After Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago addressed the prosecution panel with her now infamous “gago” speech last week, the onion skins started flying. A few days after, Fr. Arevalo, spiritual adviser to the Aquinos, came out with a statement saying that by calling Aguirre a fool, through the use of gago, Senator Santiago is worthy of the fires of hell. He even had the bible quote to back it up:
Matthew 5:20: “But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment. And if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council. And if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the fires of hell.”
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
However, Senator Santiago, true to her form in not backing down from a fight, replied immediately. Unfortunately for Fr. Arevalo, Miriam has a master’s degree in Theology. Whereas most people would simply shut up and stand down after being admonished by a priest, Senator Santiago did not.
Selected quotes:
“Under the second Vatican Council, there is no hell; but even if there is, there is nobody there.”
“I can engage in a public debate with the priest, and we can exchange quotation for quotation from the Bible. But that would be foolish, because the Bible can be interpreted in as many ways as there are Christian churches,”
“The priest is saying that he is close to God, and I’m not. I say to the priest, judge not, that you shall not be judged.”
“A priest cannot violate the law in the guise of criticizing a senator-judge with the ulterior motive of promoting his own political agenda.”
Simply put, Miriam Santiago put Fr. Arevalo in his place.
This series of events raises a few questions:
1) Did Fr. Arevalo make his pronouncement because he was personally offended by the use of “gago”?
2) Was Fr. Arevalo, being the spiritual adviser to the Aquinos, acting out of that role to rise to the occasion as another defender of the “daang matuwid” and the yellow horde?
3) What was Fr. Arevalo thinking, by trying to start a war of words, with Senator Santiago, of all people?
This kind of event shows that the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippines is an institution still struggling with a lack of relevance and substance in today’s society. It also shows the characteristic of a typical Filipino, ever so predictable: the epal. Many Filipinos think that they are entitled to get in their two cents worth, no matter how uncalled for and idiotic it is. Kagaguhan, ika nga.
Article 2, Section XI VI, of the Constitution states that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”. What this means, is that government is not to interfere with religious affairs, and vice versa. Naturally, this definition will always conflict with the archaic view of the church that it alone is the absolute authority on morality.
However, this is the Philippines, where rules are merely suggestions. This is also the place where church dogma still dominates all aspects of everyday life, even if it shouldn’t. This is the place where the people simply lap up what the priests shove down their throats, and don’t even bother to think how it is applicable or useful to them or not, or whether it actually is. In the vernacular, sa Pilipinas, nagpapagago ang taumbayan sa mga gagong pari na yan.
The Philippines is stuck between a rock and a hot place. Yes, you read that right; a rock and a hot place. I intentionally modified the idiom. We are stuck under a rock; we have not seen any significant forward stride in our country’s development for 26 years (and counting!). We are in a hot place because, simply put, the Philippines is like hell, both literally and figuratively.
Who was it who said “I would rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans.”? Ahh, Manuel L. Quezon, a former President. Had he been alive today he would be seeing exactly what a Philippines run like hell is.
If Arevalo was acting in reflex to defend a perceived wrong to his master’s son, I mean spiritual advisee’s son, then he’s just another attack dog, all bark and no bite like the others. If he wants to stick his nose into government and political affairs I think it would have been better if he had told PNoy to get up and start working instead.
If PNoy doesn’t want to see hell on earth, then he definitely should start doing his job better now. Perhaps PNoy should stop saying that “God is on his side”. When the Christian God said “Go forth and multiply”, PNoy must have thought it applied to not only his women, but his money, and his incompetence as well. I will not be surprised if he prays for his critics, and his allegedly coup-plotting enemies, this way: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing”. The way he’s running the country to the ground, sooner or later he could be reciting: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Apparently he is ignoring the prayer he needs to recite and live by the most: “Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
It seems that when God rained brains on the world, PNoy held up an umbrella. But then again, he’s supposed to represent an average Juan like you and me, right?
А вы, друзья, как ни садитесь, все в музыканты не годитесь. – But you, my friends, however you sit, not all as musicians fit.
A well written post without mocking the Church as a whole.
I also don’t agree with Father Arevalo.
Trosp,
The article below states something I agree with: any member of the Church clearly has to draw the line between giving political opinion, and constantly meddling and passing judgment on political affairs and personas:
http://kuro-kuro.org/archives/6068
I’m waiting for someone to misinterpret this as an attack on Filipino Catholics. I originally wanted to mock the Church more but I thought I’d need a master’s degree in Theology for that. Plus, it’s ultimately an exercise in futility.
You want to mock the Church more, well, go ahead. I’m just wondering why you have to share me your thought of what you could have done – mocking the Church more. Well, if I were you, I would just do it.
I’ll be always around to share my thought also what I can as a Catholic.
BTW, benign0 and I have a some exchanges of pleasantries about Church matter in this blog.
actually, the separation between Church and State is one way. Only the State cannot interfere. Check the cases of Aglipay v. Ruiz and Estrada v. Escritor for the SC’s stand on this wall between Church and State.
Cheers. 🙂
Correction on Article 2, Section XI. it should be Article 2 section 6 or VI.
oops. I really had 6 in my mind, but I am lost as to an explanation of why I put XI.
Thanks
i could not help but give a comment because i totally agree with the writer. but i must make it clear that, though a catholic, i do not subscribe to everything that a priest or even the pope says. i don’t even care if the vatican gets bombed by a nuke because frankly, the catholic faith does not have the same doctrines as the ones that the Christ taught His apostles. but that’s another topic so i won’t put too much emphasis on that. that arevalo fellow is trying to become controversial. perhaps he wants to be known by the public. i abhor that he is such a hypocrite. he doesn’t want people saying the word “gago”, when his boy the president has been like a mad-dog attacking everyone blocking his way.. its a shame that for centuries, even after knowing that even our national hero was a victim of the catholic church, we still listen to these people.. really now, what good have they done for this country?? aside from cardinal sin’s role in the edsa uprising, what else have they done?? and don’t start me with edsa dos because after what the country has experienced with arroyo, i think edsa dos was a big, big mistake.. that priest arevalo should be wary of his words because not everyone believes that he is from God or was a part of the church that Christ instituted.. Jesus Christ was killed by the romans, so how can rome be the place where Jesus’ church be built?? with that said, stop believing these hypocritical priests.. they are the direct descendants of the pharisees and the saducees from Jesus’ time… they notice the specks from other peoples eyes, but they don’t see theirs..
Just want to clarify some thoughts, I don’t want to start a debate here and in fact I’m a fan of getrealpost and anti-pinoy sites so I’m not a Yellow zombie as you call it here.
But it’s kind disturb me that you claim you are a Catholic yet you don’t know what Catholic is? In your comment you end up attacking the Catholic Church not the person. Is this another Anti-Catholic propaganda? I hope not, you fit the description of Peter Kreeft when he used the term “I-do-it-myself-Catholic†in his talk.
Now here is my point-of-view on what you write on your comment.
1. “the catholic faith does not have the same doctrines as the ones that the Christ taught His apostles.â€
asn. Then maybe you are better person who could enlighten us with what is the doctrine taught by Christ 2000 years ago? But I warn you to never quote a Bible verse to describe you view. Because the Bible was never present during Christ, until the Early Catholic Bishop decided to compile and venerate them.
2. “Jesus Christ was killed by the romans, so how can rome be the place where Jesus’ church be built??â€
ans. OMG! A Catholic who don’t know the History of his Church. First, Catholic don’t claim that rome is the place where Jesus build his church because from the word Catholic means universal, it’s everywhere. Second, Rome is where Peter evangelized the gospel and the vatican hill was the place peter was Crucified up-side down by Romans. The very same place where the Vatican City was built.
Vatican became the center of Roman Catholic for the following reason
-Rome is the place Peter spend most of his remaining time doing public ministry, meaning Peter is the Bishop of Rome.
-It is Peter whom Jesus gave the authority of His Church. “you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Churchâ€.
-The martyrdom of Peter was marked at Vatican Hill. He was crucified by Romans up-side down.
3. I want you to know that Fr. Arevalo does not represent the whole Catholic Church here in Philippines.
Only the council of Bishop can decide what is the stand of church in a particular issue. in our case the CBCP.
4. It does not mean that if you have a Masteral or a Doctorate in Theology it made you a better Theologian or a better Catholic. AB theology is not a prerequisite to Sainthood.
I remember, Senator Mariam attack Catholic with her so called theological knowledge during the RH bill debate, I found out some of her data is inaccurate and until now I don’t know where in the earth she get her data.
you grammar is even worse than your knowledge of history. pity.
You started your piece by saying that you don’t want to get into a heated debate with anyone, but I think that is exactly what you’re asking for.
1. Then maybe you are better person who could enlighten us with what is the doctrine taught by Christ 2000 years ago?
—> Typical attitude of a defensive Catholic apologist. If you challenged Vinocchio never to quote a Bible verse, does that render every priest on Earth a phony and a liar as well? And because you stated that the “early bishops” decided to compile and venerate biblical teachings, do we see fabrication and massive brainwashing in history, since “the Bible was never present during Christ”?
2. OMG! A Catholic who don’t know the History of his Church.
—> And I suppose you do? Good thing you mentioned Peter and how he was crucified upside down, but you forgot one thing: EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.
Peter was no more than a dry Jew who traveled all the way to Rome to spread Jesus’ teachings, when the Roman Empire was expanding its grip on the Mediterranean. This was a few years after Jesus went to heaven to join his bearded skydaddy, and nobody gave a shit. It was only after more than 300 years that on October 312 AD, Emperor Constantine won a decisive battle against Maxentius on the Milvian Bridge… The night before the battle, Constantine supposedly saw a sign of a cross in the sky, the very same cross that Roman soldiers used to crucify dissidents, one of which was the leader of a small religious sect, Jesus. He took it as an omen of victory, and yes, he won. The rest is history, and so Rome decreed that Christianity should be the official religion of the empire. But there were a lot of Christian sects at that time, but guess what, the emperor chose the Catholic sect since it followed the order of the Roman army: bishops, deacons, cardinals, etc…
Peter’s evangelical career was dwarfed by the political ambitions of an emperor. So ther you have it. Catholicism is like politics.
3.Only the council of Bishop can decide what is the stand of church in a particular issue. in our case the CBCP.
—> Hopefully, on matters of national interest and the well-being of the Filipino people, your beloved bishops will refrain from dipping their fingers in politics. As if all the Mitsubishops and child-fuckers in their organization are not enough to keep them busy…
4. AB theology is not a prerequisite to Sainthood.
—> Exactly. Which is why less and less people enter the seminary for Sainthood 101, or for any religious studies in general, that render you worthless in today’s technologically-driven society.
//I remember, Senator Mariam attack Catholic with her so called theological knowledge during the RH bill debate, I found out some of her data is inaccurate and until now I don’t know where in the earth she get her data.//
—> By your standards, maybe her data was inaccurate, but a senator of her calibre would hardly open her mouth if she knew her sources were unreliable or outdated. But I’ll give you track of who’s lying to the Filipino people. Click here and find out for yourself:
a.)The ANTI-RH BILL CAMP have been spreading lies, deceptions and silly arguments to promote their selfish beliefs. So we have collected all their arguments and answered them one by one.
Link
b.) Anti-RH Facebook Page Lies About Their Lying
Link
ENJOY…….
Let us not generalize. Fr. Arevalo is not the whole catholic church. He is not the typical Filipino priest. There will always be rotten apples in any church. It so happens he made the wrong choice of depending someone who is an enemy of the church. Of course we hate him for his idiotic comments about Miriam. And yes, he was probably hiding somewhere when God rained down brains. Maybe he was with Lacierda, Valte, et al.
I don’t know but I think Miriam Santiago should engage helself to an adversary more deserving of her calibre. She is just wasting her time with that priest.
I think Anabel Rama tops the list.
I wonder if there ever will be anyone who can match wits with her presently
TYPO ERROR ALERT:
It’s “Section 2, Article VI”, I mistakenly put “Section 2, Article XI”. My ring finger came down first. 😛
Sorry for any confusion caused.
Very well said. I rather think all should do a better job at THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES, rather than castigate others for falling short. I don’t see perfection yet in the Church, or with Senator Santiago, or the President.
…and doing their own responsibilities requires that people think properly. Absorb what is useful, and discard the remainder.
Perfection in the Church is an ideal that will stay that way, at best.
Senator Santiago has her quirks, but we need more people like her who are not afraid to point out what others are doing wrong, and not shrink when faced with the damnation card.
The President? I’ll let you finish that one, Joe.
Joe, I do appreciate your opinions. We may not agree all the time, but you seem more rational than most others.
Thanks. I like your writings. Seem more balanced than most.
Be careful with people who flatter you, FallenAngel. Some of them have hidden agenda.
Don’t be fooled by Joe in particular. He is a PNoy supporter all the way. He has written so many articles defending him. He can’t deny it.
I don’t deny supporting the president of my adopted country. I am not a fair weather patriot.
Anti-liars, see this dude is not lying as you have claimed.
He’s just playing it both ends. In other words, playing it smart.
Penoyista is not de regueur anymore.
Trosp, did you ever consider that I am being honest, and it is YOU who have issues?
And why do you always clarify for others what JoeAm represents, as if you were some troll like morality monitor who believes others can’t think for themselves?
Hi Joe, it’s either you eat everything they put on their small table or you just shut up.
At least you know what stupid looks like….bespectacled and brazen.
American boy, this time you have lied. Calling yourself honest?
Pwe!
Have I made any claim I’m speaking for any individual here?
Check your reading comprehension American boy.
guys, Guys, GUYS. Go easy on Joe. If he wants to see President Aquino through tinted glasses that is his freedom to do so. We just need to be careful that we are not becoming the very monster we are rallying against here in GRP.
I do honestly think Joe is more level-headed and substantial than most of the other dissenting opinions out there, and he also makes more sense. I don’t need to mention who does not.
The notion of only black and white is becoming outdated nowadays. The shades of gray are always increasing. In addition, it’s entirely realistic that I can agree with people on several things but disagree on several others.
No, I am NOT a yellow turd in GRP’s clothing. I am simply saying that since we promote rational and logical discussion here we might as well step back and return to what makes this site great.
I am not doing this for you either, Joe. (Classic hot-cold personality, tsundere line.) 🙂
And indeed, it is civil discussion of difficult and complex issues that can make a blog site great. Slurs are easy. Figuring things out is difficult. You said you weren’t defending me, and I’m glad. But I appreciate the line you are taking.
It is the dishonesty and hypocrisy masquerading as an eloquence in commenting that bothers me a lot. They have to be exposed.
I’m not citing any commenters here because I’m having fun with it. They’re dishonesst and hypocrites. They have to be exposed.
They can’t refute my challenge and instead will just play the victimhood card.
Man-up!
“Perfection in the Church is an ideal that will stay that way, at best.”
Reminded me of this quote in one of Andrew Greely’s books:
“If God wanted a Church free of human frailties, He would have turned it over to angels.”
Nice quote.
you know, joe (and i speak to every other dude who falls for joe’s lame tricks), the thing that pisses trosp off is how good you are at playing with words. for instance,
which is another ball of wax from pnoy’s ears that you would have us jam into our own. so trosp finds your every move (every dang one of ’em) suspect, because if there’s anything truly consistent about you, it’s your inconsistency.
so joe, as you join this “anti-trosp” fanboy of yours and pnoy in the same foxhole he’s been shitting in for the last 2 years, we ask that you let us ignore your false advertising and NOT join you in your makeshift love tub.
okay, pumpkin?
Oh, yes, stud muffin, Please please ignore my commentary. And take your lovely gangsta friend Trosp with you.
@joe: you would just love the idea of discerning people ignoring your manipulative speeches and not saying a word about it, wouldn’t you? sorry but no cigar, sweetheart.
i never said i’d ignore your commentary. what i do say is i see through the phoney, acutely agreeable tone you’re taking these days on grp (though, i think many others do too).
and trosp, while i thought initially that he’s pretty harsh with a seemingly reformed or recently enlightened joe america, is actually spot on about you. so he makes it his mission to reveal your yellow feathers.
How I wish I could ignore this dud’s dishonesty and hypocrisy. I’m sure I can if we’re the only two creatures around.
Even though I’m certain a lot of commenters and comment readers here are level headed, there are also those who can be easily persuaded by his pompous rhetoric.
American boy or maybe I just call you Bill Maher boy, stay classy.
parallelaxe, “phoney, Acutely agreeable tone”? Oh, you mean being normal, as opposed to your hatchetwork. I don’t want other people to ignore my remarks, just you two psychologically deranged stalkers.
you call it hatchetwork yet you’re still here, joe. fake injury much?
stalker? i’m just cleaning up after you and your trail of droppings. you can thank me later, phoney boy. (and yes, i was absolutely right about what you’re trying to do. getting yellow idiots to believe your misrepresentations shouldn’t be hard.)
Parallelaxe, here’s the deal. Benigno has Terms of Service that seek a higher minded discussion, not this exchange of personal insult that we have been dealing each other. I agree with that aspiration for this blog site. There is plenty of good intelligence here. It ought to be aimed at the issues, not the people. We all have our shortcomings or our bad days or the times we typed first and thought later. Why obsess over them?
You think I’m phony? Put up the issue you wish to discuss and I’ll give it a genuine response. Put up the insults and I’ll respond in kind, and Benigno can delete us both.
If he deletes me and keeps you, I’ll know he has no honor.
did i give myself away, joe?
the “issue” is simple: your comments, written “eloquently” as trosp describes, play both sides. the phoneyness is there. and conveniently you still come up with creative ways to excuse your goofy president from his accountabilities. invoke the terms of service all you want; i’ll just keep calling you out on your bs. what pisses you off is that i don’t beat around the bush, and i succeed in tarring and feathering you by not playing your game.
what else could be said about a guy if his pronouncements are phony? isn’t he, as a matter of fact, phony? that’s an actual issue (too).
pinoy ka na nga. you didn’t even have to come up with an excuse, but lo and behold – an excuse.
i don’t mind if he deletes both our comments. it’s his blog. but i have a feeling we’ll both be around as examples, because you’re a fairly unique specimen of one with a supposedly good head above his shoulders but makes poor use of it; i just provide subtitles for you.
hostage-taking backfire much?
parallelaxe, I must say, I enjoyed your last comment. I have never been taken to task so eloquently, either. So you figure I am wasting my brain arguing for the yellow man. And I figure I you are wasting your brain casting elegant slurs rather than building something. But I am confident you will find a way to defend your self; you are, after all, Filipino.
And I defend the President of the Philippines because I am loyal to the office of the Presidency, and I criticize the man who holds the office when he makes what I perceive to be mistakes. It is taking more effort than it did a while back to maintain my backing, but I stick with the notion that six years is not all that long. He was elected. I think it is not a good idea to prove the banana republic label by railing so loudly that investors notice and continue to believe this is one unstable nation.
i guess it was good for you, too.
i don’t figure that. i KNOW that.
elegant, yes. wasting my brain on it, no. anything you “build” atop a stack of lie after lie after lie will eventually come tumbling down when enough people decide they’ve had enough of these lies. whatever you claim you build on yellow propaganda is no sturdier than a house of cards.
like that means anything. what’s there to defend? i’m not the one who’s nagging those around him to leave this sacred cow of a president alone.
we all are loyal to the office of the president. it’s the person holding the rank that’s making the office, his entire administration, and the rest of the country, the laughing stock of our global neighborhood.
the BIG problem is your perception, joe. you see too little and too few of his mistakes. net effect = you still put the ongoing failure of a leader on a pedestal.
not that long??? tell that to the seriously ill but have to pay an arm and a leg because there’s a cap now on their philhealth. tell that to thousands of bank depositors whose hard-earned life savings and money saved for old age were forcibly taken by bsp through pdic, for one favored bank’s benefit (go research it). tell that to the minority representatives’ constituents who won’t get desperately and urgently needed medical care, or the resources to continue education for children from REAL rural poor families. you could try holding your breath underwater and see if 6 years ain’t all that long, joe. pnoy will need far less time to destroy this country and whatever good is left of it.
and i’m his boss, not you.
but it is! but then, you’ve always been in favor of false representation, so no surprise there. (what, sweep the mess your idol is making under the rug? heh. trosp was right about you all along.)
Parallelaxe, it is not “false representation”, actually, it is “fluid interpretation”. You do a fine job of parsing words and twisting them inside out. But I agree with you, there is a bit of banana in the republic. We just perhaps have different perspectives as to whether it is rotten to the core or a bit overripe, and whether waving it in the face of the investment community is a good thing or bad, and whether we can summon up the discipline to wait four years to push “our guy”, whomever that might be, into office.
Trosp is as trosp will always be.
“fluid interpretation” is euphemism for malarkey, which is euphemism for bullshit. you know that.
and where were any of your words actually twisted inside out, joe? show proof please, otherwise you’re caught with false representation again.
no scheiße.
waving WHAT EXACTLY in the face of the investment community, joe? let’s see if there’s any honesty you can summon to answer that. (btw, you’re not getting the benignoramus
off the hook that easy, pal. you wanna tell someone to have some discipline, tell it to the idiot in malacañang.)
he actually had you figured out. too bad for you.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with you, distasteful though that is. I agree President Aquino needs more discipline and self control. More CEO-style maturity.
Do you speak German, I am wondering. I had a German instructor in college from Thailand. It was bizarre.
I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate my “fluid interpretation” remark. Oh, well. Sheiss happens. (Where do I find that funny “B” on my keyboard??)
American boy, according to you –
“We all have our shortcomings or our bad days or the times we typed first and thought later. Why obsess over them?”
I’m exposing your misinformation, disinformation, dishonesties, and hypocrisies. In your definition we are obsessing over your shortcomings.
Ridiculous, isn’t it?
Your bad day and there is your other excuse for your gaffs – slow internet connection to search for the information.
Very hard for you to man-up heh!
FallenAngel
The Roman Catholic reading of this particular verse (another typo error alert, actually Verse 22, not Verse 20) in Matthew, Chapter 5, is that Verse 22 is a “teaching about anger†but “unlawful anger is what is here treated of; since anger for a just cause, as for example against sin and sinners, is both lawful and praiseworthy. Anger has been for this very purpose implanted in man’s nature, that it should make them brave against vice, and against those things which are really their enemies.â€
http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt5ii.htm
And the Roman Catholic view on Church and State:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
Domingo,
Aww. I copied the verse from PDI. My bad for not verifying it (I’m not really a bible reader) but it simply means that the mistake started from somewhere else, whether Fr. Arevalo himself or PDI.
If Fr. Arevalo misquoted the verse, he really sucks as a priest. If the PDI made the mistake, well…
Senator Santiago’s knowledge is impressive. I think this is part of the reason why she is very confident to take on anyone.
Those who hate her style are just too sensitive. She doesn’t admonish people who follow the rules anyway.
We need more people like her. I do hope there will be someone among the younger politicians who can manage this.
It just dawned on me though, so how come there is nada a word from her when the Defense made a press release (she said she really hated trial by publicity) claiming that senator judges were offered a hundred million?
She amde a comment on one of her social netwroking site accoutns that she didn’t recieve the alleged birbe. I think it was on Twitter. Even then, there was already a motion to file the defense for indirect contempt, which I think was different from direct contempt.
I seem to recall that she was sick on that day. Plus the defense did not discuss the merits of the case. They just announced that they have information that Senators were being bribed. And don’t forget that they were already asked to explain their action.
hi guys, sorry for the unrelated comment. meron ba sa inyong nakakaalam kung sino ang nagpopondo sa get real philippines?
TROLLFAG DETECTED. 😛
Bakit ikaw, di mo alam? 😛
The very least, we readers don’t have to pay.
@Jen
The webmaster pays for the hosting of the site. That is all.
I hope you are satisfied. You have been asking the same question for days.
Magkano te?
-Jen
😀 peace! mukhang nakukulitan kana kasi sa taong to.
Kung hindi mo pa rin alam ang sagot, pwede kong ibigay, pero palitan tayo ng impormasyon.
Sino ang nagpapatanong sa iyo nyan? Mas maganda kung iwan mo na rin ang contact information.
Just want to clarify some thoughts, I don’t want to start a debate here and in fact I’m a fan of getrealpost and anti-pinoy sites so I’m not a Yellow zombie as you call it here.
But it’s kind disturb me that you claim you are a Catholic yet you don’t know what Catholic is? In your comment you end up attacking the Catholic Church not the person. Is this another Anti-Catholic propaganda? I hope not, you fit the description of Peter Kreeft when he used the term “I-do-it-myself-Catholic” in his talk.
Now here is my point-of-view on what you write on your comment.
1. “the catholic faith does not have the same doctrines as the ones that the Christ taught His apostles.”
asn. Then maybe you are better person who could enlighten us with what is the doctrine taught by Christ 2000 years ago? But I warn you to never quote a Bible verse to describe you view. Because the Bible was never present during Christ, until the Early Catholic Bishop decided to compile and venerate them.
2. “Jesus Christ was killed by the romans, so how can rome be the place where Jesus’ church be built??”
ans. OMG! A Catholic who don’t know the History of his Church. First, Catholic don’t claim that rome is the place where Jesus build his church because from the word Catholic means universal, it’s everywhere. Second, Rome is where Peter evangelized the gospel and the vatican hill was the place peter was Crucified up-side down by Romans. The very same place where the Vatican City was built.
Vatican became the center of Roman Catholic for the following reason
-Rome is the place Peter spend most of his remaining time doing public ministry, meaning Peter is the Bishop of Rome.
-It is Peter whom Jesus gave the authority of His Church. “you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church”.
-The martyrdom of Peter was marked at Vatican Hill. He was crucified by Romans up-side down.
3. I want you to know that Fr. Arevalo does not represent the whole Catholic Church here in Philippines.
Only the council of Bishop can decide what is the stand of church in a particular issue. in our case the CBCP.
4. It does not mean that if you have a Masteral or a Doctorate in Theology it made you a better Theologian or a better Catholic. AB theology is not a prerequisite to Sainthood.
I remember, Senator Mariam attack Catholic with her so called theological knowledge during the RH bill debate, I found out some of her data is inaccurate and until now I don’t know where in the earth she get her data.
Bryan,
I just want you to know that with the following comment, I don’t intend to start a war with you. Nor am I attempting to insult you in any way. I just want to share my perspective on your pts. 3 and 4, since 1 and 2 are directed at vinocchio:
3. In any organization, or institution, whatever its members do within its confines reflects upon it. However, once you are part of any institution or organization, you carry their name on you wherever you go, and you have to protect its dignity at all times. These are inescapable realities of life. The church, as an institution, is no different, or shouldn’t be, for that matter. After all, we want to project a good image of where we belong, right?
If you read one of my comments above (to Trosp), I believe that the church should draw a line between voicing their political opinion, and outright casting judgment on a political entity. Fr. Arevalo crossed that line, and during a homily, of all times, so that reflects on the Church, because he’s a priest. And if you ask me, his statement is nowhere near dignified.
I guess Fr. Arevalo overlooked that, which brings us back to the question of what his motive for doing what he did really was.
4. I do not believe either that a degree in Theology makes one a better Catholic, or Theologian or whatever. What I believe is that how you apply what you learned is what makes the man/woman.
With that being said, I also believe that it is useless to debate with demagogues since they consider everything about their faith non-negotiable. It usually comes down to “My god’s tool is bigger than your god’s”
Domingo,
Regarding point of view no. 5, I only wish more people would actually practice that. There are still many Filipinos who cannot appreciate, much less respect, a perspective, or belief system different from their own.
I respect the views of all posters and commenters here but I am with @Bryan the most. I am a Catholic and would die one. But it doesn’t mean I am blind to its failings. I remember one time while listening to the homily I muttered “Of course not!” and felt my daughters tug at my folded arms as if pulling me down, in case I walk out. You see we hear mass in the church inside the university campus and everyone knows almost everyone. Sige na nga, I am from UP.
Anyway, I just want to say that most of us here agree on one thing: that we have an incompetent president pulling the country down and doing it in such a disgusting manner. But when it comes to our respective religions let’s be a little bit more kind and sensitive to one another’s feelings. I need my faith, it keeps me in line and gives me answers to questions I find hard to explain. But I also won’t be bullied by my church (for example, the RH bill, and in fairness, we are free to think and choose what to do when confronted with conflicting ideas. I can talk directly to my God anytime I choose to, priests are not a necessity. People can tell me what kind of a Catholic I am, but I couldn’t be bothered, it’s between me and my God.
Now, going back to the most inept president we have ever had…
Peace, everyone. 🙂
Answering point number 1: There was no Bible during Christ’s time, they call it Scriptures. Then after Christ went back to heaven, His apostles wrote down His gospel so that we will not get lost from the original teachings, that is why we have the letters from the apostles. It didn’t have verses when they were writing it. It was later divided into chapters and verses so that we could easily remember where to find the text. I was a Catholic before, but I am now a Christian. Am not also a theologian, I just read the Bible and trust the wisdom given to me to understand it.
Answering point no. 2: Christ didn’t give Peter the authority over His church. Peter is not the rock he was talking about. I suggest you try to research the original text (aramaic-greek?) on this passage. Also try to read the whole context of the passage, not just that specific verse. Peace.
To be more precise, He gave His Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name. In addition, He emphasized the role of St. Peter as primus inter pares…just like the CJ with regards to the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.
I can go on further, but my choosing to remain Catholic would most likely prejudice me unfavorably.
“To be more precise, He gave His Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name. In addition, He emphasized the role of St. Peter as primus inter pares…just like the CJ with regards to the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.”
My friend don’t make interpretations on what is not written.
“17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.†– Matthew 16:17-20
“On this rock (Petra) I will built my church..” Jesus said, not on Peter. Peter is Petros, by the way meaning “stone” or “pebble”, because Petra or rock is a girl’s name.
The bible doesn’t have many interpretations only one. People who say that are those who don’t study it or care to read it, and are easily led astray by any “feel-good” preaching or those who can’t let go of impractical tradition.
Bible teachings stand contrary to religious tradition and common opinion. And it very much encourage questioning and reasoning. Please try studying it rather than making baseless conclusions.
Bryan
Allow me please to add a point of view no. 5: No compulsion. No Coercion.
No one is compelled to be a Catholic (well, not anymore that is). In fact, no Filipino who claims to be a Roman Catholic is ever compelled to follow what the Church (through the Diocesan Bishop, the “authoritative interpreterâ€) teaches or practices. Filipino Catholics who disagree with what the Church teaches (even a particular Church teaching or practice) can leave the Church anytime and, perhaps pursue one’s “freedom of choice‖meaning, join the church that suits your choice.
But there is another convenient, the “better bet,†choice: To remain a Catholic-by-name-only–just in case the diagnosis from your recent visit to a doctor turns out to be terminal cancer.
Religion, in fact, is claimed to be a purely personal, even private matter–but suddenly becomes a public extravaganza when planning the wedding of a favorite daughter (followed by the baptism of the first grandchild) or the funeral rites of a rich spinster aunt or bachelor uncle.
Noteworthy, nonetheless, is that, to the faithful followers or adherents, the teachings of any recognized religion–like the cluster of similar freedoms of speech, press and assembly bundled together with it–do not depend on their validity upon the results of surveys or polls.
The smart thing to do is to remove the voice and influence of ANY religion from government. Religion is nice for gaining faith, but it should have no voice whatsoever in defining laws, acts, and so forth.
Reason? The fact is that most religions beliefs, quotes, scriptures, and what have you are all open to interpretation, thus each of us will find our own meaning in them. What one person reads and accepts, another will take offense.
Governments should be powered by logic, education, and frankly, common f*ckin sense. From what I’ve seen and heard, Catholics feel that condoms are wrong…well how are you supposed to stop STDs from spreading like wildfire? Abstenance doesn’t work, yet I see “God faring people” denouncing sexual education in schools. Sex is taboo for most here, so how the hell are the youths supposed to learn about HIV, and prevent it? From watching big Willie?
Religion in this country is not used for good, but rather to keep the dumb dumb, the blind blind, the deaf deaf, and all of the above ignorant to reason. Just because a priest says it does not mean it should be accepted, memorized, and preached. People need to learn to think for themselves, have their own opinions and make their own choices, NOT parrot what they heard on the radio, and believe what fools tell them.
It seems that there is no real ‘justice’ in this country, and that everything we are seeing is really a staged production with the cast trying to upstage each other but obviously overacting to try and make it look good. pathetic really, but hey, that’s flipland politics for ya. at least on big willie, the contestants provide genuine reactions.
I agree. Let the government set it’s own moral code for the citizens exercised through the law. Let the churches set it’s own moral code for it’s members exercised through the pulpit.
Condoms and contraceptives for example. If the government thinks it’s practical for the people to avail them, then they should establish a program to do so. If the church don’t like it, then they should preach IN THE CHURCH NOT ON PUBLIC PREMISES that they think it’s immoral. This way both institutions will not stick their noses in the wrong places.
If I criticized Mr. BS Aquino many times as a dictator, does this mean I am a fool and liable to the fires of hell? I have only one sentence to say in rebuttal to the response of Father Arevalo. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Mr. Aquino is not a saint nor does he have credentials from heaven. Does Father Arevalo turn a blind eye to the sins of the dictator, his cronies, friends and the bow well movement 188? Is he blind to what is happening to the less than average management of the government and the affairs of state? The good father should know about the Rasputins surrounding Mr. Aquino. God is not on his side. He left when the darkness started creeping in to slowly envelope the land.
May I share this one-
The Left’s War on Christianity
The Left’s War on Christianity
My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it’s founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous. — Hugh Hewitt
Most liberals in this country tend to treat Christians one of two ways: either with open, sniggering contempt or if they think they need their votes, they tend to switch over to hamhanded and grotesque pandering. That’s not to say that there aren’t liberal Christians, there are plenty of them, but they’ve just become accustomed to being treated by their fellow liberals like the sort of refuse you scrape off your shoes after a long walk through a cow pasture. — John Hawkins
Liberalism is so unrelentingly hostile to Christianity that it’s virtually impossible to be both a devout Christian and a devout liberal at the same time. To be a liberal Christian means you either have to completely gut your religious beliefs to make them compatible with your political inclinations or alternately, you have to spend your days cowering with your eyes down while your fellow liberals demean, smear, and mock everything you should hold dear.
To be a liberal Christian is to regularly read comments from your comrades in arms like these from Amanda Marcotte, who later got a job with John Edwards’ presidential campaign despite her well known hostility to Christianity.
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
It means listening to blithering idiots like Kathy Griffin scream,
A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!
I noticed the first two paragraphs are excerpts from opinions of two person.
Does this mean the succeeding paragraphs are yours?
I just find the thought too appalling, I think the concept of Liberal Christian you pointed out are those taken from Western views. You see, when you read opinions, you have to consider the nationality of the author, period of the time he wrote it, or his other inclinations.
That’s the matter with buying books en masse from BOOKSALE. Most of the selections are quite outdated and passe.
Check your reading comprehension then we discuss.
How good of you in mentioning BookSale. I always buy books there. I got these three books there at a bargain. They are gems –
“Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government” by Glenn Beck.
“Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild” by Michelle Malkin.
“If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” both by Ann Coulter.
See, I told you.
Those are self-help books, good for you.
The progress are incremental but keep trying 😉
Funny how padres take umbrage at chastisements not directed at them, and for non-religious reasons too. Even weirder is Arevalo’s turning a public correction of an erring public officer into a point of religious confrontation. Still trying to make sense of it. It’s not like Miriam upbraided the priest for keeping his silence.
BTW, Papists claiming the title “Roman Catholic” is a misnomer. There is and ever was but one Ecumenical Roman Catholic Church, with 5 ancient “centers”: Elder Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Rome just happens to be first among equals. Miriam is right, the Good Book can have as many interpretations as there are Churches.
Which the author of 2 Peter (attributed to St. Peter, though not written by his hand) lampshaded in 3:16b:
“In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”
Actually, AFAIK, prior to the Reformation, the Church of Rome was considered the Church, the crass behavior of her leaders notwithstanding.
Miriam sends hell into a crisis
Okay, that made me snicker. XD
lol. Nice!
I simply don’t believe in Hell, as a place. It’s a mindset. You can live in Hell, here on Earth. Or, can live in Heaven. The Devils are our Political Leaders, torturing us, thru their: thievery, greed, murders, cheating, etc…
Fr. Arevalo should broaden his religious Theology. He is talking like a Catholic Taliban…
“Politicization” – People nowadays treat their Religion as a kind of Politics, and their Politics as a kind of Religion.
Well, a lot of American politicians are certainly on their knees a lot. I’m sure there are a lot of hallelujahs, too.
The woman has no class at all. HOWEVER, she doesn’t deserve the condemnation and a fiery sermon such as what this priest did. What this priest should have been doing is focus less on the classless personalities of these politicians and act out his faith towards the lowly who often go to church just hoping that God would give them enough time to live life in happiness and abundance.
the word “gago (gaga)” is not a bad word if it is used properly. read its definition in the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino.
The word gago has no international word meaning and unfortunately,UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino is not accessible free online to check it. I would say gago in vernacular means you’re not doing/saying things correctly.
Definitely, gaga, is an offensive word.
From freeonline dictionary –
Gaga means:
ga·ga (gägä)
adj. Informal
1. Silly; crazy.
2. Completely absorbed, infatuated, or excited: They were gaga over the rock group’s new album.
3. Senile; doddering.
(Is it Lady Gaga’s description?)
I can only say “tarantado”, a Filipino word (?) is not a n offensive word. It means a person is easily rattled.