Catholicity rankings of Philippine senatorial candidates and political parties using Catholic Vote data

 

 Catholic index of senatorial candidates based on updated Catholic Vote data published 12 May 2013

Catholic index of senatorial candidates based on updated Catholic Vote data published 12 May 2013

UPDATE 12 May 2013

These are the Catholicity rankings of senatorial candidates based on the updated Catholic Vote data published last May 12, 2013.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/482644_171759259651048_911604752_n.jpg

The parameters of interest are “Reproductive Health Law”, “Divorce”, and “Same-Sex Marriage”. For each “No” answer, I replace it by +1; for each “Yes” answer I replace it by -1. The sum of the scores is the Catholic Index with +3 as Catholic (agrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church) and -3 as anti-Catholic. I arranged the groups into Team Buhay (+3 Catholic Index), Team Agaw-Buhay (+1 or +2 Catholic Index), and Team Patay (0, -1, -2, and -3 Catholic Index). Please share the table. Thank you very much. Each vote counts. Let us show them that Catholic Vote exists.

Let us vote only those with +3 Catholic Index and forget about the rest. Be sure to include in your list the four senatorial candidates and the party-list supported by Filipinos for Life:

For senators: #9 David, #10 de los Reyes, #20 Llasos, and #23 Magsaysay (Mitos)
For Party-List: #42 Ang Pro-Life.

 

ARCHIVE 24 May 2013

by Quirino Sugon Jr. [1,2]

Abstract

In this paper, I propose a simple ranking system for Philippine senatorial candidates based on the candidates’ opposition to the Reproductive Health Law, divorce, and same-sex marriage, as compiled by Catholic Vote Philippines. In this system, we replace the thumbs up icon by +1 and the thumbs down icon by -1, then add all the ratings for each candidate get a scale from -3 to +3 at intervals of 1 unit, with -3 as anti-Catholic and +3 as Catholic. We refer to this scale as the Catholicity scale. We then group candidates according to political parties and compute the average party stand on the issues. We add the average party stand to the candidate’s stand to arrive at the party-influenced stand of the candidate. Finally, we compute the Catholicity of the party-influenced stand of the candidate and rank the senatorial candidates accordingly.

Read the full paper:

Catholicity rankings of Philippine senatorial candidates and political parties using Catholic Vote data

(DISCLAIMER: The opinions, equations, and senatorial candidate rankings published by the author in this paper may not reflect the opinions of Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila University, and the Catholic Vote Philippines.)

[1] Upper Atmosphere Dynamics Program, Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila University Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

[2] Department of Physics, School of Science and Engineering, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

Date Published: 25 April 2013, Feast of St. Mark the Evangelist

Catholicity rankings of the stands of senatorial candidates added to the stands of the (average) party persona for the three issues: anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity rankings of the stands of senatorial candidates added to the stands of the (average) party persona for the three issues: anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the stands of each senatorial candidate on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the stands of each senatorial candidate on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the total stands of the candidates of each political party regarding anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of the total stands of the candidates of each political party regarding anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of stands of the average candidate of political parties on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Catholicity ranking of stands of the average candidate of political parties on anti RH law, anti-divorce, and anti same-sex marriage.

Advertisements

Feast of Holy Innocents: Pharoah, Herod, Kissinger, Obama, and PNoy

“Massacre of the Holy Innocents,” Codex Egberti, Fol 15v, Szene: Bethlehemitischer Kindermord, 10th c.

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents.  In this feast we remember the many children who were killed not only by Herod during the time of Christ, but also the many babies born and unborn who were slaughtered through the birth control policies of Pharoah, Kissinger, and Obama.  Now, with the passage of the RH Bill into a law which promotes contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterine walls, we can also put Pres. Noynoy Aquino on the list of the birth control autocrats of history.

1.  Herod at the Birth of Christ

In this feast we remember the children ages 2 and down who were slaughtered by Herod for fear of a new born king of the Jews who will overthrow Herod’s power:

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, 2 behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,2saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star 3 at its rising and have come to do him homage.”3When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.4Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 45They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:6’And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel.'”7Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearance.8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage.”…

When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”14Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.158 He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”16When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Mt 2:1-16)

2.  Pharoah at the Birth of Moses

In this Feast we also remember the Israelite babies who were killed by Pharoah for fear of the growing number of Israelites in Egypt.  Pharaoah tried several approaches to birth control for the Israelites: (1) forced labor and slavery, (2) killing of male babies born by midwives, and (3) throwing of male babies into the Nile River.  Below is a detailed account:

Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph,* rose to power in Egypt.9He said to his people, “See! The Israelite people have multiplied and become more numerous than we are!10Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase;* otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave the land.”

11Accordingly, they set supervisors over the Israelites to oppress them with forced labor.d Thus they had to build for Pharaoh* the garrison cities of Pithom and Raamses.12Yet the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians began to loathe the Israelites.13So the Egyptians reduced the Israelites to cruel slavery,14making life bitter for them with hard labor, at mortar* and brick and all kinds of field work—cruelly oppressed in all their labor.

15The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah,16“When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool:* if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.”17The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live.18So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this, allowing the boys to live?”19The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.”20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous.21And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them.

22Pharaoh then commanded all his people, “Throw into the Nile every boy that is born,e but you may let all the girls live.” (Ex 1:8-22)

3.  Kissinger and the NSSM 200

NSSM 200 is the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200).  It was written in 1974 under the leadership of Henry Kissinger.  This report is the basis of the policies of many US Presidents from Ford to Obama.  Below are the salient provisions as summarized in Wikipedia:

“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

“Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

“Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,’ ‘imperialists,’ multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles” [Chapter V, “Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

“We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.” [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends]

“In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

Pres. Noynoy Aquino and Pres. Barack Obama

Pres. Noynoy Aquino and Pres. Barack Obama meeting in New York in 2011

4.  Obama and Planned Parenthood

Here is a short story about the long love affair of Obama and the world’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood.  The excerpt below is from Life News:

  1. President Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times, horrifyingly voting against protecting babies who survived abortion and voting in favor of leaving them to die. A vote against this legislation was a vote for infanticide. [Source]
  2. On his third day in office, President Obama repealed the pro-life “Mexico City Policy.” By doing this, President Obama made groups that perform and promote abortion eligible for U.S. foreign aid funds. [Source]
  3. Planned Parenthood’s funding jumped from 33% to nearly 50% – over $487 million in taxpayer funding now goes to the abortion giant (under Obama and his administration). This is almost half a billion dollars that American families are forced to pay in tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. [Source]
  4. President Obama refused to sign an emergency budget, putting funding the military at risk, until Planned Parenthood funding was included in the budget. This was following Live Action’s Sex Trafficking investigation, showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting the sex-traffickers of underage girls. [Source]
  5. The president has pushed for his “pet legislation,” The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which would help fund “community health centers” (Planned Parenthood is their prime target). Additionally, the HHS mandate would force all Americans to fund abortion and contraception, with no exceptions for religious institutions or religious individuals who are vehemently against abortion and contraception. [Source]

5.  Pres. Noynoy Aquino and the RH Bill (Law?)

In his 2012 State of the Nation Address, Pres. Aquino said:

I have great faith in Secretary Luistro: Before the next year ends, we will have built the 66,800 classrooms needed to fill up the shortage we inherited—of this, we expect 40,000 for this year.  The 2,573,212 backlog in chairs that we were bequeathed will be addressed before 2012 ends. This year, too, will see the eradication of the backlog of 61.7 million textbooks—and we will finally achieve the one-to-one ratio of books to students.

We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase. Perhaps Responsible Parenthood can help address this.

The cat is out of the bag: for PNoy, the reason why there is a backlog of classrooms is because of rise in student population.  PNoy’s solution is simple: responsible parenthood to decrease the number of babies born.  In other words, birth control.  That was in July 2012.  In December 2012, he pushed the ratification of the RH Bill which would teach sex education from Grade 5 to High School.  The bill would also make condoms and other contraceptives more accessible through subsidies from the National Government at taxpayer’s expense.

Who is behind this?  PNoy is just a puppet: though he takes the main credit as the actor, the one behind the scenes are writing the script.  And that script is the NSSM 200 state policy:

 “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.”

There are many ways for the US to coerce a Least Developed Country (LDC) like the Philippines to accepting family planning programs.  One way is by tying the program’s implementation to increase in financial aid and investments.  The other way is to use abortion providers(Likhaan and Planned Parenthood) and contraceptive manufacturers (pharmaceutical firms) to lobby for the passage of national family planning programs such as the RH Bill.  Many senators and congressmen made it appear that they were bought to the idea of birth control through the RH Bill, but in the process they sold themselves and their country for 30 pieces of silver.  Actually, they cannot anymore withstand the pressure from US and PNoy who are hell-bent in getting the RH Bill approved.  A lunch with PNoy made many congressmen change their votes to YES to RH Bill.  The threat of expulsion from the Liberal Party, with the 2013 elections as backdrop, silenced even the Bill’s strongest critics.  And there is a pork barrel awaiting the executive’s butcher knife.

PNoy sent the RH Bill as a battering ram against the gates of Congress and Senate and the walls of the two institutions collapsed.  PNoy now holds the Judiciary on his left hand, and the Congress and  Senate on his right hand.  There is now a new form of Philippine government: the PNoy autocracy.  Render unto PNoy what PNoy wants.  Or else.

With a government like this, more birth control programs are on their way to keep the population in check, to lessen dissent against the autocracy: Divorce, Euthanasia, and Homosexuality.  All these are related to the RH Bill:

  • Divorce.  If contraceptives become more available and the youth are taught how to use them through sex education, then there is no more reason to get married, because the youth can get the pleasure of the marriage bed without tying marriage knot.  And the husbands and wives who are married would see no more reason for marriage if their neighbor’s  wife and husband is prettier or sexier.  Then people clamor for the approval of the Divorce Law.
  • Homosexuality.  And why would restrict the pleasures of the marriage bed to heterosexual couples.  If they use contraceptives, their sexual intercourse remains sterile.  This does not differ from the homosexual intercourse which is also sterile.  Then the people would clamor for the approval of Anti-Discrimination Laws to make Homosexuals have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples.  In all these, no children are born or if there are, they are too few to mention–products of accidents of contraceptive failures–and most of them are out of wedlock.  The Philippine population plummets.
  • Euthanasia.  Without children, there is no one to take care of the old.  The old becomes a liability to the government: senior citizens get pensions and medical care without doing work.  So if  the government can think that the solution to classroom shortage is by planned parenthood, then there will be similar response to the problem of the aged: kill them off through euthanasia or make them continue to work past retirement age until they die.  By the sweat of their brow the aged must eat.

Why is it that Catholic priests are celibate when other apostles have wives?

QUESTION by defenderben:
Submitted on 2012/03/12 at 5:01 pm

7. Bishops must be Married.

FACT: In 1079 AD celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Before this time, they were permitted to marry.

Question #1: Does the Bible teach that a bishop (overseer) must be married AND ALSO have children as one of the conditions of being qualified to be a bishop?

Answer: 1 Timothy 3:2-5 o YES NO o

“A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” 1 Timothy 3:2-5

Question #2: In the very next chapter of the Bible after bishops are told they must be married with children, does the Holy Spirit warn that “forbidding to marry” is a “doctrine of demons”?

Answer: 1 Timothy 4:1-3 o YES NO o

“But the Holy Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 4:1-3

8. Peter was married

FACT: Most Catholics believe that Apostle Peter was the first Pope and was not married. As one Roman Catholic leader said, “if Peter had a wife when he first met Jesus, he got rid of her quick!”

Question #1: Did Peter have a wife?

Answer: Mark 1:30 o YES NO o

“Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.” Mark 1:30

Question #2: Did Paul say all the apostles including Peter had a right to be married?

Answer: 1 Corinthians 9:5 o YES NO o

“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” 1 Corinthians 9:5

REPLY

Submitted on 2012/04/06 at 10:29 pm | In reply to [defenderben].

defenderben,

The ideal bishop is to be like Christ who never got married: “They have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Mt 19:12). The first apostles like Peter are married; they were called by Christ after they were married not before. But notice that Peter said that “they have given up everything and followed [Christ]” (Mt 19:27). You can deduce that he also left his wife, so that he can become a spiritual father of many. As Christ said, “And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.” (Mt 19:29)

Celibacy or not marrying for the sake of the Kingdom of God is a new idea in the time of the Apostles. Thus, during their time it is difficult to find bishops who are unmarried. So the next good thing is to choose a bishop from the married, but he must be married but once. Nevertheless, the idea of an unmarried bishop is still being proposed as an ideal to follow. And it would take centuries before this ideal became a firm discipline in the Catholic Church.

Paul has a right to take a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles (cf 1 Cor 9:5). But after enumerating his other rights as an apostle, he said: “But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision” (1 Cor 9:15). Thus, we can deduce that Paul did not marry.

Catholic answers to common questions by members of Iglesia ni Cristo

March 11, 2012 at 12:50 am

1. Why do Catholics eat blood?

Christ said: “Hear and understand.11 It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one….Are even you still without understanding?17Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?18h But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.19* For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.” (Mt 15:16-19)

2. Why do Catholics honor divorce?

There is no divorce in the Catholic Church. Annulment in the Catholic Church is not divorce. Divorce is the breaking of a valid marriage. Annulment is a declaration that no marriage happened in the first place because of an impediment to marriage, e.g. the man is a priest, there was previous marriage, etc.

3. How do Catholics expel members?

Membership in the Catholic Church is through Baptism. Expulsion in the Catholic Church is by excommunication, e.g. the man is forbidden to receive Holy Communion. The person is excommunicated until he repents of his sins and confesses them to a priest or bishop. Many theologians are excommunicated for not teaching the Catholic teaching, e.g. those who deny the divinity of Christ or the Trinity. Those who committed the grave sin of abortion also incur automatic excommunication and only a bishop or his specially designated representative can forgive this sin in confession.

4. Why do you call priests father?

If the verse you quoted should interpreted in the most literal way, then Paul is the worst interpreter of the words of Christ:

“14I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.* 15Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.g 16Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.h 17For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ [Jesus], just as I teach them everywhere in every church.i” (1 Cor 4:14-17)

5. Why do you pray in repetitions?

If you love a person, you tell him “I love you, I love you, I love you.” Once is never enough. As St. Paul said, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thes 5:17). The rosary is made up of prayers “Our Father” and “Hail Mary”. Jesus taught his disciples how to pray the “Our Father”. Can you make a better prayer than what Jesus made? The Angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). Can you write a better way to address Mary than Angel Gabriel? When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,s 42cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1:41). Can you praise Mary more than Elizabeth who was filled with the Holy Spirit? The words of Angel Gabriel and St. Elizabeth are what Catholics repeat when they pray the “Hail Mary”. If you call these prayers pagan, then Jesus, Angel Gabriel, and St. Elizabeth are pagans.

Jesus, not Muhammad, is the Prophet like Moses prophesied in the Bible

QUESTION:
by Ben Langcuyan Jr.  Submitted on 2011/07/17 at 5:42 pm

pls make a post about the ‘prophet’ mention in John 1:19-21.

I know its out of the main topic of this thread/post, but please do. please.

catch me at: http://1ltmatya-muhammadinthebible.blogspot.com/

pls comment there

RESPONSE:

Dr. Jamal Badawi has written a piece entitled, Muhammad in the Bible.  He claimed the Prophet mentioned in Deut 18 was Muhammad. Let us look at the verse:

2 “A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own kinsmen; to him you shall listen.16 This is exactly what you requested of the LORD, your God, at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let us not again hear the voice of the LORD, our God, nor see this great fire any more, lest we die.’17
And the LORD said to me, ‘This was well said.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him.19 If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. 20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.’ (Deut 18:15-20)

But the Christian Bible does not mention Muhammad.  The Prophet is Christ, for Christ said:

I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.44How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?45Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope.46For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:43-47)

Moses is gave the law from God to the Israelites.  The prophet like Moses should also be an Israelite.  Jesus, unlike Muhammad, is an Israelite.  Muhammad did not come to perfect the law of Moses.  Jesus came to perfect the law of Moses.  And this is seen in many examples:

  1. Greatest commandment.  “Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?”37He said to him, 22 “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.38This is the greatest and the first commandment.39The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.4024 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Mt 22:36-40)
  2. Law against divorce. Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”45 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”76 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”8He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.9I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:3-9)
  3. Law against adultery. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’28But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mt. 5:27-28)
  4. Law against murder.  “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’2217 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. (Mt 5:21-22)
Through Moses, God fed the Israelites with Manna, the Bread from Heaven.  But Christ is the true Bread from Heaven, because He is the Son of God who came from the Father:
  1. Feeding of the Multitudes. One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him,9″There is a boy here who has five barley loaves 6 and two fish; but what good are these for so many?”10Jesus said, “Have the people recline.” Now there was a great deal of grass 7 in that place. So the men reclined, about five thousand in number.11Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted.12When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, “Gather the fragments left over, so that nothing will be wasted.”13So they collected them, and filled twelve wicker baskets 8 with fragments from the five barley loaves that had been more than they could eat.14When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, “This is truly the Prophet9 the one who is to come into the world.” (Jn 6:8-14).
  2. Jesus is the true Bread from Heaven.  I am the bread of life.49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.54Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (Jn 6:48-58)
Through Moses, God made the Old Covenant with the people of Israel.
 Moses went up the mountain to God. Then the LORD called to him and said, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob;4tell the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself.5Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine.61 You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites.” (Ex 19:3-6)
Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man, made a New Covenant between God and man.  Instead of the ritual sacrifice of animals in the Old Covenant for the forgiveness of sins, Christ perfected it with the sacrifice of His own life for the forgiveness of sins–the same sacrifice continued throughout all Catholic Churches around the world in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
  1. Institution of the New Covenant.  While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”27Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,28for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.2917 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” (Mt 26:26-29)
  2. Jesus as the High Priest of the New Covenant.  When every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves (and goats), together with water and crimson wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,20saying, “This is ‘the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you.'”21In the same way, he sprinkled also the tabernacle 16 and all the vessels of worship with blood.2217 According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.2318 Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these.24For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf.25Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own;26if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages 19 to take away sin by his sacrifice.27Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,28so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, 20 will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him. (Hebrews 9:19-28)

Annulment, Divorce, and Legal Separation in the Catholic Church

Question 1:

Posted by seeker on May 27, 2011 at 9:55 pm

There is distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church? Both means separation and God is against that. Annulment is usually for the rich and celebrities. It comes with a fee. If you’re poor, it’s simply called “separation” or divorce in legal terminology. Please don’t twist the argument.

Response 1:

Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on May 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm

Seeker,

Yes, there is a distinction between divorce, annulment, and legal separation in the the Catholic Church, which is also reflected in the Philippine laws on marriage. Check out the Philippine Legal e-Forum. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Roman Catholic Church

By the ninth or tenth century, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church,[3] which considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action.[4]

Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited in Western Europe after the tenth century, separation of husband and wife and the annulment of marriage were well-known. What is today referred to as “separate maintenance” (or “legal separation”) was termed “divorce a mensa et thoro” (“divorce from bed-and-board”). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or cohabit together; but their marital relationship did not fully terminate.[5] Civil courts had no power over marriage or divorce.

Canon law makes no provision for divorce, but a declaration of nullity may be granted when proof is produced that essential conditions for contracting a valid marriage were absent— in other words, that the sacrament did not take place due to some impediment. The grounds for annulment are determined by Church authority and applied in ecclesiastical courts. Annulment was known as “divorce a vinculo matrimonii,” or “divorce from all the bonds of marriage,” for canonical causes of impediment existing at the time of the marriage. “For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio.”[6][7][8] The Church holds that the sacrament of marriage produces one person from two, inseparable from each other: “By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.”[9] Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, that oneness can only be seen as null if the parties improperly entered into the marriage initially, in which the marriage does not validly exist.

Question 2:

Posted by seeker on May 28, 2011 at 10:15 pm  edit

My point was annulment is just another term for divorce. Actually, no distinction. It’s in the Philippine Law but the framers of this law did not disclose that annulment was meant for the rich and powerful who could pay the fees and afford court procedure. And of course the Catholic Church benefits from it financially.

Response 2:

Posted by Quirino M. Sugon Jr on May 28, 2011 at 11:51 pm

Seeker,

Too bad you can’t distinguish between annulment and divorce. I’ll give an analogy. Represent a man by a white candle and a woman by a red candle. If the two candles are tied to each other, then there are still two candles. On the other hand, if both candles are melted together to form one new pink candle, then there is no way to separate the white and red candles. Annulment is simply the declaration that the two candles tied by a string do not form one candle, so the cord tying them may be cut. The white and red candles are free to be melted (married) to other candles. Legal separation, on the other hand, is the cutting the pink candle, the inseparable union of the white and red candles, into half. Each half remains married (melted together) in the eyes of God, even if they are separated. Divorce is an impossible task: how can you separate the red and white candles in a pink candle? For this reason what God has joined together in marriage, no human being must separate.

Question 3:
Submitted on 2011/05/29 at 9:48 am

The analogy is similar to Trinity. You put three burning sticks together and you get one fire. Is that what you’re trying to say? God hates divorce. Divorce is separation between husband and wife. Annulment is separation. Is it hard to understand?

Response 3:

Submitted on 2011/05/29 at 11:30 am | In reply to seeker.

Seeker,

Combining sticks to form one fire is not the same as melting two candles to form one candle stick. I cannot help you anymore here, if you cannot understand analogies. For you all separations are called divorce and God hates divorce. But you need to distinguish between physical and spiritual separations/unions:

1. If the husband is in the Philippines and the wife is in the US, they are separated by bodies of water, and they cannot see each other. Are the two divorced? (answer: Physically separated but spiritually united in marriage)

2. If two unmarried couples are having sexual intercourse, are they already married by being physically united to each other? (answer: Physically united but spiritually separated because they are not married)

3. When Christ said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Mk 10:7-8) (answer: Spiritually united in marriage, they may be physically united during honeymoon, they may be physically separated by living in two different houses, and they cannot marry again, unless one of them dies.)

4. If a man, who was validly married before and his wife is still alive, marries another woman, is the new marriage valid? (answer: the new marriage is invalid ab initio, that is “from the very beginning”, because a validly married man whose wife is still alive cannot contract a new marriage. If the ecclesiastical court finds this out, then the court shall declare that the new marriage is null from the very beginning, i.e. the new marriage is annulled.)

Reply to Daily Tribune’s Frontline: RH Bill, divorce, and separation of Church and State

Below is my reply to the author of the Daily Tribune’s Frontline artile entitled “No Church Issue” published 05/27/2011.

Reply:

You cannot take religion and God out of the RH Bill because religion and God are not present in the RH Bill. In the place of God, you have in the RH bill the idols named “overpopulation”, “safe sex”, “reproductive health”, and “pro-choice”. Ancient Filipinos have fertility rituals–they pray for rain, abundant harvest, and many children. The RH bill, on the other hand, have infertility rituals: condoms, pills, and ligation–and abortion, if all these fail.

Separation of church and state means that churches have no business interfering with state matters, such as how and where to build roads, bridges, and buildings. At the same time, the state has no business interfering with morality which is the domain of the Church. The RH bill is in the domain of morality because it concerns human life and eternal salvation, so the Church has to intervene. As Christ said: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt 22:21)

Italy is distinct from the and the Vatican City State where the Pope resides. So the government affairs of Italy is not the business of the Pope. But regarding condoms and pills, Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Art. 14) wrote: “it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” This encyclical is not only for Italy (whose Northern parts were known as the Papal States for more than a thousand years) but for the whole Catholics worldwide, including the Philippines.

There is a distinction between annulment and divorce in the Catholic Church. Divorce is the breaking up of a valid marriage. This is not possible, because Christ said:

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:4-10)

King Henry VIII of England asked the pope to allow him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused, so King Henry broke from the Catholic Church and declared himself the Head of the Anglican Church. By the way, many Anglican bishops and entire parishes are now converting to the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, annulment in the Catholic Church means that there was no marriage in the first place, so the man and the woman whose marriage was annulled are free to marry.

I am glad that the author recognizes that some contraceptives are abortifacients. Concerning contraception, as I said before, the state has no authority to define what is morally good or not, only the Church does. The Catholic Faith has united the warring tribes of the Philippines into a single nation. So for the sake of the common good and the Filipino religious tradition, the Philippine State should recognize the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in matters of morality. If the state cannot promote good morals, it is better that it desist from promoting bad morals by not passing the RH Bill into a state law.

If the author cannot see that the world has become more promiscuous, she may like to watch a Hollywood films and TV 60 years ago and compare it with the Hollywood films and TV now. She may like to count the average number of times that the following words are mentioned: sex and fuck. She may like to classify the films according to the number of scenes nudity in various levels is shown. This would be a good research paper, and the author would be surprised at her results: “The world indeed has become more promiscuous!”

What the pope is saying regarding condoms is that in conscience darkened by sin, the use of condoms to protect the partner from sexual disease can be a sign of the slow awakening of the moral sense. Here is the quote in full:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.