing the population is the answer. The proposed law claims to uphold and promote a “responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards”. Furthermore, aside from claims (if not pretense) of a concern for “sustainable human development”, the bill mandates the State to guarantee the Filipino people a “universal access to medically-safe (sic), legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors”.

For just a brief moment, let us ignore the humorous saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In fairness to the RH Bill, its ultimate end —or what is not “skin-deep” to most of us— is to at least alleviate (if not get rid of) poverty, to promote sustainable development, and generally a better life for all, especially the children. For RH Bill and pro-choice champions, it’s simple mathematics: in order to eliminate all human plight, it is necessary to curb the population to maintain some sort of balance, to sustain a natural equilibrium, of a planet (or, in our case, a country) whose natural resources are hardly replenished. A “manageable” population will bring about prosperity, education (and perhaps land) for all, healthy individuals in a world free from food shortage, etc. These advocates who subscribe to the Malthusian theory of population have been led to believe that “the power of population” is far more superior to “the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man”.

But the bottomline is this: RH Bill is all for population control.

Population + Economy = ?

Now, the million-dollar question: will population control do us any good more than the harm raised by those who fear it? Let us then observe two superpowers, China and the US, where the issue of reproductive health is not even an issue.

When we speak of population control, we should look no further but to our “heavily populated” neighbor, China, whose notorious one-child policy has raised more concerned eyebrows than inspired admiration. Although China is now considered as a superpower, its questionable population-control practices hardly had anything to do with its rise to economic stardom, if at all.

In today’s globalized community, to say that a country has risen from the ashes of poverty is to embrace free trade, a liberal democracy that goes by the name of capitalism. That is the norm, the standard. In recent years, China’s gradual shift from a government harboring a state-controlled means of production to one that now endears itself to a McDonald’s-and-Starbucks culture made capitalist-minded scholars to declare that China, at long last, is at par with the US (officially, we now have two modern empires in our midst that will soon be textbook material for future generations).

With regards to China’s case, we should not even talk about the US anymore, arguably the source of all this modern-day reproductive health hullaballoo, and whose many states have even legalized abortion. Just take a look at what happened to their economy during the last three years. Up to now, it is still trying to wheel itself out of economic danger. Obviously, a controlled population was not able to save them from the brunt of a self-defeating economic system which itself had imposed in many a military-weak country (the Philippines included) all the world over.

Warring against the Church

Since time immemorial, the Catholic Church has been up in arms whenever the issue of birth control is raised. But this is not just about pills and condoms and IUDs and anal sex. The issue is more about life. And the sanctity of it.

On 25 July 1968, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) was promulgated, reaffirming the Catholic Church’s stand against artificial methods of family planning as well as abortion. Since this encyclical was against all types of artificial family planning, it became controversial especially to Catholics who were already compromising in their morals and who were already practicing a contraceptive lifestyle (the Sexual Revolution vis-à-vis Rock “music”, drugs, and Pop Culture as a whole). And not only the Catholic flock but the Catholic hierarchy were divided: almost 50% of American and European bishops were against the ideals of Humanae Vitae.

Years later, on 25 March 1995, Pope John Paul II issued perhaps the longest encyclical letter ever written in history: the Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). It, too, was met by the same hatred and scorn.

Ridiculously, those who point out that the Catholic Church is blind to the poverty surrounding her, as caused by a ballooning population, are shooting themselves on the foot. For if they accuse Church leaders of being inconsiderate towards the RH Bill (which actually has visible loopholes and vagaries to an impartial, considerate, and discerning eye), have they, even for a few seconds, flipped open some pages of the abovementioned encyclicals?

Going back to today’s asinine youth, who seem to claim to have a monopoly of good results (if not the truth), whose laughable ad hominems against the Church make them just that: laughable — in chorus they now sing Celdrán’s infamous words to the priests and the bishops: “Stop getting involved in politics!”

But are they?

If they have been thinking more instead of letting their emotions carry them to comedic heights, have they ever stopped to think that it is the government who is getting involved in Church, nay, metaphysical matters? The Church is entrusted to protect the sanctity of life; the government has breached it. By proposing the RH Bill, the government has tread upon holy grounds, a terra incognita not understood by secularized minds in the government. In effect, the government has declared war against the Church. It was they, not the Church, who made the first volley of shots. CBCP or no CBCP, the Church was merely on the defensive end.

The life covenant

But what really, then, is this life, or “pre-life”, that the Church has sworn to protect?

Anti-Catholics say that there are two main reasons why the Church opposes contraception: because the priests are not married, thus they do not have to live with the economic consequences of a family man, and; the Church want all the Catholics they can have in the world.

Seriously, this is but childish riff-raff.

There is a deeper cause, something sanctifying, amorously metaphysical, logically loveable, even Biblical, philosophically addicting to the extreme.

The reason? Covenant.

This is something I learned during the course of my early married life. It is no secret to close friends and loved ones that my marriage to my wife Yeyette did not start out well. We were young, very young. The marriage was unplanned because the pregnancy was unplanned. Indeed, we committed the usual mistakes of a promiscuous youth (as promiscuous as today’s RH Bill adherents).

When I eloped with my wife, I was a rabid and proud atheist. As the years progressed, my marriage to my wife changed it all. Little by little, during my reconversion to the Catholic Church (aided by books written by yesterday and today’s top theological minds such as Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid), I realized that our marriage —or marriage as a whole— is actually not a mere social contract (involving the exchange of goods and services) but a covenant, an exchange of persons.

This “marriage covenant” is consummated through a sacred act, a marriage union which nowadays is being belittled, commercialized, trivialized, and treated as mere pleasure stuff. It is called SEX.

Ironically, the anti-Catholic novel, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, knows more about the sacredness of sex than do these anti-Catholic kids drooling behind Celdrán’s nondescriptive swagger.

Now, whenever this sacred act called sex is enacted and renewed, God uses it to give new life. This marital act shows us the mystical life-giving love of this marriage covenant in a very different way. In various covenants found throughout Holy Scripture wherein God’s love is transmitted and shown, it is only through the covenant of marriage where that love becomes more powerful, more feasible, more real. So visible is this power of love from God that it communicates life: a baby inside the mother’s womb!

“Go forth and multiply,” was God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve. This commandment was actually to image God (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, the Santíssima Trinidad, the “Divine Family”). In the sacred act of sex, the couple becomes one in the covenant of marriage. This “oneness” to which they transform into becomes so manifest, so real that, nine months later, they will have to give it a name.

Therefore, this sacred act, this natural union created by God for man and woman, is thwarted every time contraceptives are used. And that is where the Catholic Church’s ire and indignation comes from. Long before Brown and those people behind him conceptualized “sacred sex”, the Church has already been its most fiercest defender because it already deciphered sex’s “mystical properties” a long, long time ago.

Therefore, contraceptives are, no matter how one puts it, anti-life.

The child miracle

Whenever news of a saintly apparition or perhaps a divine healing is reported on TV, one thing comes to mind: miracles. But miracles happen every day whenever a child is born. Why is this fact so trivialized and given taken for granted?

This I realized when me and Yeyette almost had our first son Momay aborted in late 2003. Thankfully, it never happened. But since then, the way we looked at babies has never been the same.

Having children is the ultimate goal in enacting the marriage covenant. Through marital sex (which is sacred), we fashion a new life, thus we “image” God in the process. The use of contraceptives and other abortifacients inhibits this both sacred and natural act.

And since we arrived at the word natural, why, pray, tell, do we have to put a stop to something natural, i.e., pregnancy?

Before we go off on a tangent, let us go back to the miracle of a newly created life. RH Bill implies that it protects life as well. But it is virtually impossible not to view this implication in a twisted way since it is self-contradicting. All elements within the context of the RH Bill advocate the use of contraceptives. The existence of “it’s all up to the married couple” clauses have already been presupposed simply by the existence and dominance of all these anti-life chemicals, methods, and devices in the said bill.

Whereas Holy Scripture speaks highly of life, RH Bill treats it matter-of-factly.

Nowhere in Scripture will one find an admonition for too much children. On the contrary, virtually every verse in the Holy Bible which has a mention of children spoke of them as only and always a blessing! There is no verse at all which cautioned married couples about the expenses of children outweighing their worth. In the Bible, no blessing was pronounced over those who had perfect spacing between their children, or those who had planned each conception, etc. Even fertility was something to be prized and proud of. It was never considered a curse, a stigma, something that is aberrantly thought of today. It was God who opened and closed the womb. Only He, through marital sex, has the full rights over it, for it is where life is created. And with each new life, a blessing…

A miracle.

To all Christians/Catholics (and those of other denominations, cults, and theists): have you ever asked yourselves if the RH Bill reflect how God saw children?

The logic of this all

In view of the foregoing, one can safely say that all unnatural methods of birth control during sex abort the creation of life. Thus, it is a violation of the natural law. Although one can say that condoms are far more different from clinical abortions —since the former prevents the formation of life, while the latter terminates an already existing life inside the womb—, it is all the same: they both prevent life.

Even if pro-choice proponents point out that human life commences somewhat later than at the moment of conception, one must at the same time recognize that the human fetus is ordered by nature to become an intelligent, free being, an individual fashioned in the image of God. If we deprive even the creation of a human person through marital sex, then we are depriving him or her the right to exist.

I think of my four kids: Krystal, Momay, Jefe, and Juanito. These lovely children of mine would not have existed if I had used artificial methods of family planning. And I will not dare, nor do I have the stomach, to look back to such a possibility of them having not existed at all, a “what if” in my personal history.

What is to be done?

The enemy to poverty is not the Church. Also, the topic of “overpopulation” should be looked into with a more prying mind because, truth to tell, it is virtually a myth. Do not allow congested and overpopulated cities to deceive you. All the problems we have right now which we thought is the result of an overpopulated world is but an imbalance in life brought about by the greed and lust for power by a select few.

And this is true. Otherwise, there would not be militants outside the city streets protesting against the wily powers-that-be, stinking drunk with power and oil and land contracts. All this “politicking” is a subtle war against the Church which has become a poster boy for scapegoating and romanticized attacks by an equally drunk-with-knowledge youth.

Sex is not the culprit here. Uninhibited sex is. And that is exactly what RH Bill is after. Wittingly or unwittingly, it tends to belittle sex as something that is almost routine, like brushing one’s teeth.

If you do not want to have children because you cannot afford to have another mouth to feed, there is a solution for it without having to go through those artificial methods: do not engage in sexual activities. If you claim that it cannot be as simple as that because of the overpowering considerations surrounding your lifestyle, then you have already determined the problem.

We fought for too much freedom, a freedom that we claim can never exist under the Church. So now we got what we want. And this freedom spawned a freak called Pop Culture. And through mass media, Pop Culture has been toying around with man’s baser instincts. Too much freedom has debased human sexuality to a mere plaything. A few years back, you would see semi-naked and naked women only in illicit beer houses and night joints. Now you see semi-naked women gyrating on noontime TV programs in both ABS-CBN and GMA. I won’t be surprised anymore if, say, ten years from now or so, TV dancers will be without clothing anymore. And Celdrán with them, doing the most obscene (perhaps with a placard this time of DOÑA CONSOLACIÓN).

What RH Bill does not tell us

Digging “skin-deep” into the issue now, one should realize sooner or later that the youth are actually being exploited, the same way me and Yeyette were exploited years ago. We all grow up, bound to be curious about sex, about our bodies.

Nothing wrong with that.

But with this youthful curiousness, this innocence, comes a vulnerability with which these conspirators against life are after. And they use the mass media to glamorize sex, to captivate these young people into doing the things that only a couple bound by God’s covenant are ought to be doing.

And to be safe, these conspirators against life subtly create a “sex industry”, for like military matters, sex is BIG BUSINESS. Imagine the millions and perhaps billions of money it would generate for these conspirators.

Also, RH Bill does not, and will never, inform you that many contraceptives are actually abortifacients. They cause early abortion.

Finally, RH Bill, even if enacted into law, will sooner or later show its hollow face. For in reality, contraception is already a failure. Why? Because many Filipinos, like other nationalities, have been using contraceptives long before RH Bill was even framed. The rate of unplanned pregnancy, especially among teenagers, has been rising steadily over the last 30 to 40 years. Many such cases end either in abortion or single parenthood.

Finally, RH Bill, again wittingly or unwittingly, will only promote promiscuity, something that is against the natural order of things. Besides, all promises of contraception, since it was invented during the latter half of the last century, never came through. Instead, we have more promiscuity, therefore more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, more broken families and single parents, an alarming rise in sexually transmitted diseases, sexual crimes against women and children, pornography (that is being, bit by bit, accepted into the mainstream!), abortion trauma, etc.

So this is the kind of society you want? =(

As for Celdrán’s supporters, look at your “hero” now. He still dons his Pepe Rizal suit, smiling whenever there is a photo op for him. What has he done for you? He only created more fame for himself. And he has paved the way for a much sicker society, a society of sex-starved individuals who will one day rape their own children, notwithstanding pet dogs and goldfishes.

If only Rizal were alive —he who died a Catholic, he who died having repented from his immature ways— he would have slapped Celdrán for having maligned his memory.

Yet you call Celdrán your “new José Rizal” just because you claim that he had the balls to defend the freedom of the human genitals from what is supposed to be sacred?

Before I end this rage, let us, again, for argument’s sake, imagine that the Muslims are also against the RH Bill, and that they are the most vocal, more vocal than the Catholic Church…

Will Carlos Celdrán have the same “balls” to invade a Muslim mosque?

I will bet my life that he wouldn’t dare do so. Whatever “balls” he may have will instantly turn into wrinkled grapefruits if he dares to step inside a mosque.

Cowards like him will only attack a weary institution, such as the Church, which has been in constant attack and bullying ever since Jesus Christ was executed.

In closing, Carlos Celdrán’s stunt proved nothing for pro-RH bill advocates. Why? Because his crazy heckling last Thursday inside the Manila Cathedral failed to sway the beliefs of those who are against the RH bill. He only angered them even more. Thus, his childish prank only made the already divided parties more antagonistic against each other. What kind of heroism is that? He not only maligned the Church; he also placed our national hero in a very bad light.

Rizal would have killed himself if he were to see this travesty inside this cell who is desperate to be tagged as a hero. We need more comedy, Caloy. Please.


37 responses »

  1. “A person’s rejection of the Church should never be immediately judged as the persons rejection of Christ. So many people go the Church in search of the compassion that they experienced personally with Christ only to be met with judgment and lack of support.”

    – Lawrence Freeman, OC, OSB


  2. 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

    26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

    27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

    28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

    29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

    30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

    31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

    32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

    33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

    34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

    35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

    36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

    37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

    38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

    39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

    40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.


  3. 1corinthians 7 25-39


  4. heres a more modern english passages..
    Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, 11 but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
    So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
    Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.
    If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.
    12 I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them,
    those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning,
    those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.
    I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
    But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
    and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
    I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
    13 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
    The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
    So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.
    15 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.
    She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.


  5. Pot calls the kettle black. Though I find some of your points rather interesting and you manage to see the flaws in today’s internet educated “trolling in their free time” youth, I have to say that even you fall to some of the fallacies you have accused others of. At first, I was surprised by your comment “have they ever stopped to think that it is the government who is getting involved in Church, nay, metaphysical matters? ” After some thinking, I realized that you see the government’s policies attacking Church doctrine so it is only their natural reaction to try and stop it. They have the right to do that thanks to free speech and the freedom to follow their conscience. But what about the rest of the Philippines? Not everyone is Catholic.

    Should the government not really be allowed to progress with this bill just because a religious group opposes it? Church is separate from State. Say what you want about your government but they are only held back by the constitution, they don’t need your authority. To be honest, no matter what bible verse you say or dogma you mention, the only chance the Church’s argument will be justified is using that little bit in the 1987 constitution that the country should protect life. THAT IS ALL. Our government’s effort to be secular is not anti-Catholic. It is meant to be free of the influence and control of just one religious group because it would be UNDEMOCRATIC. It cannot be bound by the teachings of one. So, I suggest you use what I just gave you.

    FYI, I’m a member of this asinine generation you spew about. Not all of us are sex crazed stereotypes from TV. Some of my friends oppose this bill with GOOD REASON and I respect that. I also have a lot of friends who wouldn’t even consider having premarital sex but support this bill nonetheless.


  6. Magaling.. magaling… sa istilyo ng iyong panunulat ay hindi maipagkakaila na mataas ang piknag aralan mo.. malamang nakapagtapos ka sa isa sa mga unibersidad na pinapalakad ng mga paring hesuita o mga kapatid na lasalano..

    Maganda ang iyon sinulat sa umpisa.. ngunit masyado mo ng nilayo ang kwento mo sa totoong isyu… isa kang aral na tao at sa tingin ko ay dalawa o tatlo lang ang iyong mga anak… ayaw mo bang gayahin ka ng mga kababayan natin na maralita at limitahin nila ang kanilang mga anak sa dalawa at tatlo lamang??

    karamihan sa ating mga kababayan ay hirap sa buhay at walang perang pambili ng condom o pills… kung pambili lang ng condom o pills ay palagay mo ba magkakaraon sila ng pera pambili ng gatas, gamot at kailangan ng sangol kung sakali mang magbunga ang pagtatalik ng mag asawa??


  7. You have tackled a sensitive topic.

    The Catholic Church considers contraceptives sinful, but Church and State have always been separate. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines mentioned that thing, therefore contraceptives are allowed to be legal.

    The view of the Catholic Church is that union of sperm and egg cell constitute a new life, but other religions may have a different view. The Constitution must not allow any religion, including the Catholic Church to make life dominate the Philippines like Islam has dominated Malaysia. The basis of the law must be in the constitution, not just the Bible. A secular state allows God’s gift of freedom to be ultimately tested. Someone said that they can love God, for He gives them the freedom to deny Him.

    Let the law allow that, but, they must know that not all things that are legal are ethical.

    It’s in their choice to use contraceptives or not.


  8. ” By proposing the RH Bill, the government has tread upon holy grounds, a terra incognita not understood by secularized minds in the government. In effect, the government has declared war against the Church. It was they, not the Church, who made the first volley of shots. ”

    By saying this, you are assuming that all Filipinos as Catholic, which is far from the truth. Catholics are no longer the religious majority. The government however, represents ALL Filipinos. The church can be offended for the sake of their flock, but they shouldn’t impose their doctrine on the state. If I’m not Catholic, why should I care if my government treads on some religious denomination’s “holy ground?” This is a secular country.

    “If we deprive even the creation of a human person through marital sex, then we are depriving him or her the right to exist.

    I think of my four kids: Krystal, Momay, Jefe, and Juanito. These lovely children of mine would not have existed if I had used artificial methods of family planning. And I will not dare, nor do I have the stomach, to look back to such a possibility of them having not existed at all, a “what if” in my personal history.”

    FYI, sex does not automatically guarantee the creation of life. It doesn’t mean that EVERY TIME you have sex, you are “depriving” a “human person” of the right to life. For one, these “human persons” do not even exist at the time of the sex act.

    There are many factors that have to be aligned in order for a human being to form in the womb. The right conditions in the woman and man. Science tells us this. Being married, you know this, I’m sure. You probably wouldn’t have a child for every year you have sex. In the natural world, pregnancy is more a game of chance.

    Therefore, preventing the meeting of sperm and egg because of personal choice does not “deprive” anything of life. There are millions of sperm, hundreds of eggs released all the time–must they all become persons? Should we all give them a chance to generate life because they CAN? They are merely possibilities. They do not guarantee a human person, at any time, apart from when they become an embryo.

    The children you mention are real persons, they have rights. The “what if we never had them” argument is fallacy at this point. You can’t use the knowledge of them after the fact.

    If they had never happened, they would exist as possible outcomes of your life. They would be yes, “what ifs.” But you would never know, would you? What if you married someone else and had a child, or if your wife had conceived another time, and you had say, little Henry for example. What about him? or her? or them? or all the children you “could have produced?” They are not persons are they?

    There is a universe of possibilities, choices we did not make, or paths we didn’t take. They are not real. What is real is the one you DID choose.


  9. I’ve been trying to control my emotion after I saw in a my Facebook page the photo of Celdran, a tourist guide in intramuros, dressed as Jose Rizal holding out the placard that reads “DAMASO” during a mass in Manila Cathedral. In the same picture shows some of the Catholic Bishops sitting unfazed. There were lots of comments commending the “bravery” of Carlos Celdran and “likes” that almost reached a hundred, the number have probably increased this time. Then there was this friend who changed his profile picture into a bishop-silhouette with a “DAMASO” stamped on it. Along this picture, he wrote, “CBCP, i-excommunicate nyo na din ako!”

    It made the news last night. And most likely, people using different social networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter, were aware about this incident.

    Just like Celdran, and those who commended his action, I think I am entitled to my opinion:

    To Celdran:

    Your act was not bravery and definitely not an act of protest. It was utter disrespect to the sanctity of the mass, to God and to those who believe in Him. The audacity of that act, should we happen to be Muslims and should it happen inside a mosque, has a greater consequence. I think you’ll be dead now. No one will tolerate what you did. No one will applaud you. No one will be shouting, “Horay!” for you.

    Be thankful that you are a Christian. Be thankful that true Christians – not you and definitely not those who agree with you – are not as barbaric and brainless as you think they are. You might also think that you did a heroic act, but in reality, you knew that the reason why you did it was because you can get away with it. Yeah, we’re a democratic country, but your Church isn’t, and you know that. Thankfully, you will be forgiven. That’s what Christians are good at, right? Thankfully, the Church shows restraint. Thankfully nobody smacked you down and beheaded along with those who believed you were right.

    To those who viewed the act correct:

    You are the Church, don’t you forget that. You represent the Catholic Church. Whatever you do is just a representation of the church that you are a member of. Opposing your church is like opposing your belief. Again, be thankful that we are a Christian nation. A Christian nation with people that do not understand how to act as Christians, how to show respect, how to differentiate what’s moral and immoral, and how to protect their values. This is a nation that loves to protest against anything even if they do not know what the issue is. This is a nation where people are so engrossed with “democracy” and “freedom of expression” that it forgets the very essence of the terms.

    I cannot believe many people will go against an institution which aim is to protect us. What would the bishops get out of it, after all? “Evil” might be the term used by the church to the reproductive health bill, but before you cry “separation against church and state,” understand first the implications should this bill is signed by the president. We only see the short-term effects: we successfully exercised our sovereignty, perhaps, madness to democracy; we may be able to solve over population, perhaps poverty, and we may able to show to the world that although we are a catholic nation, we are not as conservative as the Vatican.

    We love pragmatism. We worship pragmatism. We see morality on things that is necessary. We see the rightness of things on what can benefit us. Whatever is necessary should be practised. This is no surprise since we are trying to model ourselves after the Americans. We try to speak like them, act like time, and look like time. We don’t roll our Rs even if we are speaking in Filipino. We try to speak with accent even in Filipino. We buy what they buy even if it will cost us a month’s worth salary.

    In the process, we lose our identity. Because of this, we tend to believe that something is really what we believe in even if it is against our nature as Asian, as a non-American, as a Filipino. That’s why we are in this situation: fighting over an issue, opposing a value system, and believing that we want our nation to improve.

    If you want to know why the Church opposes the RH Bill, try to do some research. But let’s take one issue: contraceptives.

    The Journal of Sexual Medicine, researchers have published a new investigation measuring sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) before and after discontinuation of the oral contraceptive pill. The research concluded that women who used the oral contraceptive pill may be exposed to long-term problems from low values of “unbound” testosterone potentially leading to continuing sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences.

    And since we are so enamored with short-term consequences, perhaps you should know that oral contraceptives may cause dizziness, headache, lightheadedness, stomach upset, bloating, or nausea. They can also cause severe depression, groin or calf pain, sudden severe headache, chest pain, shortness of breath, lumps in the breast, weakness or tingling in the arms or legs, yellowing of the eyes or skin.

    If you are not convinced, let’s try the long term effects: eye problems or vision impairment, gallbladder disease and gallstones, embolism, resistance to insulin, immune system suppression, heart attack, stroke, breast tumors and liver tumors, ectopic pregnancies, links with certain cancers such as cervical cancer, blood clots in legs, lungs, heart and brain, and jaundice.

    These are what the Church protects us from. Whether you believe it or not, understand that oral contraceptives change the hormones of the body. What that means is changing the normal process of the body to create hormones – much like us changing the organic cycle of earth. It doesn’t require a genius to know that any alterations in the body system can cause disruptions and health problems.

    So before you agree with Celdran for the sake of going against the church, understand where the Church… your Church stands.

    The Catholic Church has been so lenient, albeit all the changes in the society. It has allowed us to grow as nation and to realize the consequences our actions. But will not turn its backs on something so huge that it will destroy the very nature of our society. Yes, the Catholic Church is not a perfect church. We’ve seen that in history. But it corrects itself when necessary and it corrects its people when they do not know any better. It steps in when morality is in question. It steps in rare occasions. But when they do, they mean it. Like what’s happening now.

    We don’t see something is wrong with RH bill because we are not informed about it. We treat ourselves as a mere audience, waiting to see what’s about to unfold. We just watch the 6:30pm news and believe that we are informed.. that we know everything. We don’t read the important sections of the newspaper, instead, we go directly to lifestyle page to check up new gadgets to buy. We don’t allow ourselves to get informed, correctly. We rely on what’s in front of us.

    This is so ironic since the information is just a google away. Why not go to the bottom of it and read thoroughly the provisions of the RH Bill. “Reproductive Health sounds good. We agree. Those who oppose, shame on them. The title seems okay. We’re okay with it. Let’s do it!”

    This is who we are. Not bothering to know what we are up to. Not bothering to get informed and learn if it will really benefit us or not.

    We are, as a nation, a mere bystanders waiting to be fed by someone who’s wearing something more expensive than ours and then act as if we know everything, hence we oppose everything. The Church keeps its silence, most of the time – even at the times when they don’t have to speak. But now, they are in unison against the RH Bill, not because they love to, but because it is necessary, just like when they supported Jun Lozada and other people who stand by their principles.

    Somehow, we forget that we are both a Catholic and a Filipino. If only you understand what it means by being both. Catholic duties do not only happen for 1 hour every Sundays. It’s an everyday fight against evil, a struggle to help others, to make the society better.

    What Celdran did is wrong. He even admitted it. Now, why do we have to hail him as a role model? Perhaps, we should study first what the bill is all about, know where the church stands, and know who we are, where we stand, and the value system we want to maintain.


  10. Pingback: Tweets that mention Celdrán’s comedic act and the RH Bill’s empty orgasmic promises « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES --

  11. FYI – Even though the American economy, with its “controlled population,” has been struggling, I can assure you that the poorest Americans are living 100 times better than a middle-class Filipino.

    If Bishop So-And-So or Pope Whats-His-Face are giving money to help raise children, then fine, they can preach reproductive health policy.

    But the last time I checked, the Church is a bottomless money-pit. They take donations from the people, the government, and the Vatican … but nothing comes out. The Church does NOTHING to help the poor (they don’t even pay taxes). So, as far as I’m concerned, the Church needs to get out of people’s bedrooms.


  12. We have disagreed with how church leaders meddle with politics but Celdran desecrated our place of worship and that is unacceptable… plain and simple.


  13. Julian,

    Nice bit of information you have here. But do you realize what you just did? You just made yourself very unpopular in your own country and displeased the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world!

    May I share your response in facebook and in my blogsite?


  14. This is another synthetic formula for maintenance treatment program of the North American Population Control (NAPoCON) but not for pests but for us filipino people inside what they consider as their property, the Philippines.


  15. Sec 3 on Guiding Principles of the Reproductive Health Bill stated at paragraph e: The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.

    Is it because the rate of number of lives to be sustained is higher than the rate of the amount of resources that could provide sustenance?

    I agree that our resources are limited as everything in this world is limited right from the beginning. Did we perish when we did not stop population growth from the beginning? That means we did not run out of resources then as to have caused us to perish today. That means that each family had food available. Now how come that today, in this supposedly advanced technology of the world, not all family can have food available for them? If true, then how is it that today, we can have one family who, aside from owning long chain of supermarkets and large tracks of lands, could very well afford to eat food the quantity equivalent of more than one hundred meals at three times a day if they could accommodate that much in their stomach? Is this amount, not more than the equivalent of three good meals a day for 30 families with 10 children each? Is this amount of food not excess? Yet how is it that today, for every one family who could afford to eat that much quantity of food, we have thirty families of 6 children who could not eat three adequate meals a day?


    • Tanong lang.

      Are you saying that the size of our population does not, and will not have an adverse effect on our already dwindling natural resources? If we allow the population to grow to over 100 million in a few years’ time, as predicted, do you think we will still be able to provide for every Filipino, rich or poor, and still keep out forest cover, ecological diversity, an =d natural resources at stable conditions?

      Rich or poor, an increasing population means more consumption, more importing, more use of wild habitat for human needs, a bigger carbon footprint.


      • Blame it on the powers-that-be. Blame it on the greedy landed gentry. Blame it on harsh inequality.

        This kind of reality (an imperialistic one) is not supposed to be the way it is. It was never intended this way.

        If all of us are accorded land, then even if our country’s population balloons to 100 million, everything will be OK.

        Population is not the enemy; it is the conspirators against life.


      • Blame it to your CORRUPT politicians!


  16. Pingback: Ban Carlos Celdrán from Intramuros! « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  17. Pingback: What would have been Rizal’s stand on the RH Bill? « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  18. Even if that were possible, how do you think this “redistribution” should be carried out? Shouldn’t the Church be also encouraged to distribute their vast holdings, properties and riches, which they’ve held in this country since the 1600s?

    And if that would happen–everyone with his or her fair share–and people were still having 6 or 10 children (mathematically, we can predict how large future populations will then be) do you think our resources can absorb this much? That it can generate or regenerate quickly as we need it? Resources are finite. We cannot possibly hope to accmmodate 100 million people in a country this small.


    • “Even if that were possible, how do you think this “redistribution” should be carried out?”

      That is, admittedly, quite a daunting task for me to answer in just a snap of a finger. It is up to scrupulous economists to figure this out. And yes, I do believe that the Church should be encouraged to cooperate in such a redestribution. However, the Church’s main task, if not the sole one, is spiritual.

      As for the Church’s “vast” holdings, that I am not aware of. They do have property, but I am not sure if it as “vast” as what you think of. As far as I know, much of those holdings were spirited away from them by the Katipunan during the rebellion of 1898.

      The Catholic Church is actually in a financial dilemma. When I say financial dilemma, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is cash-strapped. What I mean is this: the Church is against the idea of profit, of credit, of interest. But in that fight, she failed. Now, we have banks. And in order for the Church to survive, she, too, has to “accept” the system. That also explains the existence of the Vatican Bank. But the stand against the “evils” brought about by interest is still there. It is just difficult, if not impossible, to combat.

      “And if that would happen–everyone with his or her fair share–and people were still having 6 or 10 children (mathematically, we can predict how large future populations will then be) do you think our resources can absorb this much? That it can generate or regenerate quickly as we need it? Resources are finite. We cannot possibly hope to accmmodate 100 million people in a country this small.”

      Many economists have already written about such a possibility. Their researches are all over the net and in libraries worldwide.

      The world is not overpopulated, Philip. We are made to think that it is overpopulated so that those who are in power will not lack the natural resources that they all wanted for themselves and for their fanmilies. This population control or population management (all the same to me) is targeted towards the weaker ones: us. And strangely, the Catholic Church is the only institution in the world who is fighting this conspiracy against life.


  19. Pingback: and it’s not just because i’m Catholic « at wit’s end

  20. Chapter I of the book “THE WAR AGAINST POPULATION- the economics and ideology of population control” by Jacqueline Kasun, touched on “Overpopulation”: The Unexamined Dogma. It invites us to exercise our faculties thru the facts around us in determining the validity of a certain objective based on a certain assumption as being true. It is an invitation to pause for a while on the process we are undertaking at present of making a decision on which of the methods is right. Before proceeding to the advanced stage of answering the question on how, we should be able to answer the what which is still more advanced compared to answering the question on why.

    According to Tom Bethell of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, “Dr. Kasun’s well documented books gives a shocking account of the muti-billion dollar movement of the population controllers and their efforts to enforce global population control. It deserves to reach the widest possible audience.” Publication rights of this book is from the Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988. It’s Library of Congress catalogue number is 87-83505.

    Dr. Jacqueline Kasun at the time of this publication was a professor of economics at the Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Her writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Public Interest, The American Spectator, The Christian Science Monitor, and other publications, as well as in professional journals.


  21. Philip,

    I agree fully well that our resources as with the whole of material world will ultimately end. So how then are we supposed to live with this material fact? Are we supposed to appropriate for ourselves the power to allow or not allow, life in this world? What for? Is it, so that those alive will not suffer? Why will those alive suffer? Is it because the material requirements for life to be sustained will be divided more among the living and will reach to below the minimum and then material life will end? Therefore, material life will not suffer. It will end. But is not material world really bound to end? So what are we trying to preserve our material resources for and play author of life and death?


  22. Pingback: We are not overpopulated. « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  23. “Finally, RH Bill, again wittingly or unwittingly, will only promote promiscuity, something that is against the natural order of things. Besides, all promises of contraception, since it was invented during the latter half of the last century, never came through. Instead, we have more promiscuity, therefore more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, more broken families and single parents, an alarming rise in sexually transmitted diseases, sexual crimes against women and children, pornography (that is being, bit by bit, accepted into the mainstream!), abortion trauma, etc.”

    How dogmatic can you be? Holy Jeez, Why on earth will the government issue such law if the results would completely contradict the purpose of it? Instead of meeting half-way, the church together with people like you, refuse to even consider the possible effects of this law. We considered yours, why not consider ours?

    Asinine youth? Really. Thank you so much for labeling this generation before you even let us hear what you wanted to say. It was so overwhelming to be called foolish for reading your article. We obviously are foolish for reading this what you call quality blog post. This article is so enlightening! … Not. 🙂


  24. The issue is the morality of the RH bill. Approving the RH bill is approving the morality of sex for pleasure. If you’re sure of its morality and proud of it, why don’t you teach your daughter about it? Why don’t you try it with a family member, and friends in the community?

    Sexual act is supposed to be the expression of love, commitment and bond between couples unified by their marriage vows. The possibility of new life will further strengthen the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment that this bond creates is the perfect condition for nurturing children.

    The act must not be abused by DELIBERATELY frustrating its natural end—procreation. IN the same way that binge eating followed by deliberate vomiting to PREVENT satisfying its purpose of nourishment and it’s natural consequence of satisfying the feeling of hunger, is also an act of abuse. Therefore, IMMORAL!


  25. Sec 3 on Guiding Principles of the Reproductive Health Bill stated at paragraph e: The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.

    Is it because the rate of increase of number of lives to be sustained, to the increase of amount of resources that could provide sustenance, is higher?

    I agree that our material resources are limited as everything in this world is limited right from the beginning. Back to thousands of years earlier than 2000 years ago, did the people live in a situation of abundance of material resources for sustenance? Sustenance for material resources was derived merely from gathering and hunting. Was that abundance compared to today? Even during the later period, when agriculture became the technology for material resources sustenance, there was yet no such mass movements to suppress population growth. There were those who lived with enough. But there were those like the rich and powerful kingdoms who conquered other territories of other kingdoms and slaughtered or enslaved the vanquished and looted their resources as a means to sustain the conqueror kingdom. They lived then, as if resources for them was limited. From those events, was there actually a shortage of material resources at that time? Or was it more of fear due to greed? Was the behavior of people then, towards the share of material resources any different from that of now? The technology then, was mass murder of the living.

    Today, the same fear of limited resources is gripping us. Yet, inspite of all the supposedly more advanced technology for material resources sustenance of the world, why is it that not all families can have food available for them? How is it that today, we can have one family who, aside from owning long chain of supermarkets and large tracks of lands, could very well afford to feed each member of that family of say 12, the quantity equivalent of more than one hundred meals at three times a day if they could accommodate that much in their stomach? Is this amount, not more than the equivalent of three good meals a day for 70 families with 12 children each? Is this amount of food not excess? Yet how is it that today, there are families who could afford to eat that much quantity of food, while there are families of 6 children who could not eat three adequate meals a day? Is this not greed causing hunger?

    Some of those who belong to such families who could well afford to be fed more than a hundred meals in one mealtime if their stomach could accommodate that much, have blamed families who could not afford to have three meals a day to be lazy. Have they not seen family members who had to labor 12 hours a day to be able to eat two times a day everyday because that is the only capability they have as a result of the business of this well-fed family members which: control markets; have contractual policies; have oppressive compensation policies; or which have been displacing small retailers from the areas they have established their own giant businesses? Is this the general result of greed or laziness? Is not the RH Bill then promoting greed for blaming high population growth as cause of hunger while ignoring greed as the cause? Or is it promoting laziness for providing easy instant artificial technology to an imbalance of nature which can be corrected by a long and hard working natural developmental process?

    By having the same fear and technology for material resources sustenance of many of the powerful people back in the period of more than 2000 years ago, this time is it not a more subtle technology which the bill is promoting RH or Replicating Herod?


  26. Hey, I attempted to email you pertaining to this post but aren?t able to reach you. Please e-mail me when get a moment. Thanks.


  27. FYI, I don’t agree with what Celdran did.

    But do enlighten me with this scenario:

    What about a woman who has been raped by some human trash – Doesn’t she have the right to decide for herself? A Choice?

    This is the only question that stops me from saying I am PRO Life. How can I say I value life at conception when there are strings attached?

    I know you are pretty busy but I do hope you will be able to give a little bit of your time to share your knowledge and beliefs. I have asked a firm believer of anti-abortion before with the same question but could not give an answer. Also, this question is not intended to spark a hot fiery debate. 🙂 Salamat po.


    • Hi Mae!

      You suspected it correctly: I’ve been very, very, very busy lately I could not even blog anymore, hahaha! I don’t usually make comments here and in ALAS FILIPINAS. And other than that, I just found out that my digital camera’s memory stick was stricken by a virus. All the photos that me and my wife took for the past month (including our trip to Bay, La Laguna last week) are in danger of being lost for good. I could not blog with those photos stuck in limbo (somebody help me retrieve them!!!). Anyway, let me spare you of my troubles, hehe!

      You know, I was once troubled by that question of yours myself. Consider this disturbing scenario: a woman was gang-raped by her coked-up dad and his junkie pals. At least one of them is HIV positive. And since there’s incest, the baby might become mentally retarded and HIV positive, too. And to make matters worse, the hapless mother might die during childbirth (99.9% possibility) because of a severe and rare heart condition. Also, the mother appears to be suffering from a severe case of adult ADHD for the past decade, something that might deter her from acting like a normal mom.

      In view of the foregoing, will this suffice for a legal and “moral” abortion?

      Puzzled myself, I once asked my best pal on what he would do if he were this poor woman. This was his clever and witty answer: “I will still go for it. Why? Because I do not want to deprive this world of another Carlos Celdrán!”

      The bottomline is this: if you believe in God, no matter what evil happened to your life, you should accept your fate. Easy for me to say, but that’s really it. We Christians (I am referring to Catholics) are notoriously known for this kind of “martyrdom”. Unfortunately for us, such sacrifice in (and stance towards) life has been the target of much calumny and misunderstanding. But this is what exactly Jesus meant when he said “carry your cross, and follow me” (Luke 9:22-26).

      Let me elaborate: some say that each of us have our own personal demons to contend with everyday. It could be true, but it sounds rather harsh. I’d rather say that we have our daily crosses to carry everyday. Such crosses are drug addiction, living with a spouse you no longer love, bad temper, habitual lying, hypersexuality, homosexuality, womanizing, phobias, manias, lung cancer, etc. I have my own to contend with everyday. I’m sure you do. I always fail, for I am not perfect, but I never surrender. Each time I fall is a reason for me to get up. A Christian life is full of trials and sufferings, not to mention sin. Sabi nga nilá, cung gaano cá calapít sa Dios, más lapitín cá ng demonio (o tucsó). Another good pal of mine will be able to explain this “suffering” in a recent blogpost of his: If we suffer just to sustain life, only to die… is life worth living?

      I say that as long as we breathe, as long as there is life, there is hope. I do not have all the good answers, Mae. Even the most intelligent Jesuit will not be able to provide us with the answers that we are looking for, for he, too, like all of us, is susceptible to a Manny Pacquiáo uppercut (oo nga palá, congratulations, Manny!). Therefore, we should not play God. Let us put things in the proper context: only God creates from nothingness. Only He can take it away. And only He has all the reasons, and the answers to our questions. And in due time, we shall all know the answer.

      But if you’re godless like the rest, then that is another story. =(

      I hope I was able to be of help. ¡Qué tengas un buen día! =)


  28. Pingback: Celdrán’s antics are no longer repulsive « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  29. Figured I should take a moment and say hello and thanks for the informative posts you’ve been making.


  30. Pingback: Various comments from Mideo Cruz’s sick art « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  31. Pingback: Coca-Cola still deserves an applause (The OFW Project) « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  32. Pingback: Dr José Rizal and the making of a modern linguistic Messiah | History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences

Please share your thoughts about this article.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: