Ang pagka konsentidor sa simbahan

[garyg]

---

You deny yourself the Eucharist. You see the faults of the priests. By doing both acts, what good have you done?

I wonder why it is only these days that priests are doing some unthinkable behavior. In the previous years like the 60's or 70's or 80's only very few incidents occured. Is the revelation starting to come true? That the wolves will be in sheeps clothes?

[Gwynhuever]

ako lain sad ako take ani...ang ako sad i-release na lang ang mga pari sa vow of celibacy....kay lisod man jud na tumanon...makasala na lang nuon sila...pero kabalo na sad ko sa tubag sa Church....nga can not serve 2 masters at the same time etc etc...so mora tag iro ani sige gukod sa iya kaugalingong ikog...kay for sure this will be a recurring problem....kanus-a man sulbaron jud ang root cause??

[dacs]

mag-apil-apil pa jud sa politika, limot cguro nga naa na seperation between STATE and RELIGION.

Let me quote an article:

THE LAST TIME, WITH FEELING
Commentary by Asuncion David Maramba

It’s something I’ve wanted to write to finish to, as in “period, period, period.” But every time the Church gets “involved in politics,” scavengers rake up that dry bone about “separation of Church and State.” I say, “dry” because the matter is constitutionally settled, boring, and if you look closely, there’s really nothing to worry about. Oh, the animosities raised in the name of separation of Church and State!

Let’s give the Constitution a cool and cold look so we don’t get all worked up when a person of the cloth engages in political debate. “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” (Art. II Sec. 6) “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed…” (Art. III Sec. 5) Simply put, the doctrine consists of twin principles: non-establishment of a state religion and free choice of one’s religion. Why would anyone want to destroy that, unless he’s still romantic about the Roman Empire and medieval feudalism?

Nowhere does it say that the human being is to be split, with his body assigned to the State, and his soul, to the Church; or that the priest is to be confined in church while the politician runs scot-free through the rest of the country.

Eat your heart out, but any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, nun can praise and cooperate or criticize and denounce like you and me. He can sound the alarm like Cardinal Sin in ’86 or make a call for sobriety in ’97 like Fr. Nico Bautista and pastors of different churches. He can in his heart of hearts be as partisan as you and me. That he must at times keep his mouth shut deserves sympathy from us.

But unlike us, the man or woman of religion bears two “burdens” from which we are spared. One is the image of perfection whereby we expect him never to commit misjudgments or exhibit human failings. In truth, he is as liable to make mistakes, to go overboard, to be biased, to be unkind, like you and me. We must allow him such shortcomings.

The second arises from the imposition to distinguish when he is speaking “as an individual,” or as “spokesman” of his church or community. We allow him the first (sometimes grudgingly); we are stingy about the second and accuse him of “meddling in state affairs.” How by the way can the two be separated? Priesthood is like a second skin. Must the man of religion peel off a layer of his being and preface his every political comment with, “Now, I’m speaking for myself” and “Now I’m speaking for the Church or my community”? Such perhaps was the bind in which brave Dominican Fr. Larry Faraon found himself; trapped between the horns of expressing himself or toeing the official line.

We’ve become so allergic to that odious “union of Church and State,” that we develop heat flushes at the slightest sign of its return. The latest provocation was of course the Sept. 21 (When martial law was declared) rally which released a word war and reactions all around that distressed any believer of both the President and the cardinal, like me. “Why is there no one in Church? – All afternoon Masses have been called off, dear, so you’ll go to the rally – You don’t say!” (in utter disbelief). “Hey, the President deserves more respect: “That’s not Marcos” and so on.

Actually, the barbs had little to do with the separation of Church and State – not even with the involvement of the Church. It was the “how” that riled us; that made Catholics argue with Catholics. Temperatures rose not just over cha-cha (secret word the plot of changing of the constitution), but over the way the attack, on the one hand, and its defense, on the other, was waged. But all’s well that ends well. After the rally, the gestures on both sides were magnanimous.

For the record, the Church and any church for that matter, can and should be involved, not only in crisis times but all the time. For crisis is deceiving. Ours may not be a towering volcano about to burst as in Marcos’ time; but an endemic vein of graft and corruption can kill.

The churches are in an eminent position to exhort to honesty and watch public office. Who else will do it besides us, quietly despairing citizens? The congressmen and your mayor? I look forward to Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s resolve to demolish those “dancing, clowning and singing candidates.”

And even when the churches do all these, not to worry. There are more points in which Church and State agree than in which they are inimical. What a relief that after that heartwarming conciliation, the President and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines are not fully exploring cooperation.

Separation of Church and State is solid and very secure. Anybody who is even thinking of “repealing” it will be buried under an avalanche of protest. The churches themselves will protect it. The world will end first before we lose the freedom to worship as we please.

I agree with most of her idea on what separation of Church and State means. In your case, how do you understand separation of Church and State?

[dacs]

I wonder why it is only these days that priests are doing some unthinkable behavior. In the previous years like the 60's or 70's or 80's only very few incidents occured. Is the revelation starting to come true? That the wolves will be in sheeps clothes?

Unthinkable? What are these 'unthinkable' behaviors? Specifics, please. Let us not make assumptions where such could lead to error.

60's, 70's and the 80's are decades of turbulence. Different events grasp the local headlines. Karon, manguykoy na gyud pag-ayo. Whatever sells newspaper or grasps your attention (and 'paralyzes your hands on the remote' ).

I suggest that you spend some time reading history especially those that have something to do with men of the cloth. You will realize that such events as ours are tame compared to other times.

Shalom.

[fingolfin]

The churches are in an eminent position to exhort to honesty and watch public office. Who else will do it besides us, quietly despairing citizens? The congressmen and your mayor? I look forward to Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s resolve to demolish those “dancing, clowning and singing candidates.”

... yes, the church should be the "conscience of the state" but they should watch over their own backyard and stem out all those corrupt priests. Those priests who commited even ONE mistake. chose from these list: rape, altar-boy abuse, money laundering. priests with children. The church should be hard on these priests who is giving the church a bad name. they are the reasons why many people, including myself, don't respect the church no more.

[snage]

Yah I also agree that idea of Asuncion David Maramba. Like us the people in the church are also citizens of our country who possess the rights and freedom like an ordinary individuals. No law that shall prohibit a priest to run an office in the government as long as he is qualify to run. In my own notion of separation between church and state it is all about freedom of belief. That no one is prohibited to practice what their beliefs as long as it is not a nuisance to society. We are free to practice cannibalism but we are not allowed to kill our fellow human. Now, regarding the issue of priest doing immoral acts is just like a lawyer doing immoral acts it is already beyond the issue of separation between church and state because justice will be serve regardless of your religion wether you are priest or not you are liable for your own mistakes. We all know that we go church not because of the priest but because of what we believe and our purpose. Consider this idea what if Marcos is still alive today and you are given a chance to choose a lawyer between Ferdinand Marcos and an ordinary public lawyer to defend your case? Who's your choice? It is just like a priest serving us for the salvation of our soul not for him. Just follow what they said which you believe is right. We are always bound to commit mistakes and we are always given a choice.

[M@rv|n]

I wonder why it is only these days that priests are doing some unthinkable behavior. In the previous years like the 60's or 70's or 80's only very few incidents occured. Is the revelation starting to come true? That the wolves will be in sheeps clothes?

its also possible that in those days only few incidents were reported. [br]Posted on: August 12, 2006, 05:14:22 AM_________________________________________________S aturday, August 12, 2006
Vidal ‘not stupid’ to issue gag order

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb...gag.order.html

Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal “is not stupid” to issue a gag order against his priests, Msgr. Achilles Dakay, archdiocesan media liaison officer, said yesterday.

In a radio interview, Dakay said priests were only asked to refrain from making comments on issues that are still under investigation, such as the Pardo parish controversy, where a group wants to oust the parish team ministry, and the case of Santander parish priest Fr. Jovencio Rabusa, who is accused of physical and sexual abuses.

Reporters who sought to interview Vidal and Dakay last Thursday on several other issues such as Sugbuak were told statements “will be made at the proper time”.

Dakay did not call it a gag order but he earlier said the cardinal told the priests “not to comment on issues that are still under investigation.”

Dialog

Yesterday, Vidal opened his doors to militant group leaders and offered to mediate a dialogue with Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia.

At least eight leaders, including Bayan Muna provincial secretary Arman Perez, visited the cardinal past 9 a.m. to air their concerns over the “all-out war” against insurgency declared by President Arroyo that Garcia echoed.

Perez said Vidal was also wary about the declaration considering the possible human rights violations and the chance that innocent civilians may be victimized as well.

Garcia is reportedly set to visit Vidal “anytime soon” to thank him for his solidarity message during the thanksgiving mass for the 437th founding anniversary of the Cebu, where he acknowledged the “one and only province of Cebu.”

Perez said Vidal promised to raise their concerns to the governor and possibly schedule a dialogue between the two parties.

Militant groups oppose the branding of farmers involved in nongovernment organizations as communists and branding militant groups as fronts of communists.

The leaders decided to bring the matter up to the cardinal as they consider him to be the last influential cardinal in the country.

Vidal also wanted to set the parameters as to what constitutes an “all-out war,” said Perez, adding that the cardinal sees the
“immediacy” to clear things out.

The church is against any kind of extra-judicial killings.

Perez said he was satisfied with the dialogue with the cardinal since Vidal showed consistencies in his stand towards political killings.

The closed-door meeting lasted close to an hour.

Vidal did not issue a statement about the meeting. (JGA)

[jojo_mouth2]

ang mga pari tao lang na sila, temtalon gyud na sa demonyo! gitemtal man gani ang Ginoo sa demonyo, ang tao pa kaha? ang ako lang, i-ampo ta ang mga pari na malayo sa temtasyon ni satanans sama sa i-ampo natu atung kaugalingon na deli ta matemtal!

kung musimba ta, its not the priest na atong giampoan kundi ang Ginoo as a whole! ayaw lang ninyo hunahunaa na dautan ang pari (coz tao ra man na siya) deli nasad ta musimba. na biya na sa kasulatan sa Dyos na kinahanglang ta musimba ta kada domingo apil na ang pag take ug "Holy Eucharist". maski pa segi ta ampo sa atong panimalay kinahanglan pa gyud ta musimba ug magnalawat!

[SamuraiArcher]

I agree nga ang mga Pari tawo lamang nga makasala, pero if ang sala sa Pari daku na gali, dili na pud maayo, labi na ang mga nanggawas karon nga kaso sa Pari, rape, child abuse, corruption, and etc....if ang atong rason nga ang Pari tawo lamang nga makasala, okay ra diay nga mang-rape ang ordinaryong tawo kay tawo ra man ta tanan, and pwede ra pud ta mangulata sa atong isig ka tawo, and ang government officials okay ra pud mangurakut sa kwarta sa kaatwhan kay Tawo rata....makasala....

[jojo_mouth2]

I agree nga ang mga Pari tawo lamang nga makasala, pero if ang sala sa Pari daku na gali, dili na pud maayo, labi na ang mga nanggawas karon nga kaso sa Pari, rape, child abuse, corruption, and etc....if ang atong rason nga ang Pari tawo lamang nga makasala, okay ra diay nga mang-rape ang ordinaryong tawo kay tawo ra man ta tanan, and pwede ra pud ta mangulata sa atong isig ka tawo, and ang government officials okay ra pud mangurakut sa kwarta sa kaatwhan kay Tawo rata....makasala....

wala man ko niingon na okey ra sila makasala ug rape etc ang mga pari (wa ko muhisgot anang gov official), ang ako lang na kita tanan tao makasasala. beh kinsa man deri walay sala? ma-o na atu nalang i-ampo na malayo sila sa temtasyon sama sa pagampo natu na malayo ta sa dautan buhat. pero as usual let justice prevail, kung sentensyahan sa judge ang pari eh preso diba..