Tag Archives: human-rights

CBCP vs. “My Husband’s Lover”

27 Jun

I have a couple of questions. And thoughts that I can’t seem to organize yet, regarding the matter of the CBCP’s criticism of the TV Series “My Husband’s Lover” as reported on Rappler.

Why do people think of the CBCP (and REAL Catholics) to be homophobic bigots? Where’s the argument in that? Besides, Catholicism is not homophobic. As explained in Catholic Answers:

“The term homophobic refers to fear of homosexuality. This term often is used by homosexual activists to end rational discussion of the issue by accusing their opponents of having an irrational fear. This is unjust. One can disagree with and be critical of a behavior without having a fear of it. When the charge of “homophobia” is made, it signifies that those making the accusation do not have reasoned responses to their critics, so they switch to portraying their critics as irrational rather than responding to their arguments.”

Those who say that CBCP and the Catholic Church is homophobic are either mistaken, misguided, or who do not simply understand what the Church teaches. The Church doesn’t have an irrational argument against the lifestyle. If only people take the time to read what the Catechism teaches! Once again, from Catholic Answers:

We have to remember that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such, no matter what their behavior. We make a distinction between person and behavior, sometimes expressed as “hate the sin, love the sinner.” The Catechism describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered”: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

How is this irrational?

What the CBCP-ECY hints at is that people need to be aware first of the real score with this kind of theme on television. My problem with the reporting-style of Rappler is that they seem to intentionally leave-out things that don’t paint the picture that they want of the CBCP and Catholics. Note that in the original post on Radyo Veritas, the last statement states:

“Aminado naman si Fr. Garganta na mayroong demokrasya o kalayaan ang lahat ng tao na dapat namang gamitin ng tema hindi lamang ang hangaring kumita.”

So, is the Church and CBCP abusive in exercising its right to remind people of sensitive moral issues? Are they asking for the show to be shot down?

This isn’t the first extra-marital affair-themed thing in showbiz. There were a plethora of bomba/TF/bold films in the past decades. My guess is that since TV Series are more open-ended, the CBCP are watchful of the possible twists and turns the plot might take. A movie is relatively easier to review if it concerns moral themes such as extra-marital affairs because it has a definite conclusion after the 2 hours you watched it. TV Series are trickier. Heck, a movie about a gay brother got better reviews than this movie about heterosexual extra-marital affairs and you think CBCP is homophobic? Can’t people stop and think first before any knee-jerk reaction to a group’s actions and recommendations?

My other real problem, I’ve already expressed in my previous posts — how media is a force that is pushing people away from the Church, and how people are now so gullible to believe outrageous things about the Church that it somehow shows their predisposed hatred for it.

What I look forward to is a good argument between these things. Not just the name-calling on the comments section of the news article on Rappler. As Fr. Robert Barron comments on one of his articles:

“Any preacher or writer who ventures to make a moral argument [against gay marriage] is automatically condemned as a purveyor of “hate speech” or excoriated as a bigot, and in extreme cases, he can be subject to legal sanction. This visceral, violent reaction is a consequence of the breakdown of the rational framework for moral discourse that MacIntyre so lamented.”



Celdran is a Catholic, alright. A Bad One!

1 Feb

Rappler interviews Carlos Celdran and he claims to still be Catholic “until it is taken away from me.”

Really? And I mean REALLY?!

Then again, who am I to deny that he received the sacraments of initiation fully? (I wonder if he even knows them at all.)

There are good Catholics, and there are bad Catholics — the dilemma of the Church. But the Church, through her wisdom and gift from God, can always deal with heresy. But at the same time, she is patient and kind and forgiving. She tries to welcome even the bad ones, filled with hope that they see and understand the Church’s position.

What really bothers me and gets my goat with Celdran’s interview is he sensationalizes things, and appeals to fear in his statements. To wit:

The fact that that law exists means that you, the person behind you and everybody else can be thrown in jail for a year, or perhaps more…

All of you are under danger… Anything you say about religion online can also endanger you.

And the interview goes on to point out the ecumenical service. Here, Celdran shows how bad he is at being a Catholic. I shall put my comments in red along with the text as with the Catholic blogs I read: wdtprs and TPC.

 RAPPLER: Even some liberal supporters of the RH bill have thought that this – the manner in which this protest was done – is offensive. What would you say to that?

CELDRAN: There’s a lot of disinformation out there about the offense. Because a lot of disinformation out there is spread by I guess media, who were not doing their research properly, and, or probably, the Catholic Church itself. It was not a mass. [TRUE. but the follow up question is…]

RAPPLER: I understand it was an event thrown by church organizers.

CELDRAN: Organizers, laymen. Whoever wasn’t there, I guess, doesn’t really have the right to say what is offensive and what is not. It has to do with the word “Damaso.” And where can the word “Damaso” be seen as offensive to a particular religion, especially since half of the Church at that day was Protestant. It was an ecumenical meeting between two religions to support the reading of the Bible.

There was no mass. It was laymen reading bible passengers and a few anti-RH passages. They were using this event to spread the anti-RH agenda as well. So it wasn’t a mass at all. No Eucharist [???] was there. There were laymen on the stage along with posters. [Here, Celdran shows his ignorance of the basics of Catholic doctrine. In a church, most specially the Manila Cathedral, has the Eucharist inside the tabernacle. The picture of the ‘Damaso’ incident below shows the red light, the Sactuary Lamp, that is always lit if the Blessed Sacrement is present. Even on Wikipedia, it says that the it “should be kept alight to indicate and honour the presence of Christ.” Yep. HONOUR. PRESENCE.]

But the disinformation going around makes it seem that I went in the middle of a homily and I interrupted. Basically it was kind of like a town hall meeting that I walked in(to). They did hold a mass but the mass was held two hours after I was arrested.

The 'Damaso' incident

The ‘Damaso’ incident

The next part is a doozy:

CELDRAN: If it is an activity of worship, the Manila Cathedral is a public place. [Hmmm. So if Quiapo Mosque has a worship activity, it is also a public place?] They can use that place to also push for the anti-RH agenda. They use that pulpit for politics as well. So, by them also using that, it essentially makes the Manila Cathedral — which doesn’t pay taxes, [ad hominem fallacy] which is open supposedly to the entire public — just as much an open space as Plaza Miranda or anything else. And if we’re going to also be nitpicking things about freedom of speech, for them to say that, then what will stop them from being arrested for talking about other religions or by talking against a movie star?

Freedom of speech is totally absolute. [Wiki says NO, though. Mentions libel and RA 8491. How about censorship? Never knew MTRCB is illegally infringing on Willie Revillame’s Freedom of speech?],  It comes with responsibilities. That responsibility has to [be part of] a self-actualized society that actually knows the difference between what is right and wrong in this world. And there comes the responsibility. It had to come from the self. It can’t come from the State.

Sounds like relativism to me. And would possibly result in anarchy. “self-actualized society that actually knows the difference between what is right and wrong in this world.” Slavery was legal wasn’t it? People thought it was right. American KKK thought it was alright to kill people. Why tell them they’re wrong? I just don’t see how he justifies it with this kind of logic!

And the last bit I’d like to comment on is something similar to what I’ve been seeing a lot lately with people like Catholics for RH and Pro-choice Catholics. People think they are still absolutely good Catholics even if they aren’t.

RAPPLER: Were you raised a Catholic and what are your beliefs now?

CELDRAN: I was raised a Catholic, absolutely. Of course my faith was shaken. Of course my eyes have been opened about the flaws of my mother institution, which has been very disheartening.

As I tell people, if a plane is crashing and I’m in it, of course I’ll pray the Holy Mary, Mother of God. I’ll pray the Hail Mary. It’s part of my fabric, my framework already. What can I do? I pass by a church, I will genuflect and pray the cross. It’s just part of my wiring already. So being Catholic is something that I am until it is taken away from me.

Here, we see that Celdran is indeed a Catholic… but one of them Cafeteria Catholics who cherry-pick what they want to believe out of convenience. This is a whole different creature against those who know what Catholic teaching is and struggle to keep the faith and believe what Holy Mother Church says.

All indicators point to one thing, though: the cafeteria is wide open in the Philippines. And we need all the help we can get to get this cafeteria to close.

It may seem a bit sacrilegious to use the Creed to drive this point but I believe it to be necessary to point out what is wrong with those who claim to be Catholic but really aren’t.

Celdran’s Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God.
Born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.
through Him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord , the Giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
my own understanding of what the Church teaches
and can choose whatever I like to believe in
for my convenience and what society dictates it to be
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
And I await the resurrection of the dead.
And the life of the world to come.