Celdran’s Conviction

I am bringing up here a piece written by Mr. Lito Pascual which was published in Sun.Star on Monday, February 4, 2013. Thanks for this article Sir. Bravissimo!

This is a rejoinder to Ms. Melanie T. Lim's column last Sunday which dealt mainly on the conviction of Carlos Celdran for his "Sacrilegious" acts inside the Manila Cathedral.

Ms. Lim said she was "aghast" on Celdran's conviction for three reasons:
First, that the law used to convict him existed.

The full text of the law says: "ARTICLE 133. Offending the Religious Feelings. "The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

I cannot fathom, in my miniscule mind, why Ms. Lim is against this particular article.

Does she want that anyone could just barge into a peaceful gathering of the faithful (of any faith, for that matter) and shout to those gathered that he is against what the group is espousing?

Mr. Celdran was not just issuing statements, he barged into a Cathedral, a place that we Catholics believe is a Temple Of God, and shouted at the leader of the faithful who were peacefully gathered to worship "their God."

For us Catholics, a church is not just a mere structure. It is a holy place.
When I was still a child, we were not even allowed by our elders to murmur inside the church because it is the Temple of God. And here come Mr. Celdran shouting to the God's Prince of the church right inside His temple?

And why did Ms. Lim mention only the title of the particular article "Offending Religious Feelings" and not the whole article itself, which is self-explanatory?"

Second, that such a rediculous decision could be rendered by a judiciary.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think the article itself is self-explanatory and the judge saw it that way.

What could have happened if the decision was otherwise? It would be chaos. Every gathering of worshippers would be invaded by believers of another congregation claiming that they have the right to do so--invoking the freedom of expression.

Had Celdran done it to a Muslim Mosque, I doubt if there was someone left whom a case could be filed against.

Third, that anyone should be jailed for speaking their minds.
Again, Mr. Celdran was not just "speaking his mind." He was invading the rights of the hundreds of people gathered to peacefully worship their God.

This is also their constitutional right. Celdran's rights end where the rights of those gathered in that cathedral begins. He invaded their privacy and their right to peacefully worship their God, and so, he has to suffer the consequences.

Ms. Lim likewise mentioned a Ms. Carmen Campbell, who stood up in the middle of a homily to protest the priests using the pulpit for politics.
My eldest son was around 11 years old and was in Grade 5 when one day he asked us, his parents, if he could attend the church services of UCCP on Sunday instead of going with us to the Catholic Church. We asked him why and he said he is tired of the priest who is always talking against President Marcos during his homilies instead of talking about the bible. (This was around 1984 or 1985.)

We said yes. A couple of years later he was confirmed/baptized as a member of the congregation, although today he is more inclined towards the Catholic Church. In fact his two sons were both baptized as Catholics even though their mother is also member of another protestant congregation.
 
What I would just want to say is that what my son did (at a very young age at that) is more civil than what Ms. Campbell did.

Funding Ban on Abortion Providers Introduced

National Catholic Register (www.ncregister.com) reports that Rep. Marsha Blackburn introduced a bill prohibiting the allocation of government funds to groups that perform abortion. This is interesting! In the USA, they are undoing the damage.. here in the Philippines we are harnessing a destructive culture.

WASHINGTON — Within the first days of the 113th U.S. Congress, legislation has been introduced to block federal funding of organizations that perform abortions.

A new bill, introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., prohibits the allocation of Title X family-planning funds “to any entity” that performs the procedure.

“As a woman,” Blackburn said in a Jan. 4 press release announcing the legislation, “I believe America deserves better.”
“America shouldn’t celebrate abortion, and our taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, who profit from the destruction of human life with taxpayer money,” she asserted.

“It’s fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible.”
Blackburn is the vice chair of the committee that oversees Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X provides federal funding for family planning and similar services, including contraception, natural family planning, infertility counseling, cancer screening and other services.

According to information posted on the Health and Human Services website, “Section 1008 of the act, as amended, stipulates that ‘none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.’”
While Title X does not directly allocate funds for abortions, many pro-life groups have voiced concerns that program funds given to abortion providers allow them to direct more money towards abortions.

The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act would ensure that such funds do not promote abortion, even indirectly. The bill provides an exemption for hospitals and would not reduce the total amount of funds available for family-planning services.
The proposed legislation resembles efforts at the state level, including a bill passed in 2011 in Texas, following lawsuits of alleged Medicaid fraud against Planned Parenthood in the state. The law went into effect Jan. 1, 2013.

The new Texas law bars organizations that provide abortion services from receiving state funds from the Texas Women’s Health Program. A district judge recently rejected Planned Parenthood’s request for a temporary restraining order against the legislation.
As a result of this defunding, the Obama administration cut off federal money to the Texas program, claiming the new law reduced women's choices in health care. However, according to the Texas Health and Human Services website, “There are five family-planning clinics and more than 70 individual physicians in the program” for every clinic that does not qualify under the new law.

Similar measures denying state funds to abortion providers are under way in Indiana and New Hampshire.

The new federal bill is the House's second attempt to pass the Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, though there are some changes to language and definitions within the proposed legislation. A previous bill was introduced in January 2011 by former Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., but was dropped later that year.