Perhaps someone can file a test case before Department of Interior and Local Governments (DILG) and/or the Commission on Audit (COA) to compel or make sure that all those in the picture pay for the tarp.
Their photos are occupying more space than the Pope’s picture.
UPDATE as of 9:49 PM, January 14, 2015
Vying for First Runner-Up is JC LEVISTE!
Thanks, Maria Fe Kretz Apacible, for posting this on my page and noting that whoever made the tarp forgot to spellcheck the word “church”.
Update as of 10:21 PM, Jan. 14, 2015
Another candidate for first runner-up – Bal Ramos!
As @baycas noted, Bal Ramos calls Pope Francis “Santo Papa”. He calls himself “Butihing Ama ng Lipunan”
The poster below came from todosabongga.blogspot.com
The same blog shows that the Levistes actually made “HIS” and “HERS” tarps to exploit the Pope’s visit:
Update as of 11:04 PM, January 14, 2015
Oh wow, another candidate vying for runner-up – Yedda Romualdez of Leyte:
Dr. Clinton Balud of Baguio City posted this on my Facebook wall saying, “You must have missed this.”
Johnny Lin says
Monday Quarterbacking
Now that the Pope returned to Vatican, everyone is scrutinizing the theme of the Visit:
Mercy and Compassion:
1. How should they be understood?
2. What do they convey?
Vision depends on the person with eyesight or foresight. Some look at the trees and make decisions, others scan the forest of trees before making decisions. Which is better?
Mercy: if one is powerful, should mercy be only dispense so he is out of touch if he begs for mercy?
Compassion: similarly, is a rich person out of touch if he asks for compassion.
If a person looks only at the tree, he would say mercy and compassion are dispensed only to the poor or underprivileged while a person who looks at the forest see both ways, dispensing and receiving
Apply mercy and compassion to the Aquino speech lambasting the Bishops, talking about his childhood past, imprisonment of his father and ridicule on his hair by a Bishop.
Some critics blamed Aquino for bringing out his childhood and family injury during martial and his ridicule by the bishop as irrelevant to the theme of Papal visit, as vengeful act of a person against his enemies. Are they?
These critics did not envision at all the Aquino message of the time mercy and compassion needed by his family by relating his traumatic experience during childhood, injury suffered by imprisonment of his father fracturing family togetherness. Pope spoke of “keeping the family together” Aquino was echoing this family sentiment during their time of crisis. Despite his power as president he was reverberating when his family needed mercy and compassion, virtues not reserved for the downtrodden and poor only. But others who only see the trees criticized him. These critics were shortsighted for not envisioning the forest explained by Aquino.
His reporting of the ridicule on his hair by a Bishop Aquino was askance on the compassion of the Bishop to the disabled, the sufferers? Why did the bishop have to ridicule an infirm person. Aquino was not only referring to himself, he was referring to the unnecessary criticism of a man of cloth on a person needing help.
Again his critics on this point by telling it to the Pope visualized only the tree, not the forest.
Others criticized Aquino for reporting to Pope Francis the previous bad deeds of Bishop. Some say the speech was ill-timed because he should be respectful to the occasion. His complaint was about politics and the Pope was not interested in Philippine politics. They were so wrong in their judgment after the Pope spoke about shunning corruption which is the number one issue in Philippine politics. Best timing for president Aquino was to seize the earliest opportunity in front of the Pope and millions of Filipinos watching. The first meeting has always the highest TV and radio audience. Thus the timing was perfect because it is the best form of Freedom of Information any government official could have afforded to the people.
Few dumb people said that Aquino should have relayed his message first to CBCP and if he did not get any response, he should have reported to the Filipino. How dumb is this? First, the people Aquino was reporting included Bishops who have positions in CBCP. They are the same people who were silent during GMA term and critics of his administration. What is the sense of reporting to CBCP then? How about the people?
Who is the Boss of CBCP? Pope Francis.
Who is the Boss of Aquino? Filipino people!
What could be a best time that the report be heard by the Pope and Filipino people at the same time!
President Aquino pitch was perfect in timing and audience
HOLYSTSJOHN says
Totally agree!!
leona says
Me too, I agree!
I posted some comments last night/early morning I don[‘t know if it got through as moderated.
Thanks.
jorge bernas says
@ Johnny Lin,
Tama po kayo sir johnny, At lalong Tama ang ginawa ni Pnoy dahil ito ang katutuhanan bakit pa natin idaan sa CBCP ang mga tanong kong puwede namang oderetso sa nakakataas ang tanong lalo na kay Pope Francis? Tama si Pnoy naging Bulag,Pepe, Bingi ang ibang mga membro nang simbahan at karamihan sa kanila ay NABILI/ Naambunan pa? masakit lang malaman nang lahat ang katutuhanan pero yon ang TOTOO at sana mamulat mga kinauukulan… Amen…
pelang says
@jorge bernas; at kung idadaan ang mga himutok ni Pnoy sa CBCP , palagay niyo kaya, makakarating iyon kay Pope Francis?
jorge bernas says
@ Pelang,
Hay nako kong sa CBCP members/officers sinabi ni Pnoy ang mga kalokohan nila noon ay lalong hindi makakarating…Ultimo silang taga CBCP mismo alam nilang mali ginagawa nilang pagpapagamit noon pero ginagawa pa rin dahil sa ambon nang PERA at regalong PAJERO ETC…ETC…
moonie says
perfect timing, johnny lin. the president siezed the corpulent bull by the horns right there in the arena. this gladiator has guts.
caught napping, corpulent bull could not raise a hoof. did not see it coming. gladiator was too quick. bull whimpered later but too late. gladiator has already drawn 1st blood. bull’s boss in attendance said, well done! gladiator and clapped.
drill down says
imo, the theme should have been justice, more in line with anti-corruption. mercy and compassion favor the corrupt.
one not to obvious side effect of this attack on the priests could be the shifting of the focus away from pnoy himself. that could be the underlining strategy.
Rene-Ipil says
Well said.
When the Indian Chief is right there at your front, tell him all you want. Talking to little Indians is futile when the solution to problem lies with the Indian Chief.
Manigas sila sa INGGIT.
drill down says
Vision depends on the person with eyesight or foresight. Some look at the trees and make decisions, others scan the forest of trees before making decisions. Which is better?
———————————–
could be also someone dimmed the lights in order to obscure the view.
Maseti says
Super agree to this!
vander anievas says
yes. agree.
101% pa!
yvonne says
@NHerrera,
I like to comment further on your 18.1.1.1 but that post is now buried deep underneath the older comment section, so I’m posting my comment here. This is about the phrase “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” which is interpreted as the basis for the prohibition of divorce.
I like to premise my comment on the religious life of nuns as a backdrop to my comment.
When a nun make a temporal vow she can only get out of religious life (sisterhood) after she completed serving the period of her temporal vow. First, she makes her initial vow, good for one year, in which she cannot get out of sisterhood within that one year period, if ever she changed her mind about entering the religious life.
Then she make two temporal vows of three years each, and you guess it, she cannot get out of sisterhood until after she completed the 3-year period of her temporal vow/s.
And when a nun makes her perpetual vow, she is forever married to Jesus and is considered His spouse. There is no getting out of that religious marriage, except for one thing – with the approval of the Pope.
In this context, wouldn’t the expression “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”, in keeping with modern times, and consistent with the religious tenet applied to nuns, be more accurately interpreted as a prohibition that no “man” (meaning “civilians”) can grant divorce to religious marriage but divorce may be granted only under the auspices of the Church in whose authority the marriage was performed?
Once a nun
yvonne says
Ooops, I’m not “once a nun”. :-) Those words were intended to edit and start the 1st sentence of the penultimate paragraph – “Once a nun makes her perpetual vow, ….”
Joe America says
Ahahahaha, for a former nun, “you’ve come a long way, baby”. Now we have to figure out if it is up or down. :) :)
yvonne says
LOL @JoeAm
I’m not a former nun, lest CPMers might have the wrong idea.
I visited many convents though, including monasteries, to talk and bond with many nuns on several occasions. That is why I feel a strong affinity with them.
;-)
Joe America says
Nuns are some of my favorite people, along with Filipinos in California who have a passionate interest in the well-being of the homeland.
yvonne says
@JoeAm
If you were single I can fix you up with some very nice Filipina-Californians who are not ex-nuns. But of course you are already taken.
LOL.
Joe America says
haha, you are too kind. Well, if my wife every nabs Coco Martin, who seems to be her current passion, I may take you up on that deal. Until then . . .
moonie says
he, he, talking about divorces, I think, king henry VIII of england had better idea, had 8 wives in all. got away with alimony too, king henry did, and spectacularly at times. chop the ex-wives heads off! king henry smothered religious oppositions and made himself head of the church of england, the catholics ended up hiding and celebrating masses in secret. off with their heads!
leona says
I’ll get it [divorce topic] here as ‘talking about divorce –
I’m not ex-cardinal, ex-bishop or ex-priest . . . so nothing [email protected] can do. . . ha ha ha
I’m not also a theologian or well studied on so many principles, dogma etc. of the Church
In the NT, MATTHEW 19: [The Jerusalem Bible 1966 Edition], the question of divorce is discussed by Matthew:
‘Some Pharisees approached him [Jesus], and to test him they said, “Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on ANY pretext whatever?” ‘
‘ He [Jesus] answered, “have you not read that the creator from the beginning made THEM Male and Female” and that He said “This is why a man must have leave father and mother, and CLING to his wife, and the two become one body?” The are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide.’ [[email protected] mentions this.]
The discussion goes on . . . ‘They said to Him “They why did Moses command that a WRIT OF DISMISSAL should be given in cases of divorce? ” “It was because YOU were UNTEACHABLE.” He said “that Moses ALLOWED you to divorce your WIVES, but it was NOT LIKE THIS from the beginning. Now I say this to YOU: the man who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of fornication – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.” ‘
Footnote on the above quotation: [Mt only] . . .
‘does not mean that Jesus allows full divorce ( i.e. with power to remarry) in cases of adultery. If this were so, He would be supporting the very concession He is criticising. attempts have been made to understand ‘fornication’ in the sense of an illegitimate union, concubinage, but the severance of such a union is so obvious an obligation as not to deserve mention.
The explanation seems rather to be that this text of Mt creates a special category for cases of infidelity to marriage since these require their own solution – but nowhere does he [Matthew] suggest what the solution is.
This solution, which was NOT REQUIRED at the time when full divorce was allowed, was DESTINED to take SHAPE in the CHURCH and emerge as a ‘separation’ of the parties that carried with it NO PERMISSION to remarry.’
“Severance of the union’ that is, of the ‘marriage,’ on infidelity: adultery and concubinage, was allowed ‘at the time’ under ‘a full divorce.’ [Moses’ time].
But, the Church took it to LIMIT, a destination to take shape in the Church and emerged as only a ‘Separation’ of the marriage union that carried with it no permission to remarry.
Moses allowed the divorce couple to remarry after divorce was granted. The Church did not and has not up to this time since then.
Simply said, the Church ‘changed’ what Moses did – No divorce but only separation of spouses and not allowing any remarriage by either. Moses, allowed by God, was to the opposite – full divorce and can remarry.
What became of this as to the ‘effect’ of the Church’s different ‘change?’ Married couple who wants a ‘divorce’ or full and complete separation with right to marry, are now a continuing problem for the Church that does not give in to a full divorce.
The problem is a mess in the Church. Unhappy couples who do not factually live together anymore; or who continue to live together but unhappy in their lives.
Mercy. Compassion. Love. These three are absent in the married couples and in the Church. All because the Church ‘changed’ what Moses, as God allowed him, did on giving a full divorce, due to God’s love, mercy, and compassion.
Joe America says
@leona, Very interesting reading. The Bible is filled with such troublesome contradictions and holes into which men of various cloths seem inclined to fill in the blanks with what suits them best. The secular State is fully empowered to disregard harmful acts imposed by religious institutions (like the holding of abused spouses within marriages). That the Philippines has not done so speaks to the intertwining of institutions that protect the favored and hold the poor to a different class, unable to do what Kris Aquino does. Change partners. Get a court order for care of child. If we focused on building healthy families among the poor, we’d change a lot of laws.
leona says
Right [email protected]/ The Church likes to box-in itself into a corner. Some time in the past the Church did not even want anybody reading the Bible.
In the 1960s high school students were prohibited reading Noli Me Tangere or El Filibusterismo…Rizal’s books. In College, one had to show one was working a special study on Rizal’s works. Otherwise one could not get Rizal’s books at the Library. Believe me this was prohibited by State law also. The law was later repealed.
Now, it is different. Anyone can read the Bible and Rizal’s works etc. Open minded generation. There might result some confusion but it is on the right track. Jesuit Order is like this. Pope Francis is a Jesuit product as all of us knows.
Thanks again.
yvonne says
@Leona #77.1.1.1.1
The refusal of the Roman Catholic Church to recognize divorce deprives couples in broken marriages the opportunity to rehabilitate and have a second change at establishing a healthy and stable family.
The victims in this situation are the innocent young children who are deprived of a father- or mother-figure who will nurture them and provide them with the support structure they need to grow. As the young child asked Pope Francis, why do we (the children) have to suffer so much when we have done nothing wrong? Pope Francis replied that he does not know the answer. Should the Church continue to close its eyes to one of the reasons why?
It is sad to say that a big factor in the increasing rate of divorce is sexual incompatibility leading up to infidelity. Any many couples discover their sexual incompatibility only after they enter into marriage because they followed the Church’s teaching of abstinence from pre-marital sex.
to allow them to grow and become members of our society in good standing.
yvonne says
Please omit the last line. Still sleepy and early for me on the West Coast.
leona says
[email protected] we have the same thought.
The proof is in the pudding [as it is said]. Other countries of the world allows full divorce. Even in Italy…Rome included. These countries are way ahead of us as to faith in religion, financially and economically, even their culture are preserved. Strong nations at that. Yes, corruption they have also.
But here, our R.C. Church, where it has a majority membership, is a factor we are not progressing as we should. Yet, we also have a lot of corruption. We are double boxed-in [ so to say].
The State, our government really has to make a different move on divorce against the R.C. Church. We still have timid lawmakers. Imagine it took so long for RH bill to become a law after a hard fight with the R.C. Church specially.
FOI and dynasty are not even topics much by the Church but yet many high leaders therein loves to play real politics with politicians. Fork tongues as it is.
Thanks. Copy on the last sentence…Roger.
NHerrera says
Yes, I agree @yvonne (aka Once a nun :), :)).
More accurately, in the phrase,
“What therefore God has joined together, let not MAN put asunder (DIVORCE)” (Emphasis and addition, mine)
I agree that MAN in that passage is to be interpreted as the “CHURCH in whose authority the marriage was performed” and therefore in keeping with that biblical passage, “DIVORCE may be granted only under the auspices of the CHURCH.”
Sorry to belabor, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
yvonne says
@NHerrera,
You and Joe Am are some naughty guys. :-)
LOL.
Parekoy says
Transparency in the finances of the Catholic Church
Could the RCC provide the laity with their finances?
How much did they collect per church?
How much were the expenses? Where did the go? How much went to the Priests of the particular church, how much went to the Cathedral, and how much went to the Vatican?
If we have this fiscal transparency, then the Church will be transformed and the trust lost to the Priests and Bishops will be restored.
The laity could have blind faith when it comes to God, but should demand fiscal transparency and responsibility from the governing Priests and Bishops! Why the secrecy? Who benefits?
Parekoy
letlet says
The Catholic churches in England are always presenting / printing out their weekly collections in their Newsletter for the parishioners. Last December’s Newsletter, the Westminster Cathedral even mentioned where the collections were spent specifically. Transparency and accountability are strictly observed in the churches here.
If England Catholic churches are doing that, so Philippine catholic churches could / should also be doing that..
chit navarro says
In NZ, the parish newsletters has a corner for the total collection for the week and the expenses. Every 6 months, we get a summary report from the Parish Finance Committee of total income and summary of expenditures.
So we know how much our priest gets as regular income. Of course, the personal gifts given to him for performing the sacraments of Baptism, Marriage and blessing of the dead is his personal income and we do not get to track this… :)
I was surprised though when one priest mentioned to us that in Rockwell, (Makati), average collection for a Sunday Mass runs to 60-70 thousand pesos. And the priest celebrating the Mass gets something like five thousand pesos. That’s just for one Mass offering… :) :)
Johnny Lin says
All over the world, Catholic Churches and priests are reporting their Sunday collections and their expenditures including cost of utilities. Transparency is very evident.
In the Philippines no parish church or priest is reporting Sunday collections as a rule and if one priest breaks that rule he will looked at as a pariah. It is still Transparency Filipino priests claim but it is transparent PLASTIC.
In the Philippines. Parish priests bring their relatives where they are assigned as workers from Secretary to cooks to messengers and drivers. It is now a trend among parishes that the first order of work of a newly relocated priest is to refurbish the rectory to accommodate the living quarters of relatives living with him.
Look at the monthly electric bill of the church. If it is too high it means he has an hacienda of relatives living with him enjoying air conditioned quarters.
Joe America says
Yes, lets have a little FOI from the moral custodians.
yvonne says
@letlet
From where I live in California, and there are six Catholic churches within 5- to 10-minute drive from home, they publish in their weekly bulletins the amount of their collections, including collections from any fund-raisings or special intentions. And if you contribute by checks you can always get a statement of your contributions that you can use in filing your tax returns.
drill down says
maybe the church has to set the example for pnoy to follow. but will he follow? who’s the leader now?
drill down says
although it’s alright to attack the church for its wrongdoing, the focus, howerver, should be on pnoy if he really wants to prevent or minimize collusions between govt and church officials now and in the future by making the govt transparent.
pnoy cannot just claim doing stuff in “good faith” and that’s it, no one can be critical. there has to be evidence to back it up. marcos claimed that he was doing it for the country, too, so no one should criticize and he was wrong.
Rene-Ipil says
How is the weather now in Manhattan? I understand it is three degrees Celsius. It seems you are warming up.
drill down says
lol. miffed again.
btw, you are free to post your ass-kissing comments, too.
baycas says
…more of licking…
leona says
I was in the US at Daly City. The Jesuit Parish Church where we go to Mass always had a BULLETIN BOARD showing the ‘Incomes & Expenses’ with the ‘Balance On Hand’ of the MONEY. . . from the contributions made by the members of the community.
Here, what church in the R. Catholic does this? I have not seen so far one or too many.
No TRANSPARENCY at all. Spend the money as the Church likes to.