A Small Discussion on Celdran’s Conviction

30 Jan

Update: my friend found this post and has somewhat taken offense for having said “that was too low for him.” and has apparently taken it personally. If this was misunderstood, then I apologize deeply. However, to clarify, I would never get into personal attacks. As Fulton Sheen said, “Intolerance applies to principles, never to persons.” and I would like to keep it this way. I was only pertaining to the mention of the ‘cover-ups’ and the Inquisition which are not concerned with the topic, hence the words, “Such a pity.” since I feel for my friend whom I have high regard for because of his wide thinking and voracious appetite for reading. Again, if any of this is misinterpreted at any point, I apologize and clarify that I will not get into personal attacks.

My friend, a Born Again Christian, is an ally of Carlos Celdran and of the RH-groups. I tried to respond to his objections to the decision handed to Celdran and how he explains that this does not merit jail time. But as a Catholic, I understand why he does not get it.

1. I cite, as an example, the Eucharist or rather The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To a Protestant, it is nothing more than just a piece of bread. But to a Catholic, it is Jesus Himself! Should a Protestant throw away a piece of consecrated host, it means nothing to them. But to a Catholic, it would be sacrilege.

2. Saying that he does not intend to do such a thing, (I didn’t say he would. I’m merely illustrating the situation in a different way.) he tells me that my example is misplaced. So I give another example: me slapping two women where one woman is his mother. Naturally, he reacts violently against this but insists that this is even more far-off than the first example. My only point in the example is if you put yourself in the shoes of a good Catholic who recognizes that something, say a church (or his mother, in my example), is sacred or important to you, then desecrating it (or slapping her/insulting her) is a “notoriously offensive” act. Again, this doesn’t seem to be clear to him. I somehow understand why since this isn’t in his culture or set of beliefs as a Protestant.

3. He continually notes jurisprudence in the case of People vs. Baes in 1939 and shares the dissenting opinions of Laurel and Imperial which questions what is “notoriously offensive” to a religious group. Be that as it may, the explanation in the same case notes the testimony of Baes where he felt the “grave profanation of the place.” A place consecrated for holy things is set apart. That is why we have a parish hall for meetings and programs and the liturgy inside the church itself — precisely because we do not want to desecrate what is sacred ground!

In this light, I would like to illustrate this with Moses’ encounter with God through the burning bush. If you believe in the sacredness of the land on which you stand, you will do as Moses did. If you do not believe in it, you would find it without difficulty to stand up and put up a sign saying DAMASO! in front of Moses himself.

4. In the end, there cannot be blame on my friend for not understanding how this is offensive to a Catholic. A REAL CATHOLIC. Not a Cafeteria Catholic. It is such a pity how one can be so passionately against strawmen. He also continually mentions the ‘cover-up’ of sex abuse by priests and even mentions, in passing, the Inquisition. I really thought that was too low for him. Reminds me of an article by Robert Hutchinson I read how atheists simply revert to their one-liner attacks. This is what I saw in my friend. Such a pity.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: