Vocation For Priesthood in The Philippines, Now Deteriorating!

[force_driven]

---

Ang katoliko ray gi ilad anang El Shaddai ois, kana diay balihun ang payung salu sa grasya, talong itlog tatlong talon para naa kwarta sunod adlaw, pag tulun-an diay na sa katoliko... gigamit ra ang name sa katoliko ana para daghan mangapil nila...

hmmm. I've never heard of that, storya2x ra na..igoogle mo nga kung unsa jud ng El Shaddai, charismatic movement gyapon na sa Katoliko.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Just a reminder lang pod .... lets cut the discussion about MIKE VELARDE'S EL SHADDAI since it does not incorporate whatsoever as a factor on why the VOCATION in the PHILIPPINES is DETERIORATING , discuss it somewhere else or start a new topic in GENERAL CHIT CHAT .

Now back to the topic ........

[force_driven]

yeye...let's not incorporate Mike Velarde's El Shaddai....mao ra gyapon pangitaan gyapon sa mga anti-priests og loophole na.

I believed ang mga tawo na nireply diri sa thread ky mga anti-priets ang uban...naa pud siguroy dili Katoliko diri unya patugatuga na na lang.

D ba..vocation ang gi istoryahan diri dili mga abuses..ok na point out nman na usa ang abuses nganong naay deterioration. let's move to another factor ok!

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

OT :

That is the way it is supposed to be , dili ang arguments na i shove down your throat because they think they are better than the priest , the religion that dominates the worlds richest state , a religion that is one of the oldest and here they blabbing about how RIGHTEOUS they are .

Nobody denied that all PRIEST are bound for SAINTHOOD , good people that deserves a spot in TIME MAGAZINE and righteous individuals comparable to the DALAI LAMA . Ang ako lang ... manamin ta because the difference of us and them .... titulo ra intawn but as humans as we are subjected for errors , we cant deny that we are all the same and some of us are probably more worst than the very people we accused of being *** MANIACS .

[FAQ]

- about 200 of the country's 7,000 priests may have committed "sexual misconduct" - including child abuse, homosexuality and affairs - over the past two decades

- many priests have indeed violated their vow of celibacy

^^^

Just basing onthese statements cropped from your RELIABLE SOURCES ... what do they have in common ? nevermind the last 2 links you provided ... that is self explanatory when you type it in google or yahoo search engine .

What do they have in common? Are you asking me? Unbelievable!! Ok, the things they have in common: shocking, outrageous, disgusting, awful, shameful. Bringing the name of the "Lord" and they act that way?? Umm... "Houston we have a problem"

What do you mean it's "self-explanatory"??

Where have I been hiding for the past 10 years ? To answer that , I dont even know if its you who are hiding because if not for the internet , do you really think you can participate in the discussion backed up by GOOGLE and YAHOO ?

Unswaaa?? Unswaaa?? Wa ko kasabot. Binisay-a na lang sunod noy oy.

Why would you not send your kids to the SEMINARY and you can send them to SCHOOL , CAMPING , SLEEPOVERS , MALLING etc ?

Ok, what if the parents' decision not to send their kids to seminary. Mka-buot ka ana?

You just proclaimed it yourself clearly and with substance .So you just proclaimed that when you go to the seminary , you will be a VICTIM . What a smart proposition !!

This is what I said : "Ok, who would like to send their kids to seminary, a place where they could be abused"

Do you understand the word "could"??

Lol ... RELIGION = ROMAN CATHOLICISM ? Pa AB AB History pa ka .... dong , please read more .

Oi specific na kaayo ka da ... but its my mistake by providing you comparisons because I want to spoonfeed you to make things easier . ANi ni ay ... you want PERFECTION but you cant have it since the HUMANS we are , we are NOT PERFECT . That is the same comparison of SUSPENDING the RELIGIONS matod nimo or ang ROMANO KATOLIKO lang hehehe and uplifting the suspensions when PERFECT na sama pod na sa pag REINSTATE nimo sa mga baranggays na dili perpekto na na perpekto na tungod kay ang lider ani ug mga myembro PERFECT na . Ayaw ka libog ha . Nakuha na nimo ang relationship sa duha ka comparison ??

First of all, why would you provide a simile? You suck at it big time. Second, even if I did understand your "comparison", AGAIN, politics and religion are totally different things!!! They don't correlate each other. Esep esep sad diha.

Lol ... what guarantees can you give personally ? Maynglaki na jud kaayo ka sa ? Lupigon na man nimo mga tao naay knowledge sa Philosophy and Theology . Do you really think ana pod ka desperate ang church to accept priest ? Dawat ke dawat lang ? I compare gud ang PARI sa ubang SECTOR per capita and compare wrong doings and mistakes towards the society and you will be shocked , just do your research lang una before ka mo reply ani . ANg kana imong gi ingon na mga exams ma alter na siya dodong . Kani na comparison ay ... ngano naay BAYOT man sa MILITARY ? Ayaw kalibog ug react dayon ha .. esep esep sa diha .

Did I say that the church are desperate for more priests? NOOO!! Yes, indeed, there are more wrongdoings done by other sectors. But Catholic priests are doing it and abusing little kids?? JESUS CHRIST!!

About sa mga bayot sa military, ok ra na. Even women can join military. But a gay priest? Catholic church been telling people that being gay is a sin. Are you saying that it's ok having a gay priest?? I thought being gay is a sin and it's in the bible??

LOl ... is it the other way around ? Its you who OBJECTED the topic and ni BALIKO with ridiculous ideas and suggestions and not me . I objected your arguments and what could be worst in your personal opinions kay it is based in a GENERALIZED STATEMENT just because you can easily type these keywords : S3X , PRIEST , CATHOLIC CHURCH , VATICAN .

Unswaaaa?? Unswaaa Wa tingali kay gipamahaw pag reply nimo noh?

You're accusing everybody here including me of "GENERALIZING".. The reason of your Miriam Defensor-type of objection is because you are a die-hard catholic. You still deny the fact about the s3xual abuse happened inside the church when nobody else is watching. Like what I told you before, you're just protecting the church in the same way a mother would throw herself in front of a bus to protect her child. Why am I still arguing with you?? You throw objections from here to there because you think you're cool, witty and all that bullcrap (one of common symptoms of midlife crisis) as what other people here in iStorya been telling you which obviously they're just kissing your butt because you're a "mod". But the truth is... you're not

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

What do they have in common? Are you asking me? Unbelievable!! Ok, the things they have in common: shocking, outrageous, disgusting, awful, shameful. Bringing the name of the "Lord" and they act that way?? Umm... "Houston we have a problem"

I cant still believe that is your perception knowing the " educated " man you are unless , for the nth time , you are a closeminded person blinded by your fixed mentality towards priest . There is no more point of discussing this since you fail to be in the same page for a second or you only refuse to to be in the same page . Usbon nako .... their actions/wrongdoings does not constitue the doings and why the church existed . Even in the issue of that in Lourdes Parish , you associated the exploiting teacher with the whole parish and branded the church as CORRUPT . By the way ... the things they have in common ? still the word ALLEGED ... take up LAW and you will encounter the phrase " INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY " but then again , for you GUILTY ang tanan PARI to include the PARISHIONERS . What a pity !!

What do you mean it's "self-explanatory"??

When you say it is SELF EXPLANATORY , that is about your other given links that shares the same content of your mindsetting , naay nanobra ug naay kuwang pod and that is ... unless ikaw ang BIKTIMA mismo , maski di ka katuohan but deep inside kabalo ka na sakto ka since its a firsthand information kay ikaw man ang involved . Gets na ??

Unswaaa?? Unswaaa?? Wa ko kasabot. Binisay-a na lang sunod noy oy.

Wala ka nakasabot or you refuse to comprehend ? Another desperate reasoning eh ? Patabang sa mga colleagues nimo na edukado pod aron di masayang investment nimo sa tuition fees nimo .

Ok, what if the parents' decision not to send their kids to seminary. Mka-buot ka ana?

Labawng kamabaw sa analogy nimo . Of course di ko mo sugot kay I have other plans for them but then again , I am not sending them to the SEMINARY tungod kay hadlok ko na basin ma SEXUALLY ABUSED sila . Gets na ? Syaro ka dodong .

This is what I said : "Ok, who would like to send their kids to seminary, a place where they could be abused"

Do you understand the word "could"??

And like I said ... that " COULD " is applicable also to SCHOOL , CAMPING , SLEEPOVERS , MALLING etc . Sa laktod na storya lage you did not only GENERALIZE but you also SINGLE OUT the church and I am starting to realize that " MAYBE " its your HATRED of the church that triggered why you have such outlook towards it .

First of all, why would you provide a simile? You suck at it big time. Second, even if I did understand your "comparison", AGAIN, politics and religion are totally different things!!! They don't correlate each other. Esep esep sad diha.

Are you sure ? They do actually correlate , its you who doesnt correlate them because of your mentality towards the church . If your suggestion is applied to the government , what do you think is the outcome ? INgon ana pod ang outcome sa RELIGION . Why would I suck when in fact it wasnt me who never tried to think before writing ?

Did I say that the church are desperate for more priests? NOOO!! Yes, indeed, there are more wrongdoings done by other sectors. But Catholic priests are doing it and abusing little kids?? JESUS CHRIST!!

Lol .... another here we go again ? Did I say that you said the church needs more priest ? Thats your own confusion bugging you because you ran out excuses and you are only good but not better in trying to put back in my mouth what I said . CATHOLIC PRIEST are doing it and abusing little kids ? Are you sure of that or are you referring to some erring Catholic priest are abusing little children ?

About sa mga bayot sa military, ok ra na. Even women can join military. But a gay priest? Catholic church been telling people that being gay is a sin. Are you saying that it's ok having a gay priest?? I thought being gay is a sin and it's in the bible??

See how LITERAL you are ? Marami ang namatay sa maling akala and you should know that . You dont have to be a PRIEST to sin because you are HOMOSEXUAL . Unsay labot sa women in military ? We are discussing here about tricky comparisons because I am checking how well vered you are when it comes to logic . Ani ni dong ay ... I know a lot of homosexual military members who are more high ranking , productive and patriotic than your average straight men and women . Dili gihapon nimo ma konekta sa pagka pari and its role in the church ? Mao ni ang konekta dong ... kusog kaayo ka mo brand but then you havent realized na ang gipang single out nimo man diay ang mga maayo . Please dont talk about GAY PRIEST just because I said there are good GAY SOLDIERS , AIRMEN and SAILORS .

?? Unswaaa Wa tingali kay gipamahaw pag reply nimo noh?

Ay sus nimo ... be more realistic and in the same page . You start to bore me with your desperate reasoning antics .

You're accusing everybody here including me of "GENERALIZING".. The reason of your Miriam Defensor-type of objection is because you are a die-hard catholic. You still deny the fact about the s3xual abuse happened inside the church when nobody else is watching. Like what I told you before, you're just protecting the church in the same way a mother would throw herself in front of a bus to protect her child.

Uhmmm .... you are not only good in GENERALIZING but in SPECULATING as well . If you review my previous replies , I always make it to the point that indeed it really happened and I even despised it but because you generalized which is the reason why existed here kay aron naay mo supalpal nimo .

Why am I still arguing with you?? You throw objections from here to there because you think you're cool, witty and all that bullcrap (one of common symptoms of midlife crisis) as what other people here in iStorya been telling you which obviously they're just kissing your butt because you're a "mod". But the truth is... you're not

LMFAO ! Oh really ? BY who ? Where and when ? Which thread ? How can you know the truth when you cant even accept FACTS ? Midlife crisis ? Oh c'mon ... I am so happy with life , goals met , people na gi supalpal nako kay cge ug pataka na obvious kaayo and much much more and here you are talking about MIDLIFE CRISIS ? Dont even start with your Ad Hominems ... remember that I am a " MOD " . LOLZ !!

[mannyamador]

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope
By Phil Lawler | April 10, 2010 10:03 AM
http://www.catholicculture.org/comme...otn.cfm?id=632

We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.

The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."

First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.

Now the key questions:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
  
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
  
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
  
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
  
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
  
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
  
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican -- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a ***-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

We Americans know what a s3x-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.

Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Which in the case of one of my arguments on earlier replies , MEDIA EXPOSURE / MEDIA MILEAGE indeed is a big factor because its reports could stem an issue out of stories that are INCOMPLETE or EXAGGERATED just to make some royalties .

Most likely , what matters most is not what we READ and HEAR but what we KNOW . Just like fire ... composed of HEAT / FUEL / OXYGEN and the absence of one composite reactor makes it inutile .

[devnull]

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope
By Phil Lawler | April 10, 2010 10:03 AM
Catholic Culture : On The News : Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope

We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.

The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."

First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.

Now the key questions:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
  
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
  
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
  
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
  
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
  
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
  
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican -- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a ***-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

We Americans know what a s3x-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.

Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

this scandal will soon die out and the allegations will never be resolved. only the pope knows the truth and there's no indication the vatican will ever allow the pope to address the allegations directly.

well at least this article resolve one of the issues argued on this thread. the issue of whether abusive priests got "protection" from up the ranks.

Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry

[godwhacker]

Ang katoliko ray gi ilad anang El Shaddai ois, kana diay balihun ang payung salu sa grasya, talong itlog tatlong talon para naa kwarta sunod adlaw, pag tulun-an diay na sa katoliko... gigamit ra ang name sa katoliko ana para daghan mangapil nila...

I remember what my cousin priest who was based in Manila, told me several years ago. Bishop Bacani helped create this monster together with Velarde. It was too late when the congregation became fanatics unya nagpato-o to-o, nagmahay si Bacani maong ni distansya siya though siya gihapon ang spiritual adviser ining El-Shadai.