What you need to know about the RH Bill's negative side

This is rarely publicized, so I repost this infographic from Kuya Caloy Palad's The Catholic Position on the RH Bill:

Anyway, Check the announcement below. Hope to see you there 'cause I will be. 

The Battle for Existence Continues: the Rosary Month Editorial

(originally made as episode for TSEKPoint, the video commentary program of 100% KATOLIKONG PINOY! now made as a blog version)

This October, we celebrate the Month of the Most Holy Rosary, and there’s no other celebration that could parallel the way the Dominicans honor the Blessed Virgin Mary. Every second week of October, the Order of Preachers, as well as the throngs of people who have a very special attachment to Mary (besides, we were called as the "a people who loved Mary"--"pueblo amante de Maria") because it is the Blessed Mother who interceded to the Child in her arms to preserve the Pearl of the Orient from Calvinist desacration. 

1645 was the year. The Philippines was in total chaos. Revolts were sporadic in the Islands; two earthquakes reduced Manila to ruins; and its Archbishop-elect, Fernando Montero de Espinosa, died before he even took possession of his cathedral. And to make the situation worse, the Dutch are prowling the Philippine shores, desperate to capture poorly-armed Spanish galleons, kick the Spanish regime out of the Philippines, and spread the Protestantism of Calvin. In short, with all these ominous events, the Dutch were resolved that this weak state of the Spanish government in the Philippines is enough to decapitate its rule and incorporate the islands with Formosa (now Taiwan) and Indonesia, both of which were Dutch colonies. It was do or die. If the Spaniards and Filipinos lose, the Philippines will cease to exist.

The Dutch had more or less 15 battleships, divided into three squadrons. The only defense the Spanish-Filipino forces had were two (and later three) galleons, a galley, and a few brigantines (all of them refitted for war). Aside from these makeshift warships, The crew of the Encarnacion (the flagship), the Rosario (the admiral ship), as well as the other warships had weapons and torches on one hand, and rosaries on the other. This only shows that their greatest arsenals were prayers and their devotion to Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary. 

The first battle was fought on March 15 the next year with the two Spanish-Filipino galleons facing five Dutch battleships—with odds in favor of the latter—off the coast of Corregidor. But their resilience and prayers made the Spanish-Filipino crew draw first blood with minimal damage and zero casualties.

The Encarnacion and the Rosario were then dispatched as escorts to the incoming galleon San Luis. They were then blockaded by seven Dutch warships at Ticao Island for about a month, and was lifted afterwards to sail for Manila. The Spanish galleons, then, chased them to an encounter near Marinduque on the 29^th of July. The Dutch waited till nightfall for their fire vessels to be at maximum effectiveness. The Dutch ships encircled the Encarnacion, desparate to capture or destroy the Spanish flagship. They were then fired upon by the Rosario from behind, doing much damage to the enemy squadron. The fire ships then closed in on the two-ship Spanish fleet, hoping to set them on fire, but to no avail. They were heavily bombarded and capsized. The battle lasted till dawn the next day, resulting to a Dutch rout. Again, another victory for the Spanish-Filipino forces with two injuries, but with no deaths, as General Lorenzo de Orella y Ugalde prayed through the intercession of the Virgin before the battle. This was supposed to be the bloodiest among the five battles. 

Two days later, on July 31, 1646, another battle ensued off the coast of Mindoro, this time, with the Spaniards and Filipinos on the offensive. Still in high morale after the previous fight, they cornered the Dutch ships for battle, surprised on how powerful were the Dutch cannons compared to theirs. Resilient and undismayed, they fired upon the Dutch ships, echoing the famous battlecry: “¡Viva la Virgen!” to the sound of their cannons. After four hours one Dutch vessel sank and the rest retreated. Again, no casualties were made on the side of the Spanish-Filipino crew.

After this, General Orella retired as commander of the fleet, turning it over to Captain Sebastian Lopez, thus making him captain of the Encarnacion, while Agustin de Cepeda replaced him as captain of the Rosario. The crew fulfilled its promise before the battle that if they win, they will march barefoot at the Santo Domingo Church in Intramuros. The intermission was important for the Spanish-Filipino fleet to reorganize its crew, do repairs to the ships, and to replenish their supplies. However, they became complacent, believing the Dutch will never again set sail over the Philippine waters. The galleon San Diego was en route to Acapulco when it was harassed by three Dutch ships near Fortune Island. Luckily the poorly-armed ship escaped the trap without an escort and went back to Manila. 

The San Diego was hastily remodeled as a battleship and joined the Encarnacion and the Rosario in the campaign. On Sept. 16, 1646, the now three-ship-and-one-galley-strong Spanish-Filipino fleet met the three-ship Dutch squadron at the port of Calavite in Mindoro. At the height of the battle, the Rosario drifted in for the kill—one ship against three. Admiral Cepeda prepared his crew for broadside fire, and the Dutch fled in the crew’s tenacity.

General Sebastian Lopez ordered the fleet to return to Mariveles to await orders from the Governor-General and to do repairs. On October 4, the San Diego was moored in the port, with the Encarnacion guarding it from a distance. The Rosario was again drifted away from the fleet, this time the Dutch, with three ships, have the flagship, the Encarnacion, as their target. General Sebastian ordered to move the ship, and the final battle for existence was about to begin.

With cunning movement and furious bombardment, the Encarnacion singlehandedly inflicted heavy damages to the enemy ships, causing them to flee. When the wind died down, the galley then attacked the Dutch ships, particularly the Dutch flagship. When it was about to be sunk, the wind blew again, allowing the Dutch to escape despite the pursuit of the Encarnacion and the galley. That final battle tolled four deaths aboard the Encarnacion. 

General Sebastian Lopez again fulfilled their vow of marching barefoot to the shrine of the Virgin of the Rosary. From that time on, all efforts of the Dutch to capture the Philippines were already in vain.

Celebrations were made in Manila, for their death sentence was lifted. An ecclesiastical committee of the vacant See of Manila then convened to investigate if the said series of battles were to be declared as miracles. And true enough, they were for the following reasons:

First, despite the bitter fighting, only fifteen people from the Spanish-Filipino crew lost their lives;

Second, the Encarnacion and the Rosario were old galleons supposed to be incapable of a long-term campaign, yet they won with unexpected results; and

Finally, the crew prayed the Rosary, and implored the intercession of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, which was also the agent of the victory of the Holy League under John of Austria at the Battle of Lepanto decades ago. 

This only shows that for those who pray, prayer is powerful; and if coupled with human efforts, there will be great results.

This was also a sign of determination that the Spaniards will never surrender the faith they practice and preach to the natives. This was a battle for survival—a battle for the existence of the Philippines itself, which Nick Joaquin said:

"Imagine the Philippines as part of Indonesia! That seems incredible today - but it's a might-have-been of our history. There was a time in the 17th century when our fate hung in the balance. Had events gone the other way, THERE MIGHT HAVE NO PHILIPPINES AT ALL.” 

The battles were part of the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch and her allies. Their battlefield was extended to the colonies, threatening to conquer and destroy Spanish culture from the Filipinos. If not for this gallant, almost predictable defense, we would be speaking Dutch instead of English, and we will not have this kind of procession. More importantly, if we just sat down and let the Dutch take over the Philippines, we would not have become the predominant Catholic country in Asia, from which we owe our culture to, for we are already indoctrinated by the heresy of Calvin. 

A coincidental fact: Spain and the Netherlands faced each other again, this time; in the FIFA World Cup Finals in Johannesburg last 2010. Just as almost 400 years ago, the Spanish emerged victorious against the Dutch and won that year’s championship, their first in football. 

Now, another battle is ongoing; though a truce is formally implemented from now until January next year. It is not about territories or indoctrination of heresies, but of ideologies of what life is all about. 

It was on October 7, 2010 that Filipinos for Life, and in the partnership of 100% Katolikong Pinoy, launched the Facebook page called “I Oppose the RH Bill”, in response to the all-hell-broke-loose web war made by neo-atheists, freethinkers, and most of the people who associate themselves to the pro-RH crowd, specifically those who question the alleged involvement of the Catholic Church in politics, as Carlos Celdran assumes. We at 100% Katolikong Pinoy plugged the page instantly, since we also experience anti-Church bigotry through statements and trolling, and sometimes, divides the line between loyal Catholics and dissident, nominal Catholics, not to mention anti-Catholic statements about the “doctrine” of contraception. 

Ever since the establishment of the lines between those who claimed that the RH Bill was for women’s rights and for those who proclaim that life is sacred and should be left alone, TV debates have already aired, thousands of arguments have already been raised, both houses of Congress take this bill into consideration than other more important legal documents pending for ratification, most especially now that Senator Lito Lapid exposed that the RH Bill’s budget is about 13.7 million Pesos. Imagine that.

This is another battle for existence. But this time, it is not fought with ships or cannons, but with ideologies and arguments. And this time, what hangs in the balance is the destiny of our moral and socio-economical status, as well as the lives we are living and the lives yet to exist. 

The belligerents are the pro-life groups, dauntlessly spearheaded by the Catholic Church, and the groups who favor contraception, abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage, and the abuse (or to put it in their point, the exercise) of the freedoms of speech, choice, and expression. Instantly, groups of individuals, as well as large institutions and organizations take their sides, whether in overt or in covert manner, contributing to their consecutive camps.

As far as everyone can see, there seems to be a deadlock between them, if not an uphill advantage of one of them. A deadlock since the pro-RH are supported by celebrities people see, hear, and talk about in the media; while the pro-life camp only have a handful, mostly, the least talked-about (of course Manny Pacquiao and Sen. Tito Sotto are exceptions). But when it comes to things like proof, as well as exposure in charity works specially in times the Filipinos are on their knees, it is the Catholic Church and the pro-life NGO’s (if ever there are; but of course there are) who is the first to respond to the needs of the victims of calamities and the ire of nature in general; the pro-RH camp falls silent in these situations either because they don’t have the capacity to do so, or because they think it is not part of the argument, yet paradoxically, they point out the alleged wealth of the Catholic Church—that they have enough resources to purchase vehicles.

If that is the case, at least the Church uses it for the common good, of course comparing to some anti-Church organizations that have the luxury to produce advertisements about their cause and create full-scale campaigns out of their own pockets. 

In 1646, we have defended Manila, dubbed as the Rome by the Pasig by Nick Joaquin, from the Calvinist Dutch. Now, we face much more influential enemies: DEATH and its cohorts. Of course there are people outside the Church who support us in our campaign against this threat to the country's survival; the only problem is that some of them independently fight these monstrosities for their own benefits. We hope that these allies of ours may soon realize that we are fighting the same enemies and that they may agree to join forces to achieve a more decisive victory. 

To summarize, we are still facing a battle, in one way or another. But the battle we insist in this episode is not just a personal one, but it is a battle for reputation and respect. The Philippines is considered to be the last impregnable fortress of true Catholicism outside the Vatican. Malta has already succumbed to the legalization of divorce, and many predominantly Catholic countries, even Spain and Italy, have already been secularized as a society. It is up to us, the gallant men and women striving for sanctification, to remain loyal to the teachings of Christ through His Vicar and through His Church and to justify our reputation as the Rome of Asia. For this, we say, the battle for our existence continues. 

De Quiros' stupid blah

Conrado de Quiros doesn't know what he's saying. I better understand what Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P. has to say here. And here's what I can comment:

--------------------------------------------------------------

CONRADO DE QUIROS GOT IT ALL WRONG ON THE MOTHER OF GOD!!!

(http://opinion.inquirer.net/11425/mother-of-god)

Inquirer columnist Conrado de Quiros opens his column with a sound bite from Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, “If we fight against the RH bill, we will make Mama Mary happy.” [We really will be!] Then he pounced upon the Cebu Archbishop and incoming CBCP President, “Palma may not know it, but he has just produced one of the richest ironies of late.” To de Quiros’ mind, yes. [and his mind may have hallucinating tendencies.] But not to faithful Catholics who comprise the majority in this country.

De Quiros proceeded to answer his own question: “Who was Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ?” He noted how Mary is depicted today as “white Anglo-Saxon.” This betrays the columnist’s limited worldview on Marian iconography. [Not to mention his limited taste for religious images] De Quiros must have forgotten [Forgotten? Or is it just that he doesn't care if he forgets it?] that closer to home, Nuestra Señora de la Paz y Buenviaje in Antipolo is a brown virgin and far from the “white Anglo Saxon” depiction that De Quiros claims Mary is depicted today. De Quiros is oblivious of the Morenita of Guadalupe who is depicted, well, with Indian and not white Anglo-Saxon features. [The image of Our Lady of La Naval de Manila may be a white virgin, but it is more Asiatic in her look than what de Quiros assumes as "white Anglo-Saxon". And I have to quote TPC for this: IDJIT!] I can go on to list depictions of the Blessed Virgin Mary that are not white Anglo-Saxon but with rather ethnic or native features (La Vang, Akita, Kibeho, etc.). [And the list goes on.]

The Inquirer columnist observes that “[o]ccasionally, you see a more Pinoy version of the Madonna and Child in paintings, that of a brown-skinned and gusgusin mother and child (ah, but artists have always been the boy who can see through the emperor’s new clothes). And occasionally you see belens that have the same brown-skinned, if not gusgusin, version of the Madonna and Child. But so only occasionally.”But brown-skinned Madonnas are not alien to Filipino piety. They have been with us since the Spanish times. Guadalupe is brown and so is the Antipolo. In Bicol, the Peñafrancia and the Salvacion are brown virgins. Yes, we have black Madonnas, too. Piat in Cagayan, Guadalupe in Loboc. Not to forget the oldest Marian image in the Philippines, De Guia. [Attorney, I guess he forgot to mention the Black Madonna of Poland, the one Bl. John Paul was affiliated to in the years prior to his papacy. And about gusgusin, what about it, huh?]

De Quiros notes that what we generally see in churches is a Mary clad in white, grasping a rosary with hands that have never seen a day’s work. But what about the other depictions of Mary I pointed? De Quiros must have only seen the images of Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Lourdes. But these are depictions of Mary in her eschatological lot. What De Quiros does not realize is that Marian iconography is not about portraits or actual pictures of how Mary looked like in Palestine 2000 years ago. [Tumpak!] Iconography is intended primarily to convey theological truth. [Looks like he didn't learned that in his fine arts school, or he didn't want to learn it.]

Then De Quiros pontificates that Mary represents the Filipino woman in far more ways than the Catholic Church has been able to fathom. [Actually, it's the other way around. Or it is that the Filipino perspective is but a bit and piece of the overall representation and perspective of the Church.] The implication is that only De Quiros is able to fathom that truth. [Truth? (pukes)]

Conrado De Quiros is correct that the term “Mama Mary” signifies a mother. He is correct. [...and the only thing he got right] Mary is first and foremost a mother. It is in being a mother that the glory of Mary lies. Motherhood is a precious gift of God that contraception thwarts. [Well.... I already see the article's true colors.] Then De Quiros, with an air of infallibility, declares that “’Mama Mary’ already invests Mary with a rich or middle-class provenance. The wife of a karpintero is not called “Mama” by her brood, she is called “Inay.” [So? What's the fuss about it, de Quiros, huh? Don't you call your mother "Mama"? hahahahaha. Hey, wait.... If Mary can't be called "Mama" to you, then what will you call her in her role as a mother?] I wonder what is the source of De Quiros’ ex cathedra declaration that the wife of karpinteros is not called “Mama” but “Inay” by her children. I have neighbors who are carpenters and their children call their mothers“Mama.” De Quiros is clearly generalizing. [Stereotyping can be another word.]

So what if we call Mary “Mama Mary”? “Mama” is a more universal term of endearment used for mothers and by calling Mary such title underscores her universal motherhood. [And most of the time, even infants have "mama" as their first word.] Mary is not just the mother of the poor but also of the middle class and the rich. She is the mother of us all. By insinuating that since “Mama Mary” is of rich or middle class provenance, hence, not appropriate for the poor, De Quiros seems to involve Mary in a class struggle. That smacks of Marxism to me. [Social stratification?]

The Catholic Church refers to Mary as the Virgin Mary and we do take it as a matter of faith. And we take it, as what God’s Word teaches us, that the Holy Spirit had a hand in Mary’s pregnancy (Lk. 1:35). We don’t force this belief on De Quiros – he is free to reject it. It is obvious that De Quiros does not believe the clear teaching of Scripture. Fine. But he should not disparage those who do. [But he did it, anyway. Damage done.]

In stating that “it is inconceivable that Joseph and Mary did not have normal physical relations before and after the birth of Christ,” Conrado de Quiros has just taken the ranks of heretics like Helvidius.  [Unleash the Jackhammer! hahahahaha] Here, De Quiros clearly embraces Helvidian or Antidicomarianite heresy, the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Inquirer columnist justifies his heretical belief by stating that “[a]s far as I know, the instructions of the angel who came to visit Mary did not include a ban on sex, or stipulated that she marry Joseph to keep up a front. The marriage was for real.” What is his basis? His private interpretation of Scripture. [Now he's among the ranks of the 'sola scriptura' people.] Let’s chop to bits and pieces De Quiros’ “exegesis.”

De Quiros says that the “instructions of the angel who came to visit Mary did not include a ban on sex.” [HERESY! HERESY! HERESY!] And who says it does? The Gospel account is about God’s invitation to Mary to be the mother of the Messiah. The angel tells her how her motherhood would come about, without the agency of a man. The angel was not imposing a ban on sex to Mary. There was no need to as it is clear in the passage that Mary was a virgin and determined to remain so as expressed in her question, “How can this be since I do not know man?” (Lk. 1:34). [He would be blind ignorant that he read this verse.]

Conrado de Quiros goes on to state that the angel’s instruction did not stipulate “that she marry Joseph to keep up a front. The marriage was for real.” [HERESY! HERESY! HERESY!] The Catholic Church does not teach, in fact it condemns, the heretical notion that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was not real. Obviously, De Quiros’ grasp on Catholic teaching and theology is nil. [It's a double-standard]

De Quiros is correct that Mary was the mother of a single child. Yet, his reason why it is so is absurd. He avers that “[t]he faithful will say that was because God caused Mary—or Joseph—to be barren afterward.” [Okay.... Do I have to say that again?] Who are these faithful who say that? The truth of the matter is no Catholic faithful will ever say such thing for the simple reason that the Catholic Church never teaches that God caused Mary or Joseph to be barren! Just what is De Quiros’ source for Catholic teaching? [Let me guess.... From himself?]

Another thing. God did not order Mary to be chaste. She already was. And how could Joseph’s fate be worse than Job or anybody else since he was privileged to be the foster-father of the Son of God? De Quiros’ assumption of course is that sex is all that it takes in this life. Joseph, as true husband to Mary, has rights over Mary but that does not mean that he exercised it. [Emphasis mine.]

De Quiros comments that “[t]he faithless, or downright sacrilegious, will say that was because they practiced family planning.” I wonder who are these faithless or downrightly sacrilegious people De Quiros is referring to. [Maybe he's one of them.... ehem...ehem.]

Conrado de Quiros categorizes Mary as dirt-poor. Poor, yes. Dirt-poor, no. [DIRT-POOR? Good thing I don't blow up easily.... But I'll be, but not here.] How else could Mary ever have the luxury of a donkey in going to Bethlehem from Nazareth and from Bethlehem to Egypt and back to Nazareth? A dirt-poor woman could not afford a donkey. And Joseph, too, was not dirt-poor as he was a “tekton,” an artisan – some sort of a skilled worker with a steady income. [Catechism 101: St. Joseph is an artisan, okay? AN ARTISAN!] Clearly, De Quiros’ command of Biblical studies is simply bereft. [Actually, I don't get it at all.]

Then here’s the rub. De Quiros stated that “[o]nly in the end for Mary to see the same son arrested by the authorities for being a troublemaker. Only in the end for Mary to see their friends, their neighbors, and their entire community rise against him. Only in the end for Mary to see him nailed to the cross like a common criminal. Maybe Mary had the profoundest of faith and was convinced her son, though of her loins was not of this world, but she was a mother, too. And what mother would not have wept at the sight of her son’s agony? And what mother would not have wished things had been different and her son had met with another fate?” Oh, so De Quiros would rather that Mary should not have consented to have a son in the first place. If Mary had the same thinking as De Quiros, the Savior would have not been born. [In the first place, he is not the master of time and space.]

And then De Quiros asks, “Why should a proposal for the poor to breed children beyond their ability to raise them make Mary happy?” His question assumes that the Church teaches and encourages the poor to breed children beyond their ability to raise them. [Where can I read that in Humanae Vitae or Evangelium Vitae? Or any Catholic Social Encyclical? I think I see nothing about what he wrote.] That is a false assumption. The Church also teaches responsible parenthood but insists on natural family planning to achieve it. De Quiros did not point out the fact that the Church differs only in the means and not on the end of responsible parenthood. 

De Quiros argues that a decent life is impossible in a huge family which, in the urban slums in particular, dooms many of the girls to a life of prostitution and the boys to a life of crime. Prostitution and criminality are not attributable to big families alone. The government, too, has a big role to play in this regard. [Everyone has a share of the blame. That's for sure.]

It would also seem that to De Quiros that the poor do not have the right to have children. Thus, if we are to follow De Quiros’ logic, the poor should be sterilized so that they can no longer procreate. This is most welcome in a Nazi regime. [The Holocaust redux?]

De Quiros further posits that “[c]ontraception is not abortion, where you can argue for an “unborn child.” He forgets that abortion is a back-up to contraception and most contraceptives, like morning after pills and IUD are abortifacients. Conception occurs at fertilization and these contraceptives (pills, IUD) prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum thus killing it. [Contraception and his more evil twin-brother, Abortion.]

Then De Quiros says “[u]nless you want to propose that couples never express their love for each other intimately unless they are willing to risk having another mouth to feed, even if they are not prepared to feed it.” I wonder who is suggesting that to De Quiros. Definitely not the Catholic Church. [ehem.... LagLagman... ehem.... ehem.... Angsiokoy.... ehem....] Couples are free to intimately express their love for each other, by all means. Yet, if they partake of the pleasure, they too must accept the consequences. If they can’t risk another mouth to feed, then they should abstain from intimacies or otherwise avail of natural family planning. [Common sense by Atty. Mars. :D]

As expected, Conrado de Quiros ends his column by scoring the bishops and taking them to task for their position against the RH Bill. In essence, he wants the bishop to stop their opposition against the RH Bill because one of them asked for an SUV on his birthday. That’s clearly a non sequitor and an ad hominem attack. [...and should I say outdated and outrightly stupid?] In melodramatic fashion, De Quiros decries how one bishop who asked for an SUV during his birthday led to the “grabbing the food that should go to the mouths of hungry street kids, seizing the medicine that should go to the bodies of infants afflicted with dengue, putting on hold the classroom that should go to enlighten the benighted.” [Drama. What a pretense.] After shedding crocodile tears for the plight of the poor as if he is the only one concerned about them, De Quiros generalized, “[i]f the bishops would just show a little more concern for the living…” [Oh, please.... SHUT UP.] Of course the bishops are concerned for the living. They run charities and social action programs that Conrado de Quiros vaguely know about. What about De Quiros? What has he done so far to help the poor? [Were his paintings even appreciated by the most uneducated people whose only concern is to survive? Why not he stop ranting and start working? Jeez.]

We may also ask him back if condoms can be eaten by the hungry street kids, or pills could go to the bodies of infants afflicted with dengue, or sex education will improve the quality of education in the classrooms that should enlighten the benighted. [Beat that, de Quiros! BEAT THAT! hahahahahahaha] Madre de Dios!

¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva la Madre de Dios! 

[Vivat Christus Rex! Vivat Mater Dei! Mabuhay!]

--------------------------------------------------------------

Huzzah to Atty. Mars!

There's one quotation we all know: "Hamakin mo ang lahat, 'wag lang ang nanay ko. Dahil kapag pinatulan mo 'yan, ibang usapan na yun."

Here's what I mean:

You can hurt anyone you please. But if you hurt one's mother, expect retaliation.

Much more if you have hurt the Mother of Christ.

So the next time this crackpot artist writes for a newspaper or organizes an exhibit, you know what to do.

Grassroots: Common Ground

Sa isang pag-uusap isang gabi sa FX, napasarap ang kwentuhan namin ng isang kasama sa CA (Communication Arts) na isang Evangelical ("Born Again" Christian) habang kami'y papauwi mula UST. Maraming bagay ang aming napag-usapan, lalo na ang aming pag-aaral; at sa sobrang daldal ko, nasingit ko ang ang efecto ng naging Sexual Revolution sa Kanluran.

Laking gulat ko na napuna niya na may dalang problema ang pagpasa ng Reproductive Health Bill sa moral at socio-economical na aspeto ng ating lipunan. Hindi siya papayag na magalaw siya ng kanyang boyfriend (assuming na meron nga siya) unless maikasal sila. Nasagot ko naman na bilang lalaki, kailangan kong maging responsableng katipan (again, assuming na may girlfriend ako), respetuhin ang kanyang desisyon na hindi makikipagtalik hangga't hindi kasal, at kailangan kong kontrolin ang mga pagnanasa at pang-uudyok ng katawan (desires of the flesh, kumbaga).

Bilang mga Kristyano, napagsang-ayunan namin ang ilang nakasaad sa iisang basehan ng aming pananampalataya mula sa utos ng Panginoon sa paglilikha sa tao (Gen. 1:28), hanggang sa maaaring maging efekto ng contracepsion (ang kasalanan ng Sodom at Gomorrah), maging ang utos ng Diyos na "huwag kang papatay" kahit na hindi namin na-quote ito; kahit nga ang isyu tungkol sa controversiya na kinasangkutan ng PCSO ay nilagyan ng aral na "huwag ipaalam sa kaliwang kamay ang ginagawa ng kanan" (okay, hindi ko na alam kung anong verse yun...).

Sa huli, na-realize naming dalawa na kahit ako'y Katoliko at siya'y isang Evangelical, pagdating sa isyu ng pagpapahalaga sa buhay, may common ground kami--ang buhay ng tao, gaano man kaliit, ay may halaga; siguro nga, dapat no questions asked na 'yun.

Filipinos and Counter-Cultures (A Commentary for "Filipino Hippies")

Here's a blog post of my colleague in Communication Arts, Ms. Paula Solmerano, about counter-cultures. I don't have that much idea about it, but I guess in the prevailing social issues and attitudes can be inserted here as additions to what she posted, of course, with her permission. You can see the original post HERE. 

------------------------------------

Filipino Hippies

The world must need more love, because the last hippie has yet to die.

-Jesse Walker

            Counter-culture as defined in most references is a culture or way of life of particular people living in a society whom oppose or reject the dominant culture, norms, or behavior existing in that society. Some sociologists believe that culture in a society is never without a counter-culture. [And that is correct. Yet social issues today are so confusing that no one can distinguish what is the culture and what is the counter-culture.] To date, the most popular counter-culture was the ‘hippies’ which began their cultural revolution in the West during the 1960’s.  [which also brought about the Sexual Revolution that started the opening of the Pandora's box of contraceptive mentality and also the liturgical abuses that were practiced as a misinterpretation of the documents made at the Second Vatican Council.] However, locally speaking, some counter-cultures also existed and continues to exist in the Philippine society.

            One manifestation of cultural opposition is evident in the Philippines’ religion history during the pre-colonial period. Even before Catholicism becomes the dominant religion in the country, in the past, it can be considered as an opposition to the then prevailing religious system—Animism.  Animism can be used to describe the indigenous spiritual traditions practiced by people in the Philippines during pre-colonial times. It is a collection of beliefs and cultural mores anchored in the idea that the world is inhabited by spirits and supernatural entities, both good and bad, and that respect be accorded to them through nature worship. These spirits are known as ‘diwatas’. In this belief, some worship anitos and others even practice magic. This religion, in the past, holds the record of dominance for the whole archipelago but when Catholicism started to spread in the northern part of the country, the shift of the once principal to a minor religion ensues.

             In short, today’s leading religion, Catholicism, was then part of minor subculture in Philippine society which in the course of history, developed to be the main religion in its opposition and desire for propagation. Nowadays, only a handful of indigenous tribes continue to practice Animism. [and a number of people also practice its Western counterpart, Wicca, which is considered a cult by the Catholic Church.]

            As an example now of the present existence of cultural opposition in the country, youth again can be fairly counted. It seems that Philippines has its own “hippies”—only more socialites in sense--with the like of Katipunan ng mga Kabataang Kadre (KKK), an underground socialist youth in Mindanao. These young people, described as dynamic, bold and daring, is a sector, composed of various sub-sectors, which transcends to different sectors and classes of the society (Antoine, 2010).

            On the anniversary of Bonifacio Day, year 2009, the socialist oriented youth from the Bangsa Moro people, Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao and from the majority nationality, proclaimed the creation of a new underground, revolutionary socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist youth society called the Katipunan ng mga Kabataang Kadre (KKK) or the Society of Young Cadres. This society is mainly based in Mindanao with elements in various parts of the country. It reflects the desire of the young revolutionaries to slowly unlearn and out-grow the Stalinists and Maoist orientations that they inherited. This is also to help create a counter –culture against the rising culture of careerism, opportunism, commercialization, and reformism that they view as the main culprit of havoc and confusion in various social sectors. (http://www.internationalcamp.org/spip.php?article244&lang=fr)  Furthermore, according to the socialist youth there is a need to organize and mobilize all the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist youth under the banner of revolutionary socialism towards the realization in Mindanao, Philippines, and the world. [Looks like the idea is a fusion of Islamo-indegeous and communist thought, I presume.]

            Clearly, this example somehow violates one of the main considerations in defining what a counter-culture is: being not necessarily a social movement and members are often unorganized. However, the mere existence of the citizens having the same outlook against the existing social concerns of Philippine society presently already proves a fact that such culture exists in the country prior to the formation of their movement. This youth socialites stand for what they believe as the more proper way of living life and how social system in the country should change and not be tolerated anymore by its people. Indeed, an opposition of what is constantly happening in Philippine society. [Uh-huh]

            Lastly, the counter-culture that has been existing in the past, present, and in high chances, still continues to exist in the future shows the manifestation of Filipino colonial mentality. [Take, for example, the Sexual Revolution, which ushered in the ST films here in the Philippines, which in turn paved the way to pornography and voyeurism, and now, the RH Bill.]  At first thought colonial mentality may seem to be irrelevant in discussing Philippine society, but as Manuel L. Quezon said, “It is not, at least not entirely.” [Though some of Quezon's critics argue that he was a Janus-faced politician--facing the Filipinos, he speaks of his ardent desire for independence, on the other hand (or should I say face), he speaks with the Americans about other plans. Thus, Quezon is a counter-culture himself, much like Jekyll and Hyde]

            In an article of Manuel Quezon entitled Philippine Racism, he discussed the significance to highlight colonial mentality as part of Filipino culture. For some reasons, it already has became a characteristic of Filipino culture which therefore promotes a different  yet common subculture in the country—people who account a big part of their life by patronizing everything colonial and  deride anything that gives pride to what truly is “Filipino”. This culture is simply evident through the lifestyle some Filipino follow and their standpoint of beauty, in both aspects—physical and material. Sadly, even in media, this kind of lifestyle is portrayed. [and, sadly, even mimicked for the sake of ratings.]

             Furthermore, Quezon said, “The colonial mentality constitutes a weakness in the structure of our national society which we can ill afford.”. If one were to argue that this is a mere mentality or behavior, not a counter-culture of Filipino nationalism why therefore it affects society so much that it cannot afford to completely manifest in the culture of the country? The answer is because; it is indeed already a sub-culture continuously opposing the dominant nationalistic culture which ought to really rule. However, it may not be imperative that this kind of culture in Philippine society be eliminated, only minimized. As a result of the mentality, a sub-culture materializes and its defect in Philippine society can cause it to crumble.

            Aside from these three cases presented, the existence of counter-culture in Philippine society can also be pointed through a number more examples. These examples only prove that Philippines, just like any other country, has experienced, and still experiencing, counter-cultures.

Bibliography

Antoine. (n.d.). Philippines. Retrieved July 23, 2011, from http://www.internationalcamp.org/spip.php?article244&lang=fr

Quezon, M. L. (n.d.). Philippine Racism. Retrieved July 23, 2011, from http://www.quezon.ph/familyinfo/philippine-racism/

Religion in the Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2011, from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Religion_in_the_Philippines 

------------------------------------ 

Blogger's Note: Paula Solmerano is currently a Communication Arts Junior at the University of Santo Tomas. At the time of this post, she works as a trainee and an undercover reporter for ABS-CBN Sports. Ms. Solmerano also blogs at Beneath a Dreamer's Apophthegm

Taking from here, Ms. Solmerano was right. There are existing counter-cultures which do not only shape society, but divides it into two or more schools of thought. 

The greatest example we can tackle here is the issue of contraception and the other issues related to it. Advocates of contraception are further divided into splinters of thought: on one hand, those who favor contraception as essential medicines and nothing more; on the other, those who favor contraception who also are advocates for abortion, divorce, same-sex marriages, euthanasia, secularism, neo-atheism, and even religious bigotry. In the three latter advocacies, there are still more collateral damage which they are pursuing--the discrediting and taxing of religious organizations, specifically the Catholic Church; the "education" of young minds to adhere neo-atheism; and much more. 

There is a loophole in these, however. It seems they only target Catholics--prelates, clergy, religious, and laity--just because, for them, they have the guts of opposing all of these, and they are the most rational among the religious institutions in the country, and basically, across the globe. Besides, what can they get from the other religious groups aside from their support? 

Aside from this prevailing word war on venues and in the Internet, there are many more counter-cultures that continues to make this country a house divided. 

Anyway, Thank you, Paula, for letting me do a commentary about this. 

:D