Darker side of me? Not really.

I wanted to try to be as clean and as objective in my arguments while referring to the first person. That's the basic reason why I planned to have another blog called Alter-Ego; which will focus in my everyday activities, lighter approaches to social issues, and maybe some blah.

Anyway, check it out, too....

I hope His Holiness will wear this...

Saint

Editorial of The Varsitarian, May 16, 2011.

TENS of thousands of Catholics from all over the world flocked at St. Peter’s Square to witness and rejoice in the beatification of Pope John Paul II last May 1, a showcase of the people’s love and appreciation for the Supreme Pontiff who led the Church for 26 years until his death in 2005. Tens of millions more did the witnessing and rejoicing through the electronic media if not vicariously, at least spiritually. And they weren’t all Catholics. They were people from other denominations and other religions who did not hide the affection and high regard they hold for the new beato.

To the Roman Catholic Church and beyond, the Blessed John Paul II was an example of sheer faith, and love amid strife and the many adversities of life. His successor, Benedict XVI, called him “an immense grace which embraced Rome and the whole world: a grace which was in some way the fruit of my beloved predecessor’s entire life, and especially of his witness in suffering.”

The miracle that qualified the late Pope for beatification was the healing of a similar suffering in Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, a nun who asked for his intercession when Parkinson’s disease was already getting in the way of her duties as a faithful.

The man of humble and tragic beginnings was born Karol Jozef Wojtyla in Wadowice, Poland in 1920. At a young age, he faced many loses with “death hovering over the family”—an infant daughter had died before his birth, his mother Emilia passed away a month before he turned nine years old, and his brother Edmund followed three years later. In the midst of the Nazi occupation in 1941, his father Karol had a heart attack and died, leaving the younger Karol completely orphaned.

“At twenty, I had already lost all the people I loved, and even those I might have loved,” the Pope would say in an interview nearly forty years later.

But the man turned to his faith and the Church, even when he was fully capable of taking on other paths given his intellectual talents and charm. His ordination as priest when he was 26 years old would be the start of his swift and surprising climb up the Church’s hierarchy, becoming one of the youngest cardinals in 1967.

The biggest surprise would come on October 16, 1978, when the Sacred College of Cardinals elected him as the 264th pontiff and the first non-Italian one in more than 400 years—a role that he reportedly accepted “before the cardinals with tears in his eyes.”

Speaking on the balcony overlooking the crowd that patiently waited, the reluctant new Pope said that he received the event “in the spirit of obedience to Our Lord and in the total confidence in his Mother, the most holy Madonna.”

From then on, he would be known as John Paul II and would spend the rest of his life with an even bigger family and more responsibilities. As head of one of the biggest sectors of faith in the world, the Supreme Pontiff embraced his newfound kin by traveling to be with them—making him “one of the most-travelled world leaders in history,” reaching more than a hundred countries and visiting the Philippines twice.

His pilgrimages, however, went beyond the Catholic circle. A peacemaker whose charm and sincerity seeped through negotiations, the Pope had touched the hearts and reestablished links with other religious groups like Judaism and Islam. He also met with many political leaders, appealing for peace and better relations.

He would be known by many names and advocacies, one of which is his love and encouragement for the youth. It was in 1985 when he initiated the first World Youth Day (WYD) and it has been held and anticipated since.

His second and last sojourn to the Philippines was for the 1995 World Youth Day in Manila, with its closing Mass at Luneta considered to be the largest Catholic gathering in history. During this visit, the Pope also visited again the University of Santo Tomas, which was hosting the International Youth Forum, the Catholic youth leaders’ forum of WYD. The Pope’s address before the mammoth crowd at the UST Grandstand put in proper perspective while UST enjoys special papal regard historically: “As a pontifical university, Santo Tomás has a special right to the Pope’s attention,” the Pope said. “In fact, this is the third visit of a Pope to the oldest university in Asia: Pope Paul VI came here in 1970; I came in 1981 and now God gives me the grace of being here again to meet the ‘university world’ of the Philippines.” Blessed John Paul added: “As a former university student and professor myself, I feel a special affinity with you. I wish to encourage you to live the University experience with dedication and commitment, in the pursuit of human and academic excellence, with a great sense of responsibility toward your families and society, toward your future and the future of your country.” Years later, when Philippine bishops and clergy visited him in Rome and reminded him about UST and Filipino Catholics, the Pope said he remembered those days “very well [because of] how warmly you received me during the World Youth Day.”

John Paul II dedicated himself to the service of God and the Church amid his long, hard struggle with Parkinson’s disease and the many controversies that he faced during his pontificate. But much like his fond remembrance of the University, John Paul II’s papacy is still regarded not for its shortfalls but its achievements.

Now, only six years after his passing, he has been beatified, which formally declares him among the elect in heaven and worthy of veneration. Even beyond his earthly life, the well-loved Pope is showing us that little miracles can lie in what we decide “to do with the time that is given us.”

Sinner

On the other side of the spectrum is another—but different—kind of remembrance.

Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., the only son and namesake of the late president Ferdinand Marcos, has revived the clamor to bury his father’s remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani—the “hallowed place reserved for heroes,” including former presidents and government dignitaries, Filipino veterans, national artists, and military personnel who died in the line of duty.

The issue, which has been dragging on for decades, has dug up old wounds once again. President Benigno Aquino III, whose father was allegedly killed upon the older Marcos’ orders, may have opened his heart to co-existing with the Marcoses peacefully, but he was not ready to take on this huge decision and tossed it over to Vice President Jejomar Binay to prevent his bias from getting in the way.

The plea would bellow in many sectors, even in Congress, where a resolution was signed by more than 200 congressmen, “urging [Aquino] to allow the burial of Marcos at the Libingan.”

The survey outfit Social Weather Stations found that Filipinos have a “virtually exact split opinion” on the matter after their March 4-7 survey, while the StratPOLLS Inc. saw that 71.6 percent—or seven out of 10—of 250 residents in Metro Manila favor the controversial burial.

Marcos’ remains are in a refrigerated crypt in an “ill-maintained and dilapidated” mausoleum in Batac, Ilocos Norte. Marcos kin and supporters keep on citing how his mausoleum is unfit for a former president. But it was the megalomania of the Marcos family and supporters that set up the ghastly mausoleum in the first place. As far as the requirements of Christian charity and human respect are concerned, the former strongman had been accorded that when, after dying in Hawaii where he had fled during the Edsa revolution of 1986, his remains were allowed to be brought home. Many countries that have kicked out dictators haven’t allowed their remains to be brought home.

A Catholic country, the Philippines has rewritten the rules on ousted despots and presidents in the interest of charity. But the Marcos family and their minions still insist on burying him at the Libingan because his mausoleum is “dilapidated” and apparently cannot be properly maintained by the billions he had plundered. Apparently the snootiness of his family and followers cannot be backstopped by the billions they had pillaged: since they cannot put their money where their mouth is, they want the people to foot the bill for their superciliousness. Despite the mercy accorded the strongman, his family, and cohorts by the people who allowed them to come home in the first place, they still want to push the envelope; they’re merciless and irredeemable.

It’s an insult to the Edsa revolution and the tens of thousands of human rights abuses under Marcos, as well as those who have worked for the restoration and the nurturance of our democracy that the Marcoses and their sycophants could demand state burial for the ousted despot. It’s an insult to the many men and women—journalists, politicians, and civilians alike—whose rights and lives were put to disdain by the stronghold of the dictator, his thugs, and his kleptocrats.

That the Marcos kin and minions have had the gall to demand a state burial for the strongman—and the fact that the public at large seems willing to go along with them—should indicate that the battle for historical memory is slipping. More and more, Filipinos feel a little kinder toward Marcos not really because his successors haven’t been any better (although that’s part of the reason), but because Filipinos continue to be infected by short memory and shallow thinking: they can’t seem to understand that many of the ills affecting the nation now owes to martial law and Marcos’ scornful decision in 1972 to destroy the rules of the democratic game so as to perpetuate himself in power by corrupting the military and the body politic. The Filipino people should not disgrace themselves further: they should say No to burying Marcos at the Libingan and say Yes to charity with, above all, truth and justice.

Prophecy or Mass Panic?

Does anyone know this old dude?

Or I guess you have seen these ads before May 21...

Well, how can you convince a largely Catholic country who believes that "NO ONE KNOWS THE HOUR..." (Mt. 24:36) with a "prophecy" of doom that a man named Harold Camping "calculated" in the late 1980's? His so-called "Judgment Day" was first predicted on Sept.7, 1994 (the Vigil(?) of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary), which failed. When it did, Camping explained that there was a "grace period" that will last until May 21, 2011, where each local timezone will experience earthquakes at dusk and souls will be raptured (Rapture is an Evangelical Protestant concept of the election of the faithful, or in simplespeak, souls of "those who are faithful to Christ" will be snatched from the earth and will partake in the Heavenly Banquet. I call it an unfair, overrated stupidity).

But except for a 4-point-something magnitude quake in Northern Luzon that night (which was about an hour late to the predicted "worldwide timezone earthquake"), NOTHING HAPPENED. May 22 came (which is actually my Mom's birthday), and everyone's screwing and cursing Camping personally and virtually. Now he's telling a new date: October 21, 2011. He says that that will be it. I say: even if December 21, 2012 will come, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN; and if there will be a December 22 (which will apparently happen), I'm going to party at my birthday!

He failed once.

He failed twice.

And with this new prediction, he will absolutely fail again.

Will you let him spread his lies and create mass panic? I won't.

Jesus Christ was consistent: NO ONE KNOWS THE HOUR...EXCEPT GOD THE FATHER (Mt. 24:36).



Oh yeah...I almost forgot.... I call this "The Biggest Joke and the Epic Fail of the Century". LOL

Another P.S.: Why emphasize God as Justice? Isn't He Mercy as well? Just because of one man predicting the end of the world, it doesn't follow that God will do it. Besides, Camping had too much adulterated Protestant garbage on his sleeve.

RH bill: Spawn of statism

Editorial of The Varsitarian, April 13, 2011

A DIFFERENT show of people-power was staged last March 25 at the Quirino Grandstand when the clergy and religious, pro-life groups, and the Church as a whole gathered to call for the abolition of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

During the Mass, attended by some 200,000 to 300,000 people, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales called for respect for life and the junking of the RH bill. Cardinal Rosales said that despite the bill’s avowals of “responsible parenthood” and “sexual responsibility,” its bias for contraception and “safe sex” is very evident, so that it is hardly expected to foster authentic responsibility and discipline, two virtues, he said, that the people and the nation need. He added that people’s indifference to life, if not their utter disrespect of it, could lead to moral decay.

The Cardinal said life should be defended from conception: “Kapag hindi pinahalagahan ang buhay na iyan sa alinman o saan mang yugto ng buhay ng tao, (sanggol, fetus, matanda, malakas, o mahina) hinding-hindi igagalang ang buhay ng sinuman—at diyan kapag wala ng halaga o walang pagpapahalaga, wala ng magtatanggol sa buhay.”

The Cardinal’s remarks are a re-expression of what the Varsitarian has said in its last editorial (“RH Bill: Deadly, Anti-Constitution”). Despite its claim to being a lawful measure by its invocation of supposed constitutional principles and state policies, the RH bill is mum on the most important constitutional principle and state policy that should apply on any measure that seeks to regulate births, curb population growth, and introduce sex education—that the “State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” (Section 12, Article 2) If one pits all of the questionable provisions of the bill against this proviso, one will recognize how the bill is in fact an attack on the 1987 Constitution that had been overwhelmingly ratified by nearly 80 percent of the population! One will agree with the Varsitarian that it is “deadly,” “anti-life,” “anti-family,” and “anti-constitution.” One will recognize that the RH bill is an attack on human dignity and the Filipino nation!

Oh, but contraception is not abortion, the RH bill proponents maintain. But only the truly dense cannot see through their smokescreen, their lie. In the first place, the bill makes a blanket approbation of all contraceptives, which it wants to be declared as “essential” medicines. Some of these contraceptives are technically abortifacients, even physicians admit that. Moreover, the bill compels medical workers to provide services to women suffering post-abortion complications, which is a condonation of abortion and violates the penal statutes on the crime. Much as mercy and compassion should be extended to women suffering from complications arising out of abortion, wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?

Meanwhile, UST, maintaining its Catholic nature and character, released a statement last March 24 opposing the RH bill, saying it violates conscience and tramples upon religious freedom.” It said that any government-sponsored responsible parenthood program should be motivated by an “option for life and not against it. Backing the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ stand, UST said natural family planning was the better option as it is “not only pro-life but also pro-poor and pro-women, since it does not endanger people’s health.”

UST is specifically opposing provisions in the consolidated RH bill or House Bill No. 4244, such as Section 9 which names contraceptives as essential medicines, Section 18 demanding all employers to include contraceptives in their employee’s economic package, and Section 22 that prohibits any person from “malicious engagement in disinformation about the intent or provision of this act.”

“This would mean that the purchase of contraceptives shall be the burden of all tax-paying Filipinos, even those who, in conscience, are pro-life,” UST said in its statement. “This is a violation of the freedom of religion, of freedom of conscience, and of freedom of expression.”

As much as how the mainstream media generally biased for the RH bill portray the rally and UST’s stand, both events evinced a growing awareness in the Church and society at large of the demonic ends of the bill, its utter disregard of life. Despite secularism and the pro-choice mentality of many Filipinos, it’s good to know that there are still Catholics and other Filipinos who belive in the sanctity of life and the right to life of both the born and the unborn.

Moreover, Filipinos are beginning to see the dark social-engineering dimensions of the bill. Contrary to what the authors of the bill have been trumpeting, the RH bill is not pro-poor. If it is, then there will be no need for the more than a billion of pesos that is planned to be spent during its initial phase. Filipinos are beginning to realize that the money for it would be better used to address directly the education, food and health needs of the poor. After all, the poor need food, clothing and shelter, not condoms and contaceptives. Filipinos are beginning to see that the RH bill authors and supporters are really Stalinist legislators who see the poor as sex-starved rabbits and blame the poor for their poverty.

In fact, family planning and population control were enshrined in the Marcos Constitution of 1973. Despite the widespread implementation of the draconian birth control law, poverty persisted, denying any correlation between population and poverty. On the contrary, the Philippine economy collapsed, which should show that poverty is caused, not by overpopulation (no such thing), but by corruption, mismanagement, and monopolistic and oligopolistic practices.

Now, Congress, backed by academics from the University of the Philippines (self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist) and Ateneo de Manila University (self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist), both elitist and bourgeois institutions, want population control back! Their concourse should show that Statism exists, whether in the left or the right, and that Stalinists and fascists aren’t so strange bedfellows. In fact, for all practical purposes they’re cozy intimates. And from their act of consummation would issue the monstrous offspring—the RH bill, nothing less than the spawn of Statism.

Time for a BARRAGE!

Finally, the Archers have spoken:

Good Citizenship Statement on RH Bill

Reject the RH-RP BILL!

It is Anti-life and Anti-Filipino!

It goes against the Spirit of EDSA!

We, members of the Good Citizenship Movement, representing thousands of faculty and students, government employees, businessmen, parents, women and urban poor, reject the proposed House Bill on reproductive health and responsible parenthood. It is unhealthy, anti-life, irresponsible and anti Filipino!

The Bill is Unhealthy and Anti-Life

If passed, the Bill would make contraceptives more accessible and encourage their use. But medical research has shown conclusively that contraceptives have harmful effects for women who use them regularly. Some are even carcinogenic.

Proponents of the Bill also claim that widespread use of condoms will reduce the incidence of HIV-AIDS. Nothing is farther from the truth! Just look at the experience of Thailand where AIDS has spread greatly since they started flooding their people with condoms!

Another deceptive claim of the Bill’s proponents is that more contraceptive use will reduce unwanted pregnancies. The truth is that contraceptive use gives a sense of “false security”, opening the way to more sexual activity and more unwanted pregnancies!

But the most deceptive and damning claim of the Bill is that it is against abortion! Yet it provides for free services to women for post-abortion trauma. It facilitates and encourages the use of contraceptives that are abortifacient! It violates the right to life of the unborn Filipino! It is for abortion!

The Bill assumes that a woman’s right to choose whether to abort is equal to the unborn’s right to life. This is not consistent with the natural moral law which makes the right to life superior to any other human right, including a woman’s right to choose to abort. In a word, a woman’s freedom to choose ends where a child’s right to life begins!

The Bill is Irresponsible and Unconstitutional

The right and responsibility to educate children belongs primarily to the parents. This applies to sex education. If the bill is passed, it would take away this right and responsibility and give it to the schools and to mass media! This is not “responsible parenthood”! It is a clear violation of parents’ right to choose the manner and vehicle for giving sex education to their child! It is therefore irresponsible and unconstitutional!

The Bill is Anti-Filipino

Underlying the Bill is the claim that overpopulation causes poverty, and therefore, Filipino population must be controlled! Most economists and political scientists would refute this! Empirical research shows otherwise.

We assert that the Philippines is not overpopulated and population is not correlated to poverty!

We have more than enough land and food for our people. Our problem is that our cities and urban centers are too densely populated, simply because there are not enough jobs in the countryside. The solution is for government and business to decentralize their economic programs and empower the provinces. More support to agriculture and fishery, and more tax revenues to local governments can achieve this.

Furthermore, let us not make the same mistake of Singapore and the industrialized West. Their negative population growth now drives them to pay couples and give them incentives to have children! No, the problem is not population per se. The problem is to have better economic policies and better education programs for our people. That will put an end to our poverty!

The Bill is Anti-EDSA

The Spirit of EDSA was simply this: a united people won back its freedom peacefully! Thus, a Spirit of Unity, Freedom and Peace restored our pride and dignity!

The proposed RH-RP Bill is unnecessarily dividing our people. It is pitting Catholics against non-Catholics, the Catholic Church against the government. It does not promote unity!

The Bill violates the right to life of the aborted unborn Filipinos, and their potential to be born and live as free citizens in a free country. Let us not deprive them of that right!

Finally, the Filipino wants and deserves to live peacefully with everyone. This Bill is causing sincere and well-intentioned Filipinos to fight against each other.

It is a needless provocation. Let us reject it!

An Ardent Call

We therefore ardently call on our Congress Representatives to reject this Bill! We call on our Senators not to let it prosper! Most of all, we call on our beloved President Benigno Aquino III to remain steadfast in his decision not to support the Bill! The greater common good of our country demands nothing less!

Br. Rolando Dizon FSC

Founder and Chairman

Good Citizenship Movement

De La Salle University,Manila

February 26, 2011

EDSA Silver Anniversary

PACQUIAO AS PNOY'S ENDORSER!(?) WHAT?

I just got this from Sir Nemesio Antonio, Jr. on his post at "The Truth Is..." and yeah.... I smell something fishy in the yellow gloves the Pacman is using in his fight against "Sugar" Shane Mosely.... [Reactions will be on this format....]

Pnoy’s Administration must be really desperate and panicking to regaiin public support.

They’ve now turned to boxing legend Manny Pacquiao as unofficial endorser of the Aquino Government through the yellow gloves he will wear today in his fight against Shane Mosley in Las Vegas, Nevada. [Well, well, well.... What do we have here? A sabotage?]

Why do I say so?

Pacquiao had announced he will wear yellow gloves today to symbolize Filipino unity in the fight against poverty.

But whoever said yellow symbolizes Filipino unity versus poverty? What law? What rule? [I don't even saw that kind of interpretation to yellow.] We all know that yellow is identified to only ONE FAMILY in the entire country, the Aquinos starting with the late former President Cory, Pnoy’s mom. [It's obvious.]

Pacquiao’s decision to wear yellow gloves comes at a time when the Aquino Administration’s popularity is on a CONTINUOUS DECLINE. As far as I know, he never wore yellow gloves in his previous fights. [He normally uses RED gloves.]

But apart from newspaper reports saying Pnoy is praying for Pacquiao’s victory, Deputy Presidential spokesperson Abegail Valte is asking the people to wear yellow today as a sign of unity and support. [But there are hidden agendas to this.]

Even though none of us will be watching the fight live at Nevada. Let me give you two possible explanations for this.

First, they want to make Pacquiao en endorser of the Government. [And MAY have all the power to lure him into the Pro-Death camp (through the infamous Reproductive Health Bill) and away from his original stance of the sanctity of life.] They want him to ask his legions of fans not to lose trust in Pnoy and the Aquino Administration to prevent another drop in the ratings.

Or Pnoy’s boys will take pictures and video footages of seas of yellow which they hope to find today in as many areas as possible. Then, they will come out with these in media claiming that the people are united, not just behind Pacquiao but also the Government, proof that they’re recovering Pnoy’s popularity. [This...is...DECEPTION!]

A DISGUSTING and PATHETIC propaganda gimmick. [And I totally agree with it.] Anybody corfrect me if I’m wrong and I assure you I’ll immediately come out with it.

I sure hope Pacquiapo is not a willing participant in this amateurish propaganda scheme., and that he won’t allow himself to be used and exploited by the incompetents in Pnoy’s  government. [Pacquiao must not do so. He has a name of his own, and he should protect that name so that the trust the people gave to him will not be broken.]

(1:32 PM)

This just in....

HE WON AGAINST MOSELY VIA UNANIMOUS DECISION!

Now he's got two things he must consider:

1. Retire from Boxing and ignore Mayweather; and
2. Focus his duties as Representative of Saranggani and knock out the Reproductive Health Bill on his new boxing ring: the Batasang Pambansa.

Now how'dya like that?

O Birheng Kalinis-linisan (Agni Parthene sa Tagalog)

(Salin ni Ian Joseph Riñon, sa tono ng Agni Parthene.)

O Birheng kalinis-linisan, Ina ng Diyos namin. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Napupuno ng grasya, Birhen at Reyna namin. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Maliwanag pa sa araw, matayog pa sa Langit. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

O galak ng mga birhen at Reyna ng mga anghel. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Maliwanag pa sa Kalangitan, sariwa pa sa araw. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Banal higit sa kalahatang hukbo ng Kalangitan. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Maria, Birheng gabay ng tanang sangkatauhan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Babaeng kalinis-linisan, Panagiang tuluyan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Mariang Reyna ng tanan, sanhi ng kagalakan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

O Reyna ng sangkatauhan, Ina ng Kaligtasan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Mapugay pa sa Kerubing nag-aalay ng awitin. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Mas marangal sa Seraping 'di masilay-silayin. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

O Kerubin, kayo'y magalak, tuluyan siyang awitan. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

O Serapim, kayo'y magalak, pati tanang mga banal.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Magalak, O kapayapaa't daong ng kaligtasan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Sisidlan ng Kanyang Salita, bulaklak na walang hanggan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Magalak, O Paraiso ng buhay na walang hanggan.

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Magalak, O Puno ng buhay, Bukal ng kalualhatian. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Ngayon ay tinatawag kita, Birhen naming minamahal. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Pakinggan mo ang aking dasal, O Reyna ng sangkinapal. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Babaeng kalinis-linisan, O Birheng Panagia. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Kami ay tumatawag, O templong pinagpala. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

Ako'y iyong ipagsanggalang sa 'king mga kaaway. 

Magalak ka, Maria. 

At gawing tagapagmana ng tinatamasang buhay! 

Magalak ka, Maria!

Mariology is Christological by Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P.

Original post can be found HERE.

Mariology is Christological

Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.

What is Christological Mariology?

There are varied approaches to Mariology. One of the most dominant is the “Christological” approach.

Christological Mariology is “the position of a group of Marian theologians ‘who put Mary so closely on the side of Jesus who as the Christ is the head of His redeemed Church.’ These theologians hold that Mary stands by the side of Christ, facing humanity with Him, rather than by the side of humanity facing Christ” [Fr. Ronald Dacanay Mactal, O.P., Mary: Seat of Wisdom – A Contemporary Marian Reflection (Manila: UST Publishing House, 2001) p. 29, citing Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., Mary Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993) p. 16].

Definitely, Marian doctrines are rightly called Christological doctrines. The deeper we delve into Mary, the more we learn about Christ. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains –

“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ” (CCC No. 487).

Blessed William Joseph Chaminade, founder of the Society of Mary (Marianists), correctly observed:

“As it is through or knowledge of Our Savior Jesus Christ that we have come to know the most Blessed Virgin, so also may we say that it is our knowledge of Mary that leads us to know our Lord Jesus Christ.”

(www.campus.udayton.edy/mary/meditations/chaminade/chaminade2.htm)

Historically, Marian doctrines resulted from Christological controversies. In the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., Mary’s title of Theotokos (God-bearer) was affirmed in view of the revealed truth that her Son, Jesus Christ, was true God and true man, with two natures –human and divine- in on person or hypostasis. In the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., the title Theotokoswas decreed as the “touchstone of orthodoxy” because it safeguards the full truth about Jesus Christ:

“The revelation that Mary is the God-bearer is essential to affirming the truth about Jesus in His Incarnation. Every Christian who believes that Jesus is fully God and fully man should affirm that Mary is Theotokos!” [Peter M. Girard, “Mary and Her Son,” Homiletics and Pastoral ReviewVol. CIII, No. 3 (December 2002) p. 35].

Marian doctrine is important for Christology. Whatever is said of Mary has a bearing on Jesus. What we believe about Mary ultimately affects what we believe about Jesus Christ. As long as we profess and hold the truths about Mary, we are safeguarded from denying the truths about Christ. As an old Catholic saying goes, “Abandoning the Mother is one step from abandoning the Son.”

Church history attests to the fact that after Protestants rejected Mary, their teaching on Jesus Christ started to decline steadily over the centuries. Protestant sects, cults and denominations today no longer believe many truths about Jesus Christ. Had they preserved the truths about Mary (that they rejected long ago), they would have not fallen to heresy. Indeed, the truths about Mary reinforce the truths about Christ.

On the other hand, the Holy Catholic Church never rejected any of the M[a]rian doctrines and continues to officially teach the truths about Jesus Christ, Our Lord, Savior and God.

Blessed John Henry Newman, the famous Anglican convert to Catholicism, correctly opined:

“Son and Mother went together; and the experience of three centuries has confirmed their testimony; for Catholics who have honored the Mother still worship the Son, while Protestants, who now have ceased to confess the Son, began then by scoffing at the Mother” [John Henry Newman, Discourses to Mixed Congregations, p. 345-248, quoted in Mystical Rose, Joseph Regina, ed. (NewYork: Scepter, 1996) p. 47.]

My icon of the Mother of God written by iconographer Christina Dochwat

Osama is HISTORY.

Yup, you heard it right. That SOB is killed just the way the war boys want it.

Sir Resty Odon prays that the Americans won't be a target of Al Qaeda.

Citizen Warrior brings the details.

Ad Orientem's blogger (which is actually an Orthodox) explains that his death is long overdue.

And even Father Z writes about it.

My reaction?

The Polish Pope and the Filipino People

What does Blessed Pope John Paul II have in common with Juan dela Cruz?

The names of their countries both start with the letter P.

Their capital cities (Warsaw and Manila, respectively) were both heavily devastated during World War II.

Their countries are predominantly Catholic.

Majority of Pole and Filipino Catholics are both Marian in devotion.

Both countries recite the Three-O'-Clock Prayer and have a devotion to the Lord's Divine Mercy (which is anyway celebrated today, always in the Second Sunday of Easter).

They both fought for social justice (the Polish people more successful than the Filipinos).

And most of all...

THEIR PEOPLES ARE HAPPY THAT THIS YOUTH-LOVING, LIFE-ADVOCATING PONTIFF WILL BE BEATIFIED TODAY!

Blessed John Paul II, PRAY FOR US!