Obama(?) bin Laden's end!

i Chanced Upon This!

From: joel jason

To: pro-life-coalition-group@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:13 PM

Subject: Re:Clarifying Points on Pope Benedict and the Condom Question

Dear Prolifers, May I share with you a synthesis and reflection I made in response to the questions brought about by the remarks of Pope Benedict on the Condom Question. Pope Benedict and the Condom Question By Fr. Joel O. Jason, SThL (Fr Joel is a diocesan priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. He is currently Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe Makati and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics. He also heads the Commission on Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila) This article seeks to clarify the perceived confusion and surprise that greeted the whole Catholic as well as non-Catholic world. International as well as local journal headlines read: “Pope says condoms are justified in fight against HIV” “Pope says condoms are acceptable in some cases” “Pope softens on teaching on Condoms, Aids and Contraception” “Pope: Condom use OK for fight against AIDs” The whole controversy started from a supposed “leaked” German interview the Pope granted to journalist Peter Seewald in an upcoming book yet to be released entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. For the sake of intellectual integrity, let us see what the Pope really said from this excerpt of the transcript of the interview connected with the condom question: Here is that portion in it’s entirety: From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119: Peter Seewald: On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms. Pope Benedict: The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs. I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done (emphasis mine). We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease. As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself (emphasis mine). More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves (emphasis mine). This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being. There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, (The preceding is the only sentence the secular media focused on to reach their conclusions) on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality (emphasis mine). (The next question and answer was totally ignored by the secular media) Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms? Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution (emphasis mine), but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality (emphasis mine). So with the full text in question now presented, what conclusions can we derive? First things first. There is a principle in Biblical interpretation that goes: “A text, out of context, is pretext.” It means that every text of the Bible should be understood in its integral context: in the unity of the whole message of a chapter, of a series of books, of the theology of the writer, and even the unity of the whole Biblical message. Taken in isolation, a text in the Bible can be reduced to a pretext, i.e., a half-truth or at worst, a misleading misinterpretation. The headlines we read above, regarding the supposed change Benedict proposes on the consistent sexual ethics of the Church connected with condoms and HIV, are clear examples of a text taken out of context. As you can see, Pope Benedict gave a long answer to a rather short question. I highlighted the parts that spell out clearly Benedicts’ convictions as well as that of the Church’s. What some interpreters took out in isolation was that part where it says, “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…”. They did not even finish the whole sentence. With these laid out, so what now did Pope Benedict NOT say? First of all, this is a personal interview. Pope Benedict is not speaking here in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. What you find in the book are not proposed as official teachings nor pronouncements being sent out to the Catholic faithful. Some of the things we can read here can even fall in the category of personal opinions and therefore do not and cannot present themselves as official Magisterial teachings. If the Pope wants to hold out a new teaching based on his reasoned discernment as the Successor of Peter, a personal interview is not the place to do it. Everyone who knows basic Catechism understands this, much more the Pope. And so headlines claiming, “Pope changes teaching on Condoms, Contraception and HIV”, or “Pope: Condoms OK in fight Against AIDS” are totally way out of line. Nowhere in the text of Pope Benedict’s response can we find a summary justification of the morality of condom use. This is clear in the texts I highlighted. Let me highlight them once again: “…that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done,” ; “…But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself” ; “ This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves” ; “…But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” I don’t see how the quotes above translate to “Pope OKs Condom Use”. On the contrary, the above quotations reflect the consistent conviction of the Church regarding condom use vis a vis HIV/AIDs: that condoms are not the solution. If at all, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problem. Condoms can only reduce the risk of infection. And with the fatally serious threat of HIV/AIDs, risk reduction is not acceptable. Prevention is the only acceptable option. And prevention is only served by abstinence (for the unmarried) and monogamy and fidelity (for the married). In the first place, Pope Benedict’s response was not even a direct commentary on the possible moral justification of condom use, clearly not for contraception. He was making a moral speculation on what may be going on in the heart of one (a male prostitute) who uses the condom in a homosexual or heterosexual sex act. What did Pope Benedict intend to say? Pope Benedict was specific in his response. He spoke of a “male prostitute” who uses a condom. What the Pope stressed was not that condom use is OK in the case of a male prostitute engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts. He merely said that “this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…” Perhaps an analogy can help us appreciate what the Pope is saying (for this point I will modify a principle I picked up from lay moral theologian Janet Smith). There are two robbers. One uses a real knife with a real intent to kill and harm. The other uses a plastic knife because he has no real intention of killing. He only intends to frighten and intimidate. Both men will be committing an evil act. But obviously, between the two, it is the one who employs a toy knife that shows at least a hint, a semblance, a little amount of moral responsibility which hopefully, can still mature to a real and correct kind of moral responsibility that will let him realize that robbing people is an evil option to take. Does this mean the Church will teach that it is “OK” and moral to rob people using a fake knife? No. The Church simply says that between the two, the one with the fake knife is the one that manifests a semblance of an “assumption of responsibility”, immature it may be. The same logic can be applied to Pope Benedict’s example. Obviously, the mere fact that the person used a condom indicates a “semblance of responsibility.” One who engages in prostituted sex without a condom, shows a total absence of moral responsibility, for himself or for the other. Compared to this one, one who uses a condom at least shows a hint of “assuming a responsibility” which Benedict hopes can be a “first step in the direction of a moralization” i.e., hopefully it can develop to a more correct kind of responsibility, not in the direction of regular condom use, as secular interpreters assumed, but, as Benedict finished his sentence, (which the secular media left out), “on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” As we see here, Pope Benedict is too deep a theologian and a thinker to be presented from a shallow and surface level interpretation. The Pope and the Church’s consistent ethical teachings deserve more than that. We pray that the media may also assume responsibility in reporting matters related to faith and morals. We pray that intellectual integrity and professionalism may not be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, sensationalism and paper sales.

Balitang Kutsero

By Perry Diaz

President Benigno “P-Noy” Aquino III was walking alone on New York’s East 58th Street when he heard someone say, “Psst… psst….” “Hmmm, that must be a Pinoy calling,” he told himself. He looked around. Again, he heard, “Psst… psst…” To his surprise it was former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo!

Gloria: Hoy, P-Noy, this is your Ate Glo!

P-Noy: Hoy, Ate Glo, what are you doing here at… [he looked up at the marquee] Le Circus?

Gloria: It’s Le Cirque Restaurant. It’s French. Come join your Kuya Mike and I for a sumptuous dinner.

P-Noy: Oh yeah, I remember it now! This was where you spent $20,000 for dinner last year during my mom’s wake, wasn’t it?

Mike: Ahhh... Yes, it was. Anyway, come join us, pare ko. This is our favorite hangout in the Big Apple. Nobody would bother us here except for a few Pinoy paparazzi.

P-Noy: Well, I can only stay here for five minutes cuz I’m heading to the United Nations to address the General Assembly. Okay lang ba?

Gloria: No problem, my friend. We’ll drive you there in our new Bentley. Can I get you some hors d’oeuvres and champagne? Hey, waiter!

Waiter: Yes, ma’am.

Gloria: Bring us some Beluga caviar, pâté de foie gras, escargot, and a bottle of Dom Perignon Magnum. How’s that for starters, Mr. President?

P-Noy: Well, that’s too much. I just finished eating three hot dogs at a corner stand.

Mike: Try Le Cirque’s food. It’s delicious.

P-Noy: Well, let me think… Waiter, I’ll just have a siopao and kalamansi juice, okay?

Waiter: I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t have soup pooh and Kalamazoo juice here.

Gloria: He’s right, P-Noy. This is a French restaurant. Try their food, you’d love it! This is our favorite rendezvous with our friends. We can be your barkada, you know. I’ll teach you some of the tricks I used when I was president. Oh, how I miss the glory, the power, the money, the junkets… Oh, I love them all! And I really missed… [tears in her eyes].

P-Noy: I think I’ll skip the food, Ate Glo. I’ll just have a smoke while you’re eating, if you don’t mind. Waiter, can I have an ashtray, please.

Waiter: I’m sorry sir but smoking is not allowed in this restaurant.

P-Noy: What? Look, do you know who…

The door suddenly opened and a group of Pinoy paparazzi barged in with cameras flashing.

The next day, the newspapers carried the headline: “P-Noy and Gloria rendezvous at Le Cirque.”

***

Veep Jejomar “Jojo” Binay said that he doesn’t have any problem with not being appointed acting president while P-Noy was junk… err… traveling in the U.S. P-Noy entrusted the government to his “Little President,” Executive Secretary Paquito “Jojo” Ochoa Jr., while veep Jojo would be representing P-Noy in cutting ribbons and attending funerals. Well, I just hope that the little prez would stay away from booze and beautiful women while he’s running the country.

Meanwhile, veep Jojo says he’s looking forward to moving to his new office in the Coconut Palace the by Manila Bay. Well, that’s a nice “consuelo de bobo” for not named acting prez.

***

News of the week… “BIR to go after jueteng lords for tax evasion.” Gee, if BIR couldn’t check the lifestyles of its own tax examiners, how does it expect to go after the jueteng lords?

Boo-boo of the week… P-Noy left his cell phone in Manila. No wonder the whole country is in chaos. And P-Noy won’t even allow veep Jojo Binay to run the country in his absence. Now everyone including the three “Jueteng Kings” wants to run the country. Hesusmariahosep! Kawawa naman ang Pinas.

Dyok of the week… Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said that P-Noy gave DILG Undersecretary Rico Puno the position precisely because he is one of the ‘best and the brightest.’ ” Yup, Puno knows how to handle a hostage crisis – he hides behind the tree. And he knows how to fight the jueteng lords – if can’t beat them, he joins them.

“Kamaganak” in action… P-Noy’s cousin Tony Boy Cojuangco admitted going to retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz’s office. He said he just wanted to help P-Noy in his advocacy of fighting jueteng. But according to Cruz, Tony Boy tried to convince him to “go easy” on Rico Puno.

By the way, Tony Boy donated P100 million to P-Noy’s presidential campaign. That’s a huge “investment.” Most donors would expect a return on their investment.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Why not Cory and, by extension, Noynoy?

2010 Elections, Agrarian Reform, Cory Aquino
In Perspectives and Commentaries on January 25, 2010

Abusadong Cebu Pacific

Tama ang pagpapahayag ng pagkadismaya ni An Waray Rep Bem Noel sa Cebu Pacific at ng kanyang iminungkahing dapat managot ito sa ipinamalas nitong diskriminasyon nang pagbawalang pasakayin ang isang special child sa kanilang eruplano.

Hindi dapat na palagpasin ang nangyari dahil baka pamarisan ito ng ibang airline companies.

Talagang kulang ang pagso-sorry ng nabanggit na airline sa ganitong pagkakamali at dapat mapatawan ng penalty ito para masiguro na hindi na ito mauulit pa.

Hindi naman yata nanggulo ng bata at may ticket naman yata ito at kung bakit ayaw itong pasakayin sa eruplano.

Pilit pala silang pinababa sa eruplano ng Cebu Pacific dahil hindi daw pinapayagan ang mga special child na sumakay ng kanilang eruplano, ayon pa kay Marites Alcantara, nanay ng naturang bata.

Pauwi na sa Pilipinas ang mag-ina mula sa Hong Kong nang maganap ang insidente noong nakaraang Disyembre 23.

Dapat maging sensitibo ang mga airline company sa kanilang disposisyon para sa kanilang mga pasahero.

Ipakulong n'yo na po, Congressman Bem, ang mga may-ari at tagapamahala ng nabanggit na airline!

Green na kapaligiran sa Metro?

Papalitan na raw ang lahat na mga nakakulay rosas o pink na mga proyekto ni dating MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando at gagawing green o berde na.

Ang pagpapalit ng kulay luntian sa mga naturang proyekto ay resulta na rin daw ng ginawang konsultasyon ng kasalukuyang MMDA Chairman na si Oscar Inocentes sa mga horticulturist, tree doctors, foresters agriculturist at maging ng mga non-government organization kaugnay sa nararapat na kulay na makakatulong sa pagbabawas ng polusyon.

Balak din daw nila, ayon pa sa MMDA, na palitan ng kulay berde ang mga urinal o ihian sa mga pangunahing lansangan ng kamyanilahan na nagdudulot ng mapanghing amoy sa kapaligiran.

Hindi kaya ito ay isang estratehiya lamang nila para maitulak ang kulay ng presidentiable ng manok ng pamahalaan na nagkataong berde rin as in green at ayaw namang umangat?

Rubber stamp

(Ang susunod na artikulo ay "cut-and-paste" lamang galing sa Paroo't Parito ni Hernan S. Melencio. Lubos na nagpapasalamat ang pitak na ito kay G. Melencio bagama't walang pormal na pahintulot para sa paglathala nito ang natamo galing sa kanya. Napapanahon kasi ang paksa.)

HISTORIC event daw ang nagaganap sa Kongreso dahil bihirang magsama ang mga senador at kongresista sa iisang sesyon. Nangyayari lang iyon kapag dumarating ang araw ng pagyayabang ng pangulo ng bansa na kung tawagin e SONA.

Historic daw ito dahil sa halip na makinig sa kasinungalingan ng iisang tao, magkasama sila ngayon sa sesyon sa Batasan para pagbotohan kunyari kung ibabasura o hindi ang batas militar sa Maguindanao na idineklara ni Aling Gloring noong isang linggo.

Ang masakit na katotohanan, mga giliw, sa ayaw at sa gusto ng mga mambabatas natin, ang Kongreso e isa na lamang “selyong goma” o “rubber stamp” sa Ingles. At nangyari ’yun simula nang gamitin ni Aling Gloring ang pork barrel para pasunurin na parang maamong daga ang mga kongresista sa Kamara ng mga Representante. Ang resulta nito, nasalaula ang sistema ng check and balance sa gobyerno dahil naging magkakampi – este naging mag-amo pala – ang ehekutibo at lehislatibo. Susuwayin mo ba ang among nagpapakain sa iyo? Sino ang susuway sa gusto ng reyna na nakaupo sa tasa?

May duda pa ba kung ano ang magiging resulta ng botohan sa Kongreso?

Hindi nakapagtataka na bigla na lamang nangalahati ang dumalo sa sesyon sa Batasan noong Huwebes. Tumakas ang marami sa kanila. Wala na kasing interesadong makinig sa katalinuhan o kabobohan ng mga argumento. Ika nga ng dati kong paboritong editor, “at the end of the day ’yun din ang kalalabasan nun.” Tatatakan lang nila ng APPROVED WITHOUT THINKING ang deklarasyon ng batas militar ni madam, bakit pa sila maghihirap pumunta at makinig sa paulit-ulit na mga usapan?

Mabuti na lamang at ika nga sa Ingles e meron pang “a few good men” sa ating Kongreso; mga matitino at may prinsipyong tao na lumalaban kahit alam nilang matatalo sila. Ang mahalaga, hindi sila natatalo dahil absent sila. Hindi sila natatalo sa katwiran kundi natatalo sila dahil pinagkakaisahan sila ng mga buwitre na idinadaan ang laban sa paramihan.

Ang nakatatawa sa lahat nang ito, wala sa eksena ’yung may kagagawan ng lahat. Habang pinasasakit nila ang kanilang mga ulo sa pagdedebate, humahalakhak sa galak ang reyna na nangangampanya sa kanyang probinsiya. Kahiya-hiya nga naman kung matatalo siya sa pagtakbo bilang kinatawan ng ikalawang distrito ng Pampanga. Presidente na siya ng buong bansa tapos matatalo sa iisang distrito lamang? No way, Huse.

Tingnan mo nga naman, masyadong seryoso ang sitwasyon kaya idineklara ang batas militas sa Maguindanao pero pa-easy-easy pa ang mga nasa administrasyon. Wala na nga si Aling Gloring, wala pa rin doon ang alalay niyang si Norbing Gonzales na dapat magpakita ng mukha dahil siya ang hepe ng tanggulang bansa at nasa bakuran niya ang usapin.

Sana nga may kahitnan ang batas militar na ito. Wala tayong magagawa kundi magdasal na hindi makatakas sa parusa ang mga may kagagawan ng kahindik-hindik na Ampatuan massacre dahil ito ang punto ng lahat. Marami nang nasasampahan ng kasong rebelyon sa mga Ampatuan pero naghihintay pa rin tayo sa pangakong pagsasampa ng kasong mass murder. Sana pagkatapos nito hindi tayo maiwang walang tangan kundi sakong walang laman.