THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

Praying for a Miracle for My Granddaughter Azshara

By Gel Santos Relos

on Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

 

On Saturday, April 12, my husband and I became  lolo and lola. It’s a milestone that we’ve been looking forward to, after our daughter Misty got married in 2012. When that day finally came, however, our excitement was eclipsed by fear and anxiety because it came too soon. Misty was only 24 weeks and 5 days in her pregnancy (a full term pregnancy usually takes 38-40 weeks).

Last year, Misty and her husband Dave lost their baby at 19 weeks. This made the fear of losing this baby even stronger. Many factors can come into play in pre-term labor. It could be blood clotting disorder, cervical incompetence, infection and hypertension, among others.

My son-in-law Dave Reinheimer

Because Misty already knew what contractions and labor feel like, she and her husband Dave were able to rush to the hospital two weeks ago. True enough, she was having contractions, and her cervix (kuwelyo ng matris)  was already dilated up to 3 cm. The amniotic sac (bahay bata) was also starting to bulge.

The able doctors and nurses of Boone Hospital in Columbia, Missouri (yes, they live so far away from us) immediately acted and did everything they could to arrest the contractions. They gave Misty treatment to give the baby a better fighting chance if and when she comes out earlier. They also had to put Misty on strict bed rest.

We have all been praying so fervently for the baby to stay in her mother’s womb. 24 weeks is a critical gestation age to reach because the survivability rate of the baby increases to 50 percent. We were happy about Misty’s progress in keeping the baby, despite the hardship and inconvenience of  doing complete bed rest, being on a catheter and bedpan, and of course, having anxiety, not knowing what will happen.

Almost two weeks have passed when Misty started having contractions again. It was inevitable — the baby had to come out or risk the fatal effect of intra-uterine infection. Misty had to go through emergency cesarean section to deliver her baby. Her husband, Dave was beside her. We were with them in spirit and in prayer.

 

Misty sees her baby girl for the first time

On April 12, at 4:50 am, our beautiful granddaughter Azshara Angelina was born. Our miracle premature baby weighed only  1 lb, 7 ounces, and was just a little over 12 inches when she came out. Her eyes were wide open and she tried to cry — all good signs of how much a fighter this baby is.

Baby Azshara is now in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the hospital, and will have to stay there until  July — her supposed due month. Her doctors say she is indeed a feisty baby, who has surpassed all expectations. They are optimistic she can make it.

Misty has been discharged from the hospital, but she and Dave visit their baby as often as they could to hold her, talk to her, and feed her. Yes, Misty has been pumping breast milk that will nourish Baby Azshara when she is ready to be fed.

For now, Baby Azshara is getting her nourishment  intravenously. She also has so many gadgets to help her breathe better, and many monitoring devices to make sure she is okay.

This season of Lent, our family has already experienced so many miracles and answered prayers from God. Each day that Baby Azshara is alive, fighting and thriving is a miracle indeed.

Misty and Baby Azshara in the NICU

Baby Azshara reminds us of how precious life really is.  We are also reminded of how so powerless we are, how so many very important things are just beyond our control. We are reminded that we can only have true strength through Jesus Christ, and that we can only hold on to our faith in God’s infinite love and wisdom, and believe that everything will work out for the good.

Jesus said: “Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock, and the door shall be opened for you.” He promised that "whatever we ask the Father in His name, He will grant us" — that "if we have faith even as big as a mustard seed, then nothing will be impossible for us".

I ask for your prayers, my dear friends and readers of this column. Please pray for my apo, Azshara Angelina Reinheimer. Please pray for her good health and safety. Please pray for my daughter Misty and son-in-law, Dave, for their faith and strength. Please pray that they may be able to bring home their baby soon, and raise her in a happy, loving peaceful home. Thank you for your prayers.

HAPPY EASTER! 

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

My Asian Journal Column:

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

I HAVE been following and writing about the conclave and the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor. But I was pleasantly surprised by my own emotions, when I saw white smoke coming out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel.

I was glued to the TV screen just before I drove to the TFC studio for Balitang America. I knew I had to leave soon, but I just had to hear the church bells ring to confirm that the next pope has been chosen.

From the time the white smoke came out of the chimney, it took a little more than an hour before the name of the new Pope was made public. The Balitang America staff watched history unfold together before we delivered the news to our TFC (The Filipino Channel) viewers.

“Habemus Papam” or “We have a Pope!”

Some kababayans were disappointed that it was not Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle that the 115 cardinals elected in the conclave to be the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. But it did not take long for most of them, this writer included, to love the new pope.

The chosen one is Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 76-year-old Jesuit priest from Argentina.

He was the one who came out of the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

His name was not among those rumored to be top contenders for the papacy, so I initially had no idea about his background. I could only look at him as he waved to more than 100,000 Catholics and tourists, who were drenched in rain at St. Peter’s Square.

There was something serene about his aura. Even before he spoke -- his eyes, radiant smile, and gentle demeanor already reflected a humble, caring soul. 

As he spoke to the people in the Square and to Catholics from all over the world; as he requested for the people to pray for him and bless him; as he bestowed his blessing to the crowd; as he lead “The Lord’s Prayer,” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be,” -- his gentle, reassuring voice calmed my spirit and warmed my heart. I prayed with him.

At that point, I felt a trusting connection with the new pontiff, who chose to be called Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi.

The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi has been my prayer, whenever I need to be grounded on my faith.

“Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury,pardon;

where there is doubt, faith;

where there is despair, hope;

where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek

to be consoled as to console;

to be understood as to understand;

to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen”

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose the name “Francis” as his papal name to honor the 12th century saint known for his simple lifestyle, austerity and dedication to the works of mercy.

My respect for the new pope grew even deeper, when I found out that  he has always lived the prayer of St. Francis in his life.

As you have probably heard by now, Pope Francis as archbishop of Buenos Aires (then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio), moved out of the mansion owned by his diocese and instead chose to live in a small apartment. He took the bus to work, washed his own clothes and lived the life of an ordinary person.

He is a man reported to have deep concern and love for the poor.

Even after being chosen as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis still lives humbly.

He reportedly did not sit on the traditional throne to accept the oaths of allegiance from the cardinals after his election last Wednesday.

He also refused to ride in a private car back to the Santa Marta Residence that night, choosing instead to ride the bus with the cardinals who elected him, personally paid his own hotel bills.

I have always prayed the next Pope would be a Jesuit -- that prayer was answered in Pope Francis. Jesuits are known to be free thinkers, progressive and open minded--think Father Joaquin Bernas and the Ateneo de Manila University brand of education. 

The Jesuits’ motto is to help souls by being a “man for others.” Pope Francis is a living testament to that.

Pope Francis’ lifelong mission is to bring the Catholic Church closer to people. His behavior as a Cardinal then, and as the Pope now, will help knock down the perceived walls of aristocracy that alienates the Vatican from many Catholics.

Through his example, he shows that in order to be a follower of God, one must serve rather than be served.

We have always prayed that our next pope would be somebody who reminds us of Jesus -- not just through what he preaches, but through the life he lives.

As LA Times reported, Pope Francis himself said last year: “Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask...BECOME THE WORD in body as well as spirit.”

The world now looks up to him with such high expectations, on how he will addresses the challenges, turmoil, corruption and sex scandals in the Catholic Church.

Long live, Pope Francis! You give me hope.

 

(My Asian Journal Column : 

Can the Next Pope Revitalize the Catholic Church?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

Who will be the next Pope? 

 

This has been the question many people have been asking after the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict XVI last Monday. 

 

Kababayans from all over the world even went as far as to ask: Could the next leader of the Catholic Church be Filipino? 

 

According to Reuters, Manila Archbishop Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle is among the list of potential candidates. While no official list has been made public yet, Reuters' list reportedly included the 55-year old Tagle, who has been reportedly compared to the late Pope John Paul II, in terms of leadership style.

 

The announcement of the Pope’s resignation (effective February 28) has fueled a lot of discussions about the present state of the Catholic Church and speculations about the organized religion’s future. 

 

A Pope's resignation has not happened in the last 600 years, prompting many people to ask: Why now, when the Church is facing a lot of challenges? When it is desperately trying to fulfill its mission, in a world that has increasingly become more secular?

 

The Vatican’s official statement about the Pope’s resignation, however, seemed to show that the Pope’s decision supports the greater mission of the Church. 

The 86-year-old Pontiff resigned due to lack of physical strength and his frail health -- impediments for him  to effectively lead 1.2 billion Catholics in this time of turmoil.

 

Though saddened by the news, faithful followers have accepted and respected the Pope’s decision. They praised him for his humility and courage in making that decision. They say that this proves that the Pope believes the papacy is bigger than him, and that he will not allow himself to get in the way of the Catholic Church’s fulfillment of its mission -- proclaiming the Good News about Jesus Christ’s salvation of mankind, and helping people around the world be saved through the Catholic Church.

 

The Pope has been accused of covering up sexual abuse of children by priests, when he was still Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. 

 

Critics -- especially victims of alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests -- said that while Pope Benedict XVI may have sounded and appeared compassionate about their plight, he has not really done anything about the situation. 

 

Now, his detractors challenge him to do the right thing: open the records of the Church and expose the names of the clergymen, who have been accused of sex abuse. They ask him to turn these records over to secular law enforcement agencies and let the State (not the Church) put them on trial and make them pay for the consequences of their actions, as secular people are asked to do. 

 

This, they say is in line with the kind of justice, fairness and true compassion they expect from the Catholic Church.

 

With Pope Benedict's resignation, the Catholic Church faces a crossroad in its 2,000-year-old history. Many people wonder if this impending change in leadership will bring about reforms that many followers have been clamoring for. 

 

Will the still-to-be-named successor help the Catholic Church connect with the changing world, or will he carry on Pope Benedict XVI’s conservative and uncompromising position on social and theological issues?

 

Will he allow women to be ordained as priests? 

 

Will he heed the call to allow priests to be married and have a family? 

 

Will he bless the union of gay people in the holy sacrament of matrimony? 

 

Will he allow the use of birth control methods (other than abstinence and the calendar method)? 

 

Will he endorse the theory of evolution? 

 

Will he support embryonic stem cell research? 

 

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Pope Benedict XVI is expected to go into isolation after his resignation, so as not to influence the decision of the cardinals, as they elect a successor in a secret conclave. 

 

Lombardi said the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church could be elected as soon as Palm Sunday (March 24) and be ready to take over by Easter (March 31).

 

Who do you think will be the new Pope? Do you think Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle has a chance to become the first Filipino Pope? 

 

If you can have a say in the election process, what attributes do you want the new pontiff to have? How can he stop disillusioned and disappointed Catholics from leaving the flock?  How do you think can the new Pope revitalize the Catholic Church?

(My Asian Journal Column article)

Readers’ Feedback: Prison Term for Offending Religious Feelings

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

(From Asian Journal)

Carlos Celdran was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of "offending religious feelings," under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

This stemmed from a complaint filed against him by the Catholic Church  when he staged a protest inside the Manila Cathedral while an ecumenical service (not a mass, as reported by some) was being held.  

 

Dressed like Jose Rizal, he carried a sign that read “Damaso” and shouted that the Church should stop meddling in Philippine politics. This happened during the heat of the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill.

 

According to the Revised Penal Code: “Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

Celdran said he would  appeal his case, arguing that the court’s decision was in violation of his freedom of speech, which is protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 

 

His supporters likewise said they will file for a petition to free Celdran because he only exercised his right, invoking Section 4 of the Bill Rights: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

 

They will also start a petition for Congress to repeal Article 133, which they say is in violation of the separation of Church and State, invoking Section 5 of the Bill of Rights: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

 

President Noynoy Aquino expressed sympathy for Celdran and said he hopes the Philippine Catholic priests will emulate the Pope and forgive Celdran, who has already apologized for what he did.

 

Should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?"

 

Here are some of comments from our readers:

 

"Our constitution is the most powerful law in our country. No Revised Penal Code can nullify its powers." - Critical Thinking Filipinos

 

"Tama lang ginawa sa kanya, labag na sa batas at pambabastos pa sa simbahan! Freedom of Speech -- doon sya sa labas ng simbahan magsisigaw! Pa-epal sya, kita naman sa actions niya sa camera. He deserves it." - Jun Cj Nofies

 

"If you changed the names involved, it would sound like you're talking about Middle Eastern countries. This shouldn't happen in any free and un-oppressed country." -- Dr. Edmond Yabut

 

"Why did he have to offend the Catholic Church in the first place, when our religion in the Philippines is really Catholicism? In the Middle East, there is so much respect for Islam, it is just right to have respect for Catholic faith in the Philippines though there are already some other new religions but still, the Catholic religion dominates the Philippines." - Anna Simpatica Rodriguez Villanueva

 

"If there is truly the notion of freedom of speech, as well as separation of church and state embodied in the Constitution, then the law in question is probably incompatible. Irresponsible though this person may be, any legal sanction against him should be solely on the basis of trespassing or disturbing the peace, if he refused to leave when asked to." - Karl W. Braun

 

"Freedom of speech should not be an act of degradation of one person, a group or an institution... freedom itself has boundaries." - Clinton Rey Mirabel

 

"Article 133 clearly violates Sec. 5 and should be declared as unconstitutional. What if a group of people don't believe in any religion? They would be left unprotected and exposed to offensive ridicule since they don't have any "place devoted to religious worship," or do any kind of "celebration of any religious ceremony!" That violates the Establishment Clause of Sec. 5 as the Phil. gov't would be favoring those with religions over the ones with none." - “Reply”

 

"If the Catholic Church can stomach and even defend the presence of sexual predators within its ranks, it should certainly be able to forgive and tolerate the occasional activist among its flock." - Tiny Defensor

 

"I think that CBCP already forgave [Celdran] but he must face the consequence[s] because he not simply offended religious feelings of people but also God, who is truly present in the tabernacle in the Manila Cathedral." - Inaqz Garz

"Mali eh, sana nilagay nya sa lugar ang protesta nya. Hindi yung ang [lumalabas] ay parang gumgawa lang sya ng eksena para mapag-usapan. Nothing is wrong with self-expression, as long as it is done with taste and a little bit of sensitivity. Nagplanking na lang sana sya sa EDSA." - Ray John

 

"OMG people,  what happend to forgiving and having mercy?  Isn’t that written in the Bible?"- Jonathan Jason Fabiala

 

"Sa Islam nga binibitay pa eh. Ganon lang yun. Kung puro kalayaan mo na lang ang gusto mong ipangalandakan sa mundo, maaari sanang makiramdam ka rin na hindi lang ikaw ang tao sa mundo. Matuto kang makisama sa [mga] taong nasa paligid mo at sa karamihan." - Paolo Delos Angeles

 

"Did Article 133 prevent religious strife in Mindanao? No, because in practice, the Phil. gov't. favors one over the other. That never happens in the US as they practice Sec. 5 to the letter; no need for an Article 133. The Philippines may have Sec. 5 and even an Article 133 to the pot, but in practice favors one over the other that's why there is rebellion in the Mindanao."- R.

 

"Article 133 is sound. It protects the right of people to practice their religion in peace. Section 5 of the constitution does not give favor to any particular religious establishment, it just says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion and the law protects everyone's right to do so. Nullifying Article 133 would allow the non-religious or even opposing religions to disrespect each other even at their own houses of worship. Many, including myself, admire what he did. But he will lose any respect he has earned by not facing the consequences of his actions." - John Galang

Prison Term for “Offending Religious Feelings” ?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Could and should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?” In the Philippines, it is possible. That is exactly what the judge ruled in a case filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral (Catholic Church vs Carlos Celdran) over Celdran's violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

On September 30, 2010, Carlos Celdran staged a protest against the Catholic Church for blocking the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He went to the Manila Cathedral dressed as Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal. Inside the cathedral and during an ecumenical service (not MASS but a meeting inside the church), Celdran shouted that the church should stop meddling in government affairs while holding a sign which read: “Damaso.”

 

The sign referred to “Padre Damaso,” the contravida priest in Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere.”This anticlerical novel was written by the national hero to expose the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church friars and the Spanish elite during the Spanish era in 19th century colonial Philippines. 

 

In his ruling, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. stated: 

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…” 

 

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates:

“Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

As soon as this ruling came out, a fiery debate ensued among kababayans in the Philippines.

 

Many question the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that it directly violates Sections 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states:

 

“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

 

As these provisions in the Philippine Constitution were patterned after the US Constitution, it is important to understand the spirit and intent of the law, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

 

This would point to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the same prohibition found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is followed by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -- known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” 

 

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted by legal experts to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the US government of one religion over another, notwithstanding the right to exercise religion or no religion at all.

 

People ask:  Isn't it therefore a violation of the Constitution to suppress the right to free speech (Section 4 Bill of Rights)  because of Article 133 which could arguably be in violation of  another provision of the Constitution (Section 5, Bill of Rights)  which mandates that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

Kababayans who oppose the judge’s ruling also argue against the use of the clause “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Who defines and who decides what is “notoriously offensive”? 

 

Others also wonder if people from other religion (even atheists) enjoy the same protection under the law. And what about the secular groups or people? Can they also file a case against the Catholic Church, if they feel that their feelings are being offended by the religious institution? 

 

Is there a counterpart of the law for the non-religious? If none, then, isn’t this a clear violation of the clause, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” in the Philippine Constitution?

 

Those critical of the Catholic Church contend that priests who sexually abuse minors should be the ones sent to prison, as such transgression is a far graver criminal offense than protesting inside the cathedral. They point out that the act of protest is protected by the “Freedom of Speech” clause of the Bill of Rights. 

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, kababayans who support the complaint of the Catholic Church argue that no right is absolute -- that people should exercise their rights responsibly. They contend that the law just makes sure that exercising one’s right does not cross the line and offend other people -- in this case, the religious feelings of Catholics.

 

They say Celdran could exercise his “freedom of speech,” but he should have chosen a better venue. Staging his protest IN the cathedral (which is a place of worship for Catholics) is a clear violation of Article 133.

 

Celdran said he would appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that this uncommonly-used law is a threat to freedom of speech. 

 

“I am calm but I am going to fight this till the end,” Celdran posted on Twitter. And this legal battle may go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal experts say unless the Supreme Court rules that Article 133 is unconstitutional, then Celdran will have to face the consequences of his action pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

 

After listening to both sides of the argument, what is your opinion? Do you think Carlos Celdran SHOULD go to prison for "offending religious feelings?"

 

 

 

Bakit Natalo si Pacquiao? : The intersection of religion, politics and metaphysics

By Gel Santos Relos

 

If there is anyone who still has doubts about the powerful influence of our Pambansang Kamao Manny Pacquiao, particularly among Filipinos in every corner of the world, then the fourth bout between the Pacman and Mexican Juan Manuel Marquez must have already knocked that out for good.

 

After Pacquiao was knocked out by Marquez in the sixth round, we found our iconic boxing hero unconscious and motionless -- his face facing the floor. The Pacman lost, and so was the morale of many Filipinos. Trying to make sense of this painful defeat, kababayans from all over the world bantered endlessly for days, and there we find the testament to how Manny Pacquiao has that power to make religion, politics, and metaphysics collide!

 

Exhibit A: Metaphysics and the cosmic energy

 

Fil-Am Republicans find this absurd and crazy: some people blame the Pacman’s loss to Mitt Romney. And this theory has been talked about even in US mainstream media.

 

Mitt Romney was reported to have sat in the front row at the MGM Grand Garden to watch the bout along with his wife, Ann. Just two hours before Pacquiao walked to the ring to fight Marquez, Romney reportedly went to Pacquiao's dressing room, extended his hand to Pacquiao and said, "Hi Manny. I ran for president and lost."

 

Some Filipinos theorized that Romney must have rubbed off his bad karma to Pacquiao through that handshake. Moreover, the words Romney uttered to Pacquiao was said to have echoed vibrations of defeat, pulling down the Pacman’s winning energy.

 

As staunch Obama supporter and Fil-Am community leader Rodel Rodis wrote, “If Romney visits you before a fight and reminds you he lost the elections, is that pep talk from him going to inspire you to win?”

 

Exhibit B: Politics and sports? 'Tubig at langis'

 

Many kababayans (especially those who do not believe in Manny Pacquiao’s qualification and mettle to hold any position in government) present this recent loss, as evidence that boxing and politics do not mix.

 

They argue that Manny has become the greatest boxer of his time, because he was focused on his being a sportsman. He dedicated all his time and energy in training for his fight.

 

When he entered politics, many Filipinos said our Pambansang Kamao has lost his edge as a boxer. They also said he has also proven his detractors right- that he would be a mediocre, if not bad, elected Congressman of Sarangani. 

 

They contended that the Pacman has notoriously earned the dishonor of being one of the Members of the House of Representatives with the most number of absences. Moreover, he reportedly did not have any bills yet enacted into law that would help the people of Sarangani.

 

These Filipinos say Manny Pacquiao has to choose -- be a boxer or a politician. Even his own mother, Aling Dionisia, said after the fight: “Kung ako magdedesisyon, gusto ko magpahinga na si Manny, relax na lang siya. Politician ang anak ko, doon na lang siya magserbisyo.

 

Exhibit C : No separation between religion and sports

 

It is more fun in the Philippines, we all say. Everything is just interconnected. We cannot even separate religion from politics. What makes us think we can remove religion from sports? Not even Manny’s equally famous mother Nanay Dionisia thinks so.

 

Aling Dionisia (fondly called Mommy D) blames her son’s change of religion for his loss. Pacquiao is no longer a Catolico cerrado, and is now a Born-again Christian. 

 

After Manny’s two successive losses, feisty Mommy D passionately said in an interview with DZMM: “Gusto ko wag niyang iwanan ang sign of the cross kasi yan ang nakayaman sa kanya noon, ang dami ng panalo niya.” 

 

 
Manny used to wear his rosary when he enters the ring, makes the sign of the cross, kisses the crucific before taking it off just before Round 1 in every fight before he became a Born-again Christian. 

 

"Nalungkutan ko lang parang kulang ensayo ng anak ko, pirmi busy reading Bible sa bahay. Kulang ang ensayo niya, bising-busy talaga siya....Kailangan face-to-face ang ibigay sa Diyos na galing ng puso, na totoong-totoo na walang kapalit ang pagdasal natin," the mother lamented.

 

"Gusto kong ibalik niya ang dati niya. Tutal ang Catholic naman, wala naman naghihingi ng araw-araw magsimba, isang oras lang hiningi ng Diyos," added Mommy Dionisia. (Watch Mommy Dionisia unleash her sentiment about Manny's leaving the Catholic faith:)

 

AT ANO ANG SABI NI MANNY?

How Manny’s greatness as a sportsman shines even in his loss

 

After Marquez was declared the winner, Manny Pacquiao was reported to be the first Filipino in the MGM arena to smile. He reached out to Marquez and congratulated him. 

 

The Pacman also offered no excuses for his defeat, other than his self-deprecating statement that he must have been overconfident, that was why he lost.  

 

Indeed, our Pambansang Kamao, Manny Pacquiao, has once again showed us why he is the greatest boxer of his time. He has demonstrated how he can be gracious in defeat, as much as in victory. 

 

While the KO loss of Pacquiao to Marquez may have dampened the morale of many Filipinos, let us look at the big picture and remember all the honor he has earned and offered to the Philippines. As Wikipedia summarized: He is the first eight-division world champion in which he has won ten world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes.

 

He has been named “Fighter of the Decade” for the 2000s (decade) by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). 

 

Manny Pacquiao is also a three-time The Ring and BWAA “Fighter of the Year,” winning the award in 2006, 2008 and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award  in 2009 and 2011. He has also long been rated as the “best pound-for-pound boxer” in the world  by some sporting news and boxing websites.

 

Amid all speculations and disappointments, Pacquiao issued the following statement: “First and foremost I would like to thank God for keeping Juan Manuel Márquez and me safe during our fight on Saturday night. I want to congratulate Juan Manuel. I have no excuses. It was a good fight and he deserved the victory. I think boxing fans, who watched us, were winners too."

 

“To all my fans, I would like to thank you for your prayers and assure you that I am fine. I am looking forward to a nice rest and then I will be back to fight. On behalf of Jinkee and our family we would like to wish everyone a joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy new year,” Pacquiao further said.

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Agree Christmas Displays Like the BELEN Should be Banned in Public Places?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

ONE of the rituals many Fil-Am families enjoy doing during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend is putting up a Christmas tree and decorations, for that early Christmas feeling.

 

Our friends and family, business establishments, public parks and places back home in the Philippines do that even earlier – some even as early as September (the start of the “Ber” months). The Christmas holidays, after all, is longer and more fun in the Philippines!

 

That is why we try to capture the same spirit here in America, and are happy to participate in Simbang Gabi andPaskong Pilipino gatherings. We also love going to places that feature our favorite Christian displays, like theBelen, which showcases the nativity scene. For Christians, images like this put “Christ” back in the Christmas celebration.

 

But this is also precisely the reason why this  Belen (a life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display of Holy Family -- Baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph -- the three kings, shepherds, and angels) has no room in a Santa Monica park in the Los Angeles area. It created quite a stir in the Christian community, including Filipinos.

 

US District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season, while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

 

Christians said this decision effectively ends a 60-year Nativity tradition, “after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.”

 

They were dismayed that the city decided to ban it rather than do measures to referee this messy religious dispute that began three years ago, when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

 

As Balitang America reported, Collins explained the rationale of her decision: “the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians, to Jews, to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.”

 

Judge Collins pointed out that the decision was not meant to squash religious speech, but because “they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views.”

 

Note that in America, public places like public parks are maintained and funded by taxpayers' money. Taxpayers include people of all faith, even those who do not have faith in any God, like the atheists.

 

The Associated Press reported that the issue in Santa Monica between Christians and Atheists began in 2009, when atheist Damon Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park, alongside the story of Jesus Christ’s birth.

 

Vix reportedly hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side of that sign read, “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display in 2010 but then upped the stakes significantly.

 

Furthermore in 2011, Vix recruited 10 others “to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays, such as an homage to the ‘Pastafarian religion’, which included an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

This secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. Two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

 

The atheists used half of their spaces to display signs that are offensive to Christians, such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil, saying: “37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?”

 

Most of the signs were vandalized, and with the uproar that followed,  the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and which earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames: the “City of the Christmas Story.”

 

Atheist Vix said while he was pleased with Monday’s ruling, he was also saddened by the anger being directed against atheists, since he hung his first anti-God sign in 2009.

 

“So many people don’t understand atheists,” Vix lamented. “If you read the signs we put up, one said, ‘Love is all around you.’ That’s really a better understanding of who most atheists are.”

 

William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, compared the city of Santa Monica to Pontius Pilate -- the Roman official who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

“The atheists won and they will always win, unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it.”

 

The Associated Press reported further that Becker said he expects the case will be dismissed at a hearing on Dec. 3, based on Monday’s proceedings and plans to appeal.

 

We asked our viewers via our daily online poll Isyu Ngayon on Balitang America if they agree with the judges’ decision to ban this “Belen” in Santa Monica. An overwhelming majority -- 95 percent of our respondents disagreed on grounds of religious freedom and the need to respect each other’s religious beliefs and religious practices.

 

On the other hand, five percent argued on upholding the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of  the US Constitution, which rules that there should be a separation between church and state.

 

While it can be debatable how this "Establishment Clause" contradicts the “Freedom of Religion” also guaranteed by the Constitution, this clause is interpreted to rule that government should be neutral with regard to religion -- that government should remain neutral, neither favoring nor disfavoring any religion or even those who do not believe in nor practice any religion.

 

What do you think? Do you agree with the judge’s decision to ban the Belen display in a public park?

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article November 24, 2012)

'Innocence of Muslims' Video: Is there a boundary to exercising freedom of speech in a democracy?

 By Gel Santos Relos

 

A new wave of Anti-American sentiment and protests has spread through more than 20 countries -- many of them targeting US diplomatic posts. Violent attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt have claimed the lives of four Americans, including US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

 

“Death to America” has been the battle cry of these protesters, and leaders of extremist groups had already used the film to galvanize support among Muslims in different parts of the world in their fight against America and the Western world.

 

The trigger: a 14-minute video on YouTube mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad that has become viral. This video clip was supposed to be a trailer of an anti-Muslim film, “Innocence of Muslims,” which reportedly portrayed Muhammad, as  a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester.”

 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney immediately jumped in and attacked Obama for his alleged weak leadership in defending America in the fight against extremists, and for apologizing to the enemies for our American values.

 

Analysts say Romney spoke too soon, including President Obama who said: “Gov. Romney as the tendency to shoot first before aiming.” 

 

As FactCheck.org reported, “Romney got his timeline backwards. [The] US embassy in Cairo — not the State Department in Washington — put out a statement several hours before a mob of protesters breached the wall of the embassy, took down an American flag and replaced it with a black flag.” 

 

Moreover, FactCheck.org said there was no basis for Romney’s allegation that Obama apologized for free speech and American values.  Quoting the statement released by the US Embassy in Cairo before the protesters breached the Embassy’s wall:

 

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

 

State Sec. Hillary Clinton said, “I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today... Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

 

President Obama vowed justice will be served against the perpetrators of this attack against America. The President also requested Google to reconsider its decision to keep online the controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East. Google, has denied the request.

 

After being clarified about the timeline, Romney said: "Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do... but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."

 

This issue truly leads us to the debate on our exercise of our freedom of expression and how we really define what “American values” are.  Is there no boundary to exercising free speech in America? Can the producers of this provocative film be protected by their First Amendment rights?

 

As we reflect on this issue, allow me to share with you the analysis of LA Times Columnist Sarah Chayes, who put this question in perspective:

 

“In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in US history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. 'The most stringent protection,' he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, 'would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.'"

 

The analysis further said: “Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a 'clear and present danger' of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, Innocence of Muslims, the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the US Constitution and the values it enshrines.”

 

“The point here is not to excuse the terrible acts perpetrated by committed extremists and others around the world in reaction to the video, or to condone physical violence as a response to words — any kind of words. The point is to emphasize that US law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk. Especially in the heightened volatility of today's Middle East, such provocation is certainly irresponsible — and reveals an ironic alliance of convenience between Christian extremists and the Islamist extremists they claim to hate,” Chayes concluded.

 

The truth is, this offensive video was a creation of an individual who invokes his right to freedom of speech, notwithstanding the likely violent backlash against America, especially because of three things: 1. The passion of our Muslim brothers about their religion, will do anything and everything for their faith; 2. The already negative sentiment of some Muslims against the Western world, especially America, particularly the extremists -- which lead to the tragedy of 9/11;  and 3. Modern technology makes offensive videos like this instantly viral, as the internet has virtually collapsed all walls between nations in this information age. 

 

As all nations scramble to navigate our new reality, the need to redefine our values that will guide us and our  government cannot be overemphasized. What are really America's values? And if some of these values collide with one another, which should prevail and guide us? How much power can and should the government have to make sure the lapse in judgement of a few will not cause the freedom, safety of the many?

Fr. JOAQUIN BERNAS on the Amendments to the RH Bill

 

Respected constitutionalist, educator  and Jesuit priest FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J. wrote a very informative column on the Philippine Daily Inquirer that discusses the misconceptions about the RH bill, and the amendments that the authors of the bill have offered to address the concerns of some people.

 

 

Amending House Bill 4244.

Those seriously studying the RH bill should take a look at the amendments already offered by the authors of the bill themselves. They are contained in Rep. Edcel Lagman’s letter to Rep. Rogelio J. Espina, chair of the Committee on Population and Family Relations. However, to understand the proposed amendments, one must read and study HB 4244 and not just rely on criticisms by some who may never have read it, much less studied it.

 

Yes, there are a good number of misconceptions about the bill, and there can be dishonest critics who set up straw men they can merrily attack.  One may ask, for instance, how many among the Church authorities have read and studied HB 4244? This is an important question because I see the amendments as efforts to adjust to the transition from an established Catholic Church whose word was law to today’s demands of freedom of religion.

 

I propose the pulling together of the various amendments already accepted by the authors of the bill.

 

Sec. 13. Role of barangay health workers. Instead of saying that they should “give priority to family planning work,” simply say they should “help implement this Act.” This should obviate the complaints that family planning is being given undue emphasis.

 

Sec. 15. Funding Mobile Health Services. Charge the funding to the national government, not to the lawmakers’ Priority Development Fund (PDAF) while at the same time allowing individual lawmakers to use their PDAF.

 

Sec. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Sex Education. Give parents the option not to allow their children to attend mandatory sex education; at the same time give assistance to parents who want help in this matter. This is in conformity with the primary right of parents.

 

Sec. 20. Ideal Family Size. Delete the entire provision. This will preclude further misinformation about the meaning of this provision.

 

Sec. 21. Employers’ Responsibility. Delete this because it is simply a restatement of Article 134 of the Labor Code.  Deleting it will preclude further debate.

 

Sec. 28(e) Prohibited Acts. Delete the provision which penalizes “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” There already are penal limits to the freedom of expression.

 

In addition to the amendments proposed by the authors of the consolidated bill, there are others which are worth considering. Let me mention a few:

 

On Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

 

1. Private schools can opt to provide an alternative sexuality education curriculum based on the school’s religious beliefs or values. The government will monitor if there is a curriculum being implemented, whether the standard one or the alternative one.

 

2. If a public school cannot provide enough adequately trained teachers or there are public school teachers who cannot teach the government’s curriculum because of religion-based objections, the proper government agency would send trained instructors to teach the sexuality education classes.

 

3. An additional topic for the curriculum is the role of religious freedom and conscience in choosing the means of planning families.

 

On Prohibited Acts

 

Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall require a person to undergo sterilization as a condition for providing indigent patients with basic health care, emergency care or health care shall be penalized.

 

I realize that there are other urgent matters which Congress must consider. But the effort of some to block the period of amendments merely as a tactic for preventing the bill’s approval does a disservice to the nation.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/35106/a-new-chief-justice-an-amended-hb-4244

Sotto’s Crusade and the RH Bill: What Really Violates Filipinos' Freedom of Choice?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Doesn't “freedom of choice” require that everybody -- rich or poor, Catholic or not, in urban and rural areas -- be given all the education and tools they need, as they make informed decisions in their own reproductive health issues and responsible parenthood -- guided by their own moral or spiritual compass?

Sen. Vicente Sotto III has made it his mission to block the passage of the controversial House Bill No. 4244 --  the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act, more popularly known as the RH Bill. His reasons are personal.

 

He blames the side effects of contraceptive pills for the death of his son who died five months after he was born in 1975, an assertion questioned by many pro-RH groups, including former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral and Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin -- who challenged Sotto to make public his son's death certificate to prove that contraceptives actually caused his son's death.

 

"Magiging misyon ko ito pala para ipaglaban ko ang karapatan na mabuhay ang maraming inosenteng bata na kikitilin ang buhay ng bill na ito," Sotto said in his tearful "turno on en contra" speech against the RH Bill in the Senate.

 

The bill has been stalled in Congress for 14 years due to staunch opposition  from the Catholic Church and pro-life advocates. The House of Representatives has finally voted to end debates and move the bill forward for second reading approval in the House. Sotto refuses to surrender.

 

Taking his personal battle further, Sotto appeared for an interview on ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), where he continued to raise his arguments against the passage of the bill.

 

Sotto said he agrees with the RH Bill provisions on family and maternal health."What I don't agree with is using people's [tax] money for contraceptives" he told Karen Davila on the program “Headstart.”

 

He also said he opposes the declaration of contraceptives and condoms as essential medicines, as stipulated in the RH Bill, arguing that they do not cure anything. He warns condoms aren't foolproof against the Human Immuno Virus (HIV), and that artificial contraceptives have a 8-10% failure rate. 

 

Senator Sotto also challenged the truth behind RH advocates’  declaration that in the Philippines, 11-15 mothers die every day because of pregnancy and childbirth. “We need to see actual, empirical data on maternal health,” Sotto asserted. He accused Department of Health officials of using these arguments to make up for their inadequacy and failure to do their job.

 

The issue of whether the Philippines really needs population control was also raised by the senator. Sotto said population growth is also needed for economic development. He cited the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) statement that says “ideal growth population rate is 2.1% per year.” Sotto said the Philippines is now at only 1.9%, implying there is no need to curtail population growth with the use of contraceptives, despite the Philippines' dense population.

 

But what really perplexed me was this point that Senator Sotto articulated in the interview --  that the RH Bill “will take away freedom of choice from couples”-- a concern echoed by many kababayans who fear that the passage of the RH Bill will mandate all Filipinos to use artificial contraceptives against their will and conscience. 

 

The fact is, when the RH Bill is enacted into law, the Department of Health will then be directed to make “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective reproductive health care services nationwide.” It will also require “age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education” -- from the fifth grade through high school. 

 

The RH Bill is not about pushing everybody to use artificial contraceptives. It is about educating the Filipinos about their reproductive health, especially  as it relates to responsible parenthood. It is about helping  women who need preventive care and treatment-- gain access to dependable health care professionals.

 

It is  about informing people about all their options -- if and when they decide for themselves that it is important for them to plan the size of their family and when to have children -- depending on their physical, emotional, financial, and spiritual readiness to assume the great responsibility of parenthood.

 

It is about making people know about the pros and cons of each option, and what will work best for every individual given her medical and health issues. It includes information about the use of natural family planning methods, like abstinence and calendar method, as options. No coercing people to take the pills or use the condom. No mandating couples on the number of children to have. No abortion as a tool for family planning.

 

While contraceptives have already been available for purchase in the Philippines, only those who can afford them have access. The blockage of the passage of the bill, will therefore deny the “freedom of choice” for people who cannot afford to pay for, or have no access to contraceptives and reproductive health care -- whether for medical or birth control purposes. Is “freedom of choice” just a luxury meant only for those who can afford it?

 

On a spiritual and religious level, it is important to point out that the RH Bill does NOT force people to use artificial contraceptives. There is nothing in the bill that requires Catholics to go against the Catholics  Church's position against the use of any birth control pills, morning-after pill, condoms,  IUD, sterilization, withdrawal method, etc. Each Catholic CAN still choose abstinence or the calendar method, or no birth control method at all -- depending on the dictates of his/her conscience. 

 

Moreover, as Senator Pia Cayetano argued, not all Filipinos are Catholic. Doesn't making a public policy based on Catholic dogma alone, deny the rights and welfare of other Filipinos of different faith.

 

Doesn't “freedom of choice” also require that everybody -- rich or poor, Catholic or not, in urban and rural areas --be given all the tools they they need to make an informed decision in their own reproductive health issues and responsible parenthood, guided by their own moral or spiritual compass? This is what the RH Bill hopes to achieve.

 

It is  ironic that the blogger that Senator Sotto was reported to have plagiarized in his Senate speech, reacted and stated her position, in favor of freedom of choice for Filipino women,  when it came to matters of reproductive health.

 

Sarah Pope wrote:

“Women of the Philippines: I am terribly sorry my blog was used and twisted against you.  You deserve the choice to use The Pill if you want or need to based on your personal circumstances. While I want you to know that this choice has health consequences as does the decision to use any pharmaceutical drug, I in no way, would ever condone taking this choice away from you...”

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J. on the misconceptions about the RH Bill