Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Two things it must be said about the ruling:
- it did not create a constitutional right to gay marriage, and
- five members of the US Supreme Court effectively decided to disregard the will of
the people of California (who, by Proposition No. 8, said no to gay marriage) and of the American
people (through a clear bipartisan majority of its elected congress when
it passed the DOMA). That narrow majority also
decided to ignore natural law arguments on behalf of traditional marriage.
What the ruling did essentially say is that if a State already legalizes gay marriage (which around 11 or so US States do, with around 30 US States still maintaining that marriage is only between a man and a woman), then the federal benefits given to traditional marriages must be given to gay marriages as well. So, though the Supreme Court's ruling did not create a constitutional right to gay marriage but, by ruling as it did on equal protection, the US Supreme Court somehow
signaled that it sees no fundamental difference between the two types of
'marriages'.
DOMA was
designed to maintain distinction between such marriages even if a State legalized gay marriage. In effect, DOMA was still trying to
maintain preferential status of traditional marriage. The US Supreme Court essentially struck down that distinction. If a lawsuit crops up in the future whereby a gay couple wants to compel a State to recognize gay marriages, how can the US Supreme Court deny such through States' rights doctrine if the Court had already recognized (albeit impliedly, through its equal protection ruling) that no distinction of rights should be made on the right to marry between heterosexuals and those of the same sex.
Copy of the ruling here. Reactions by Ryan Anderson can be found here and video interview here, Matthew Franck's here, Robert P. George's here, and of the NCR's here, while an article on the media bias for gay marriage found here.
As an aside, former President Bill Clinton (along with wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) applauded the Supreme Court's striking down of a provision of a law that he, Clinton, passed during his presidency.
26.6.13
13.5.13
thank you
thank you all who supported us, the ang pro-life party list.
but let me also urge everyone to accept the fact that, rather than go into the cliche of cheating accusations or that money politics took over or indulging in what-ifs, as elegantly as i can put it: we had our butts badly kicked yesterday. the candidates, parties, and party lists that won deserved to win and should be congratulated for their victories. they read the pulse of our people right and organized themselves accordingly.
on the other hand, we (the pro-life movement as a whole) were deplorably disorganized, our fund raising capacities were miserable, and we did not bring out a coherent positive message until late in the game. some of us were even weirdly just happy to be part of the campaign, doing things or giving speeches that had no point, without a thought of committing themselves to the actual duty of winning. some ridiculously thought that simply because our cause is just, victory would automatically fall on our lap. others, while mouthing pro-life platitudes, would go on to contribute (in order to protect their business or family's social standing) funds and other such support to non-pro-life politicians who didn't need the contributions as much as we did. then there were those so-called pro-lifers who were all energy at the start but as time went on and they realized the spotlight won't stick with them just packed up, made any excuse possible, and left. if there was one thing this campaign made me realize: never trust the old rich or old elite families. they're the best reason to do away with political dynasties. and then there were those content to just pray, forgetting the fact that God gave us reason, will, and the means, as well as each other, to act and help ourselves. there is nothing heroic in all of this. all are inexcusable.
also sad is the fact that the clergy, after preaching for so long regarding the true meaning of church and state separation, after proclaiming so loudly that the church and the faith properly does have a say in the public square, would now suddenly lose their nerves and fail to make a stand behind the laity (or if some specific dioceses did make a stand, it was too late). reason and faith are two wings it is said. well, so are the clergy and laity. they had to be together. and in these elections, we had to fly on the laity's single wing. if there had to be given one reason (although there are many) for the laity's seeming confusion on how to proceed in the campaign then it would have to be the clergy's baffling ambiguity or outright refusal to publicly support the politicians who were up front campaigning based on the church's teachings. instead, the clergy hid behind the non-sensical reason that 'the church doesn't dictate'. nobody said or asked that the clergy dictates, the laity simply asked that they speak up on who they think they (as voters themselves) would support and vote for. and yet the church didn't want to risk being misunderstood, which was hard to understand considering that lay political candidates and their supporters, all fighting for church teachings, were risking a lot and putting sometimes literally everything on the line. if ever there was a time the faithful needed to hear the bishops' and priests' voice, to make a public and clear stand, it was during the election campaign of 2013. however, it will be the year remembered when the shepherds refused to lead the flock. and what's truly devastating about this is that it will be the laity - that actually has to live in the world, without the clergy's option of being in secured cloisters - that will suffer the most in the coming years.
in any event, i am quite thankful to my family, friends, and supporters. i am also so proud of my campaign team (spread all over the country, led by the 'antipolo group', you know who you are!), despite limited resources, they were able to execute a campaign competently, efficiently, and without drama. it was a joy being with truly committed people, unlike those whose enthusiasm was only at the beginning and replaced later on by excuses. indeed, it was a privilege to be part of our nation's electoral process, not merely as a bystander but as an active participant. i found it an honor and gratifying to meet and know more of my countrymen all over the philippines, and see firsthand how truly wonderful and beautiful this country really is.
now the elections are over. the people have spoken and it's their direction, whether we like it or not, that we must take. perhaps the country has changed. perhaps our values and faith have changed. but responsibility for that falls on each and every one of us. if we do not like the results, consider the fact that the people saw - correctly - by our lack of preparation and political smarts, that we did not present a viable alternative to today's old and corrupt leadership. and it's mostly because we did not possess the character and attributes necessary to deserve winning, that we showed ourselves unprepared to lead and take the country to a different direction.
on my part i shall go back to teaching and my law practice - quietly, as voltaire once wrote, to 'cultivate my own garden'. i am confident that there are better and more capable pro-lifers that can now step in and take the lead for our cause.
i wish all of you the best.
= = = =
but let me also urge everyone to accept the fact that, rather than go into the cliche of cheating accusations or that money politics took over or indulging in what-ifs, as elegantly as i can put it: we had our butts badly kicked yesterday. the candidates, parties, and party lists that won deserved to win and should be congratulated for their victories. they read the pulse of our people right and organized themselves accordingly.
on the other hand, we (the pro-life movement as a whole) were deplorably disorganized, our fund raising capacities were miserable, and we did not bring out a coherent positive message until late in the game. some of us were even weirdly just happy to be part of the campaign, doing things or giving speeches that had no point, without a thought of committing themselves to the actual duty of winning. some ridiculously thought that simply because our cause is just, victory would automatically fall on our lap. others, while mouthing pro-life platitudes, would go on to contribute (in order to protect their business or family's social standing) funds and other such support to non-pro-life politicians who didn't need the contributions as much as we did. then there were those so-called pro-lifers who were all energy at the start but as time went on and they realized the spotlight won't stick with them just packed up, made any excuse possible, and left. if there was one thing this campaign made me realize: never trust the old rich or old elite families. they're the best reason to do away with political dynasties. and then there were those content to just pray, forgetting the fact that God gave us reason, will, and the means, as well as each other, to act and help ourselves. there is nothing heroic in all of this. all are inexcusable.
also sad is the fact that the clergy, after preaching for so long regarding the true meaning of church and state separation, after proclaiming so loudly that the church and the faith properly does have a say in the public square, would now suddenly lose their nerves and fail to make a stand behind the laity (or if some specific dioceses did make a stand, it was too late). reason and faith are two wings it is said. well, so are the clergy and laity. they had to be together. and in these elections, we had to fly on the laity's single wing. if there had to be given one reason (although there are many) for the laity's seeming confusion on how to proceed in the campaign then it would have to be the clergy's baffling ambiguity or outright refusal to publicly support the politicians who were up front campaigning based on the church's teachings. instead, the clergy hid behind the non-sensical reason that 'the church doesn't dictate'. nobody said or asked that the clergy dictates, the laity simply asked that they speak up on who they think they (as voters themselves) would support and vote for. and yet the church didn't want to risk being misunderstood, which was hard to understand considering that lay political candidates and their supporters, all fighting for church teachings, were risking a lot and putting sometimes literally everything on the line. if ever there was a time the faithful needed to hear the bishops' and priests' voice, to make a public and clear stand, it was during the election campaign of 2013. however, it will be the year remembered when the shepherds refused to lead the flock. and what's truly devastating about this is that it will be the laity - that actually has to live in the world, without the clergy's option of being in secured cloisters - that will suffer the most in the coming years.
in any event, i am quite thankful to my family, friends, and supporters. i am also so proud of my campaign team (spread all over the country, led by the 'antipolo group', you know who you are!), despite limited resources, they were able to execute a campaign competently, efficiently, and without drama. it was a joy being with truly committed people, unlike those whose enthusiasm was only at the beginning and replaced later on by excuses. indeed, it was a privilege to be part of our nation's electoral process, not merely as a bystander but as an active participant. i found it an honor and gratifying to meet and know more of my countrymen all over the philippines, and see firsthand how truly wonderful and beautiful this country really is.
now the elections are over. the people have spoken and it's their direction, whether we like it or not, that we must take. perhaps the country has changed. perhaps our values and faith have changed. but responsibility for that falls on each and every one of us. if we do not like the results, consider the fact that the people saw - correctly - by our lack of preparation and political smarts, that we did not present a viable alternative to today's old and corrupt leadership. and it's mostly because we did not possess the character and attributes necessary to deserve winning, that we showed ourselves unprepared to lead and take the country to a different direction.
on my part i shall go back to teaching and my law practice - quietly, as voltaire once wrote, to 'cultivate my own garden'. i am confident that there are better and more capable pro-lifers that can now step in and take the lead for our cause.
i wish all of you the best.
= = = =
*got this quote from a friend. and i must say, because of my experience in this campaign, i appreciate the words better. and that has got to be something at least - -
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt
26.3.13
Supreme Court petition on the RH Law
Last 28 February 2013, on the last day of Pope Benedict XVI's pontificate, we filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of RA 10354 (or the RH Law). The petition was the 10th such petition filed before the SC. The legal team is composed of Cristina Montes, Rufino Penny Policarpio III, George Matthew Habacon, and myself. Excerpt:
"'Knowledge of law amounts to little if it overlooks the persons for whose sake law is made.' – Justinian, Roman Emperor
While the legislature therefore enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the exercise of its functions, such discretion is not absolute. It cannot, under any circumstance, exercise that discretion in a capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary manner. And, in the enactment of laws, it must bow to an objective standard of morality based on reason and proper respect for human nature. Thus, it should not enact laws that offend the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to religious freedom. Finally, it must comply with the demands of a democratic government, as well as certain principles and policies held sacred by the Filipino people as embodied in the Constitution. Failing these requirements, any such act of the legislature must be declared constitutionally infirm and stricken down."
Copy of the petition can be found here.
On 20 March 2013, the SC issued a Status Quo Ante Order (see copy here), suspending the implementation of the RH Law for 120 days. Justice Brion's concurring opinion can be seen here. Oral arguments are set for 18 June 2013.
"'Knowledge of law amounts to little if it overlooks the persons for whose sake law is made.' – Justinian, Roman Emperor
While the legislature therefore enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the exercise of its functions, such discretion is not absolute. It cannot, under any circumstance, exercise that discretion in a capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary manner. And, in the enactment of laws, it must bow to an objective standard of morality based on reason and proper respect for human nature. Thus, it should not enact laws that offend the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to religious freedom. Finally, it must comply with the demands of a democratic government, as well as certain principles and policies held sacred by the Filipino people as embodied in the Constitution. Failing these requirements, any such act of the legislature must be declared constitutionally infirm and stricken down."
Copy of the petition can be found here.
On 20 March 2013, the SC issued a Status Quo Ante Order (see copy here), suspending the implementation of the RH Law for 120 days. Justice Brion's concurring opinion can be seen here. Oral arguments are set for 18 June 2013.
24.2.13
On Team Life and of clarity
In a better world (or even just a better country), people will say what they mean or believe in. To be more specific, a Filipino can actually say by simple yes
or no whether he or she agrees with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception or not. Surely, with all the apparent learning being shown all around, such is possible.
And surely everyone could benefit by knowing what Fr. Joel Tabora, SJ really wants to say. Because, no matter how many times I read his articles relating to RH, I simply can't get his point. And so far, none of my friends can too. And I'm pretty certain nobody else does.
In articles (see here and here) and tweets, he has written passionately (some would say agitatedly) on what seems to be his thoughts on the RH Law and the participation of Catholics in public life. Unfortunately, one can't understand Fr. Tabora because he seems to be not in agreement even with himself on what he wants to say. He says he agrees that Catholic teaching on contraception is sound theologically and in accordance with reason. Yet he ignores the fact that his colleagues keep teaching otherwise. And he strangely declares the RH Law in keeping with the Catholic faith, in complete disregard of his bishops' position. Then he absolves Pro-RH advocates for acting like spoiled teenagers (more on that later), ignoring facts and reason for the sake of pure stubbornness, while castigating Catholics for being "unthinking". Then he suggests people adopt Fr. Bernas' sense of humor. What was the joke? If there was one, it wasn't very funny because it's at the Filipino's expense.
Instead, what is "unconscionable" (to use Fr. Tabora's word) is that Fr. Tabora also seems to want the Church (of which he is a priest of and beholden to teach its doctrines) to be deprived of its constitutional right to participate in the public square of ideas (which the Diocese of Bacolod correctly did, when it exercised its right to free speech - see here).
But in the same way that that he sees it fit to imply that those who adhere to Church doctrine as 'unthinking' for rhetorical or political argumentation purposes, then so should Catholics be free to express their views of certain politicians as they feel appropriate (within reasonable bounds).
In this regard and as an aside, the term "cafeteria catholics" is not denigrating for simply being a statement of fact, a term referring to those who pick and choose teachings that they like from those they don't. It's not on the same level as calling people as "fundamentalists" or "unthinking" (as Fr. Tabora tacitly did of his fellow Catholics), or "medieval".
Which leads me to think on how hard it is to understand how cafeteria catholics can think and act like spoiled teenagers. They feel free in saying the Church is wrong and yet wants the Church to say they're alright. And then, when the Church, logically, comes and says 'sorry, you're wrong', they throw tantrums and heap abuse on the Church, and ask that the Church be silenced. Which makes no sense.
If they think they're correct, then what does it matter anymore what the Church's opinion of them is? And if they don't agree with the Church, then why remain in the Church? There are thousands of religions that I'm sure will accommodate their 'spirituality'. Or better yet, why not create their own religion, which is what they're doing right now anyway.
As for Fr. Tabora, I believe there is a need to proceed from a proper understanding of the true meaning of Church/State separation (an intricate concept first brought up fully by the Catholic Church through St. Augustine and, before him, Jesus). Furthermore, Fr. Tabora should again reconsider that the Church believes that there is indeed truth, that humans are capable by their reason to know that truth, and that an objective moral standard, contrary to the disguising through the use of the words 'plurality' or 'secular' when one actually means "relativism", is there showing us what it means to be truly human.
The pluralism of society must be based on reason and coherence. While indeed we should all respect other’s beliefs, it has to be accepted that to do so would not make those beliefs necessarily correct. To those saying that "nobody has the right to impose one's morality on others," they have to recognize that every law imposes a morality. The only question is which one to impose. Any law that purports to be free of morals is still a law imposing its own kind of morals.
Interestingly enough, a substantial number of Philippine academicians seem to have been entranced with John Rawls idea of “plurality” and “public reason”. However, the response here is that Rawls concept of plurality is so constructed ("unreasonably narrow" in fact, according to George) as to exclude religious arguments and heavily favor liberal advocacies such as abortion and same sex marriage. Furthermore, while Rawls' plurality does make a pitch for public reason, his concept of "public reason" (see Rachael Patterson's critique, as an example) is so, well, "unreasonable" or ambiguous, as such that it becomes impracticable. In any event, we must not also confuse plurality, as well as the need for tolerance and respect for others' belief into actually thinking that it will magically transform all of our individual beliefs to be all correct. To tolerate and respect the belief of others will not necessitate us agreeing to such others' belief.
A short word on “tolerance”: “The root meaning of the word [tolerance] suggests what the virtue involves. The Latin tol- is related to a group of words having to do with carrying a burden: German dulden, to be patient, to endure; Old English tholian, to suffer; Latin tuli, I have borne. When we tolerate we bear with someone or something; we bear the existence of a wrong. We do so because, given the circumstances, to protest would invite a greater wrong. There is a time for public correction, and a time for quiet endurance and, if the opportunity arises, private correction.” (see Tolerance and reciprocity, Professor Anthony Esolen, Public Discourse).
If indeed one has that truth, then it's one's duty to share that truth. Pluralism, secularism, the demand for individualistic freedom will not make us arrive at that truth. Instead, as Jesus taught us, it is truth that will set us free.
To be clear: we all have the right to disagree. But I believe that one must put one's foot done when pro-RH advocates insist in thinking incoherently and inconsistently, and then demand we all think the same way. Because whether they agree or not, the fact remains that centuries and centuries of philosophical and theological thought, constitutional law, and even scientific facts form the wellspring of the Catholic Church's position.
On the other hand, what do pro-RH advocates have as basis for their position? Simply put, because they just want it to be so.
And surely everyone could benefit by knowing what Fr. Joel Tabora, SJ really wants to say. Because, no matter how many times I read his articles relating to RH, I simply can't get his point. And so far, none of my friends can too. And I'm pretty certain nobody else does.
In articles (see here and here) and tweets, he has written passionately (some would say agitatedly) on what seems to be his thoughts on the RH Law and the participation of Catholics in public life. Unfortunately, one can't understand Fr. Tabora because he seems to be not in agreement even with himself on what he wants to say. He says he agrees that Catholic teaching on contraception is sound theologically and in accordance with reason. Yet he ignores the fact that his colleagues keep teaching otherwise. And he strangely declares the RH Law in keeping with the Catholic faith, in complete disregard of his bishops' position. Then he absolves Pro-RH advocates for acting like spoiled teenagers (more on that later), ignoring facts and reason for the sake of pure stubbornness, while castigating Catholics for being "unthinking". Then he suggests people adopt Fr. Bernas' sense of humor. What was the joke? If there was one, it wasn't very funny because it's at the Filipino's expense.
Instead, what is "unconscionable" (to use Fr. Tabora's word) is that Fr. Tabora also seems to want the Church (of which he is a priest of and beholden to teach its doctrines) to be deprived of its constitutional right to participate in the public square of ideas (which the Diocese of Bacolod correctly did, when it exercised its right to free speech - see here).
But in the same way that that he sees it fit to imply that those who adhere to Church doctrine as 'unthinking' for rhetorical or political argumentation purposes, then so should Catholics be free to express their views of certain politicians as they feel appropriate (within reasonable bounds).
In this regard and as an aside, the term "cafeteria catholics" is not denigrating for simply being a statement of fact, a term referring to those who pick and choose teachings that they like from those they don't. It's not on the same level as calling people as "fundamentalists" or "unthinking" (as Fr. Tabora tacitly did of his fellow Catholics), or "medieval".
Which leads me to think on how hard it is to understand how cafeteria catholics can think and act like spoiled teenagers. They feel free in saying the Church is wrong and yet wants the Church to say they're alright. And then, when the Church, logically, comes and says 'sorry, you're wrong', they throw tantrums and heap abuse on the Church, and ask that the Church be silenced. Which makes no sense.
If they think they're correct, then what does it matter anymore what the Church's opinion of them is? And if they don't agree with the Church, then why remain in the Church? There are thousands of religions that I'm sure will accommodate their 'spirituality'. Or better yet, why not create their own religion, which is what they're doing right now anyway.
As for Fr. Tabora, I believe there is a need to proceed from a proper understanding of the true meaning of Church/State separation (an intricate concept first brought up fully by the Catholic Church through St. Augustine and, before him, Jesus). Furthermore, Fr. Tabora should again reconsider that the Church believes that there is indeed truth, that humans are capable by their reason to know that truth, and that an objective moral standard, contrary to the disguising through the use of the words 'plurality' or 'secular' when one actually means "relativism", is there showing us what it means to be truly human.
The pluralism of society must be based on reason and coherence. While indeed we should all respect other’s beliefs, it has to be accepted that to do so would not make those beliefs necessarily correct. To those saying that "nobody has the right to impose one's morality on others," they have to recognize that every law imposes a morality. The only question is which one to impose. Any law that purports to be free of morals is still a law imposing its own kind of morals.
Interestingly enough, a substantial number of Philippine academicians seem to have been entranced with John Rawls idea of “plurality” and “public reason”. However, the response here is that Rawls concept of plurality is so constructed ("unreasonably narrow" in fact, according to George) as to exclude religious arguments and heavily favor liberal advocacies such as abortion and same sex marriage. Furthermore, while Rawls' plurality does make a pitch for public reason, his concept of "public reason" (see Rachael Patterson's critique, as an example) is so, well, "unreasonable" or ambiguous, as such that it becomes impracticable. In any event, we must not also confuse plurality, as well as the need for tolerance and respect for others' belief into actually thinking that it will magically transform all of our individual beliefs to be all correct. To tolerate and respect the belief of others will not necessitate us agreeing to such others' belief.
A short word on “tolerance”: “The root meaning of the word [tolerance] suggests what the virtue involves. The Latin tol- is related to a group of words having to do with carrying a burden: German dulden, to be patient, to endure; Old English tholian, to suffer; Latin tuli, I have borne. When we tolerate we bear with someone or something; we bear the existence of a wrong. We do so because, given the circumstances, to protest would invite a greater wrong. There is a time for public correction, and a time for quiet endurance and, if the opportunity arises, private correction.” (see Tolerance and reciprocity, Professor Anthony Esolen, Public Discourse).
If indeed one has that truth, then it's one's duty to share that truth. Pluralism, secularism, the demand for individualistic freedom will not make us arrive at that truth. Instead, as Jesus taught us, it is truth that will set us free.
To be clear: we all have the right to disagree. But I believe that one must put one's foot done when pro-RH advocates insist in thinking incoherently and inconsistently, and then demand we all think the same way. Because whether they agree or not, the fact remains that centuries and centuries of philosophical and theological thought, constitutional law, and even scientific facts form the wellspring of the Catholic Church's position.
On the other hand, what do pro-RH advocates have as basis for their position? Simply put, because they just want it to be so.
17.2.13
Philippine caste system and the myth of the elections
Here's a brilliant article by Bobby Tiglao, worth posting in full.
Indeed, in this country, it's family surname and not talent that counts. And if you happen to have the latter but not the former, your best bet is to merely accept having your talent at the mere service of those elite families.
Hence, the unfortunate fact that most people who don't belong to the elite spend all their efforts trying to be in the elite families' good graces: sending them to the same schools, imitating their lifestyles, offering their children up at the same parties.
Indeed, in this country, it's family surname and not talent that counts. And if you happen to have the latter but not the former, your best bet is to merely accept having your talent at the mere service of those elite families.
Hence, the unfortunate fact that most people who don't belong to the elite spend all their efforts trying to be in the elite families' good graces: sending them to the same schools, imitating their lifestyles, offering their children up at the same parties.
This grip that the old elite families have on our country must end. And it will. It just can't come soon enough.
****
We all expressed horror over it. A person’s place in that four-tiered social strata is hereditary, and one is born, lives, works, marries and dies, strictly within his caste: brahmins (priests and scholars), kshatriyas (rulers, bureaucrats, and warriors), vaishyas (traders and merchants) and shudras (laborers, servants of the first three castes). At the bottom, or even outside of it are the “untouchables,” impure from birth that they are hardly considered humans and whose work can only be the most menial.
Scratch the surface of Philippine society; it has its version of the caste system, despite all its trappings of democracy and capitalism. The essence of caste system has been operating in our country: A Filipino’s place in life is determined by birth and he lives, works, marries and dies in the class he is born in, and so will his children and their children.
Consider Juanito Furugganan, born out of wedlock to the stepdaughter of a poor fisherman (shudra?). He would likely have lived and died like millions of Filipinos like him in some poor village. But his lawyer-politician (brahmin-kshatriya) father took him into his caste and Furugganan would be a Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the most powerful (and probably richest) men in modern Philippines.
On the other hand, our laundry woman many years ago worked as hard as she could to save money for her son’s education. But she could afford to send him only to public elementary and high schools—the quality of which drastically deteriorated in the past few decades. And then poor nutrition—the kind the poor gets from cheap instant noodles—has been proven to reduce a child’s IQ by as much as 20 percent.
With the very low quality of basic education her son got in those schools, it was impossible for him to pass the entrance test in UP, the most affordable for an indigent. Even college scholarships were not accessible to him, as they require tests he’d likely fail because of his poor education. He ended up in some cheap diploma mill, to drop out after two years, to work his life as a shudra.
(I often wonder if tycoons that their college scholarships merely help out those already in the Filipino middle class. To make a dent in our caste system, they must put poor families’ children through good elementary and high school, so they’d have a fighting chance of passing college-entrance tests.)
Think about people you’ve met in your life. UP as the home of “Iskolar ng Bayan,” my foot. I met only one schoolmate in UP who lived in a slum area in Quezon City, but even his father turned out to be a local politician from a Visayan town who decided to venture, unsuccessfully, in the big city. Another told our gang his father was a farmer in the Cordilleras. A decade later, I learned that he had to return to his village as his father died and he’d have to assume his father’s role—as chieftain.
On the other hand, one or two rich schoolmates in the Ateneo would continue to be spoiled brats in their adulthood, run several businesses to bankruptcy and splurge millions of pesos in women and drugs. Yet their children would still go to the best schools here and even abroad. Their lolos and lolas would give them capital for some boutique business, to be good members in good standing of their upper caste. You can’t get more hereditary than that.
There are rare cases of course, but have you heard of a “scion” of a rich family, no matter how irresponsible, criminal or unlucky he is, becoming a day laborer? On the other end of the society, short of winning the lotto, have you heard of a real Filipino who “swam in garbage” in his youth to become a tycoon? (Well, the tycoon who claimed that, after all, studied business administration in UP without scholarship, which makes you wonder if his mother’s fish business was as small as he portrayed it to be. More importantly, perhaps, he married upward to a landed politician’s clan.)
The archetype of a high-caste clan, and its imperviousness through generations is President B.S. Aquino’s family. Not even a dictator like Marcos could change the Aquino-Cojuangco clan’s high-caste status. Hardly ever having a real job (except formally heading a security agency, which had the family’s Hacienda Luisita as its sole client), this unico hijo got to be member of the ‘pork-barrel’-filled Congress for a dozen years and then got to be president.
A Brookings Institution study found that the majority, 58 percent of children born to parents in the poorest strata of the American population get to move out from that level. Eight percent of American children manage to jump from the lowest fifth of the income strata to the highest fifth.
There are no comparable figures for the Philippines, but unless anybody can show me contrary proof, I would bet that only a very insignificant number—less than 5 percent—of children born in our poorest strata get to move out of that quagmire. E-mail me information on an upper-class person whose parents were really dirt poor and not just an “underpaid teacher or government servant,” and I’ll devote a column celebrating his life. (Exclude however a rare exception: former Comelec chairman Ben Abalos who worked himself through law school partly by caddying, who’s already widely known to have been a rare exception to our thesis here.)
The most common bridge out of the poorest strata is a good college education, as Abalos had demonstrated. Even the poorest in the US can go through free public school for basic education and then get a good college education either through scholarships, or student-loan systems, in which repayment is required only when he is employed. Such a bridge does not exist our country.
Perhaps, knowing how unfair our system is and that the poor shouldn’t learn about how bad it is, the Philippine ruling class has created a myth that there is inter-caste upward mobility and even marriage in our country.
Former president Joseph Estrada (the jeepney driver) and presidential candidate Fernando Poe (Ang Probinsyano and Eseng of Tondo were two of his movies’ titles) played the role poor working-class heroes winning the hearts of upper-class women, that Filipinos mistook their movies for reality. The King of Comedy Dolphy became endeared by the masses playing the part of a poor John married to a rich unica hija Marsha.
The most successful myth in our caste society is our elections. Browse through the list of senatorial candidates. Is there anybody there who is not from the upper caste? There is even, interestingly, somebody from the Brahmin (“priestly” class): Eddie Villanueva, “brother” you should address him, and of course many from the kshatriya caste, professional politicians and even two former “warriors.” There are no representatives from the laboring caste, except for pretenders like Teodoro Casiño (“Born to a rich family,” according to his wikipedia entry, which he or his allies obviously posted); and Risa Hontiveros, who obviously has not had a need for a job for taking up activism as her hobby. After the glory days of the Left in the 1980s, it seems, it has run out of real proletarian and peasant leaders like former taxi-driver Crispin Beltran.
Check out who are running for congressmen and other local posts in your area: Is anybody really from, or genuinely representing, the poor?
An alien anthropologist visiting our planet and studying our country would be puzzled. Here is a system by which these Filipino earthlings —a pathetic lot as a quarter of them are dirt-poor poor and at most only 5 percent well off—choose who would be in their “Council of Elders” (i.e., Senate, from the Latin senex, meaning “elder”).
But all the candidates are from the rich 5 percent! How stupid this civilization is, or maybe how devious its ruling class is, the alien anthropologist would have concluded.
****
In college, we learned about the caste system in India, which still continues in the modern age, despite its state’s Herculean efforts to dismantle it.
We all expressed horror over it. A person’s place in that four-tiered social strata is hereditary, and one is born, lives, works, marries and dies, strictly within his caste: brahmins (priests and scholars), kshatriyas (rulers, bureaucrats, and warriors), vaishyas (traders and merchants) and shudras (laborers, servants of the first three castes). At the bottom, or even outside of it are the “untouchables,” impure from birth that they are hardly considered humans and whose work can only be the most menial.
Scratch the surface of Philippine society; it has its version of the caste system, despite all its trappings of democracy and capitalism. The essence of caste system has been operating in our country: A Filipino’s place in life is determined by birth and he lives, works, marries and dies in the class he is born in, and so will his children and their children.
Consider Juanito Furugganan, born out of wedlock to the stepdaughter of a poor fisherman (shudra?). He would likely have lived and died like millions of Filipinos like him in some poor village. But his lawyer-politician (brahmin-kshatriya) father took him into his caste and Furugganan would be a Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the most powerful (and probably richest) men in modern Philippines.
On the other hand, our laundry woman many years ago worked as hard as she could to save money for her son’s education. But she could afford to send him only to public elementary and high schools—the quality of which drastically deteriorated in the past few decades. And then poor nutrition—the kind the poor gets from cheap instant noodles—has been proven to reduce a child’s IQ by as much as 20 percent.
With the very low quality of basic education her son got in those schools, it was impossible for him to pass the entrance test in UP, the most affordable for an indigent. Even college scholarships were not accessible to him, as they require tests he’d likely fail because of his poor education. He ended up in some cheap diploma mill, to drop out after two years, to work his life as a shudra.
(I often wonder if tycoons that their college scholarships merely help out those already in the Filipino middle class. To make a dent in our caste system, they must put poor families’ children through good elementary and high school, so they’d have a fighting chance of passing college-entrance tests.)
Think about people you’ve met in your life. UP as the home of “Iskolar ng Bayan,” my foot. I met only one schoolmate in UP who lived in a slum area in Quezon City, but even his father turned out to be a local politician from a Visayan town who decided to venture, unsuccessfully, in the big city. Another told our gang his father was a farmer in the Cordilleras. A decade later, I learned that he had to return to his village as his father died and he’d have to assume his father’s role—as chieftain.
On the other hand, one or two rich schoolmates in the Ateneo would continue to be spoiled brats in their adulthood, run several businesses to bankruptcy and splurge millions of pesos in women and drugs. Yet their children would still go to the best schools here and even abroad. Their lolos and lolas would give them capital for some boutique business, to be good members in good standing of their upper caste. You can’t get more hereditary than that.
There are rare cases of course, but have you heard of a “scion” of a rich family, no matter how irresponsible, criminal or unlucky he is, becoming a day laborer? On the other end of the society, short of winning the lotto, have you heard of a real Filipino who “swam in garbage” in his youth to become a tycoon? (Well, the tycoon who claimed that, after all, studied business administration in UP without scholarship, which makes you wonder if his mother’s fish business was as small as he portrayed it to be. More importantly, perhaps, he married upward to a landed politician’s clan.)
The archetype of a high-caste clan, and its imperviousness through generations is President B.S. Aquino’s family. Not even a dictator like Marcos could change the Aquino-Cojuangco clan’s high-caste status. Hardly ever having a real job (except formally heading a security agency, which had the family’s Hacienda Luisita as its sole client), this unico hijo got to be member of the ‘pork-barrel’-filled Congress for a dozen years and then got to be president.
A Brookings Institution study found that the majority, 58 percent of children born to parents in the poorest strata of the American population get to move out from that level. Eight percent of American children manage to jump from the lowest fifth of the income strata to the highest fifth.
There are no comparable figures for the Philippines, but unless anybody can show me contrary proof, I would bet that only a very insignificant number—less than 5 percent—of children born in our poorest strata get to move out of that quagmire. E-mail me information on an upper-class person whose parents were really dirt poor and not just an “underpaid teacher or government servant,” and I’ll devote a column celebrating his life. (Exclude however a rare exception: former Comelec chairman Ben Abalos who worked himself through law school partly by caddying, who’s already widely known to have been a rare exception to our thesis here.)
The most common bridge out of the poorest strata is a good college education, as Abalos had demonstrated. Even the poorest in the US can go through free public school for basic education and then get a good college education either through scholarships, or student-loan systems, in which repayment is required only when he is employed. Such a bridge does not exist our country.
Perhaps, knowing how unfair our system is and that the poor shouldn’t learn about how bad it is, the Philippine ruling class has created a myth that there is inter-caste upward mobility and even marriage in our country.
Former president Joseph Estrada (the jeepney driver) and presidential candidate Fernando Poe (Ang Probinsyano and Eseng of Tondo were two of his movies’ titles) played the role poor working-class heroes winning the hearts of upper-class women, that Filipinos mistook their movies for reality. The King of Comedy Dolphy became endeared by the masses playing the part of a poor John married to a rich unica hija Marsha.
The most successful myth in our caste society is our elections. Browse through the list of senatorial candidates. Is there anybody there who is not from the upper caste? There is even, interestingly, somebody from the Brahmin (“priestly” class): Eddie Villanueva, “brother” you should address him, and of course many from the kshatriya caste, professional politicians and even two former “warriors.” There are no representatives from the laboring caste, except for pretenders like Teodoro Casiño (“Born to a rich family,” according to his wikipedia entry, which he or his allies obviously posted); and Risa Hontiveros, who obviously has not had a need for a job for taking up activism as her hobby. After the glory days of the Left in the 1980s, it seems, it has run out of real proletarian and peasant leaders like former taxi-driver Crispin Beltran.
Check out who are running for congressmen and other local posts in your area: Is anybody really from, or genuinely representing, the poor?
An alien anthropologist visiting our planet and studying our country would be puzzled. Here is a system by which these Filipino earthlings —a pathetic lot as a quarter of them are dirt-poor poor and at most only 5 percent well off—choose who would be in their “Council of Elders” (i.e., Senate, from the Latin senex, meaning “elder”).
But all the candidates are from the rich 5 percent! How stupid this civilization is, or maybe how devious its ruling class is, the alien anthropologist would have concluded.
Understanding the Pope, understanding the Church
From Fr. Ces Magsino's Viatores blog:
Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation has drawn much commentaries and opinions from everyone. Many of these comments are about the Church’s present state and its future.
Take for instance Inquirer’s February 15, 2013 editorial: “Did he push back the reforms of Vatican II?… Did he make the Church more conservative? Set aside the fundamental futility of applying essentially political terms to religion, but the record does seem to skew toward conservatism, with important exceptions of a liberal or even progressive character.”
I agree with the supposition that it is futile to apply political terms to religion and to the Catholic Church. The Church is really is mystery in more meanings than just one. It is enigmatic, puzzling, and difficult to understand. In Christian theology a mystery means a visible reality that has an invisible and supernatural dimension. And so it will really be futile to apply political categories to the Church. It is at the same time conservative and progressive. It is ancient and current. It is old and new. It preaches death and Life. A mystery.
But just like in any institution the Church is best understood from the “inside”. It is not a spectator sport.
About the Church’s future, we can read this comment from Conrado de Quiros in his February 15, 2013 column, Crossroads: “Far more than Benedict’s actual resignation, it’s the relative lack of impact it had for much of the world that’s the more dismaying. It shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church has been epically diminished in the eyes of the world. Indeed, it shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church stands at a watershed, or crossroads, in history between continuity and obscurity, relevance and irrelevance, life and death. If you’re one of the faithful, of course, it won’t occur to you that the Church can possibly die. But if you’re not, which much of the world is, it most certainly can.”
The general tone of the comment, so it seems to me, is negative and pessimistic. The Church is dismissed by the world, the Church is between life and death and it can die. The usual problem with a negative and pessimistic outlook is that objectively it is not realistic. Reality is black, white and gray and all the colors in between. Moreover, because we lack perspective, it is usually difficult to just the present from a historical viewpoint.
Historically, when the Church was just beginning and Christians were few the Roman Emperors vowed to destroy it. Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Decius, Valerian and Diocletian tried to exterminate the Church. It could have died. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformation seemed to succeed in diminishing the Church’s numbers and sucking life out of it. In the same century, it spread to America and the Philippines. In the eighteenth century the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution aimed at destroying the Church in France. It survived and the French Revolution is now history; though Enlightenment ideas are still here with us.
The Church can die? The Church is a mystery: though it has a human component – it is made up of men – has also a divine dimension: God, Jesus, his teachings, the souls in heaven, grace,.. Can you kill God? Can you kill Jesus? Can you kill an idea? Can you kill a soul in heaven?
For twenty centuries people have been claiming the Church is dying. And yet the Church is still here with us with more than a billion members.
Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation has drawn much commentaries and opinions from everyone. Many of these comments are about the Church’s present state and its future.
Take for instance Inquirer’s February 15, 2013 editorial: “Did he push back the reforms of Vatican II?… Did he make the Church more conservative? Set aside the fundamental futility of applying essentially political terms to religion, but the record does seem to skew toward conservatism, with important exceptions of a liberal or even progressive character.”
I agree with the supposition that it is futile to apply political terms to religion and to the Catholic Church. The Church is really is mystery in more meanings than just one. It is enigmatic, puzzling, and difficult to understand. In Christian theology a mystery means a visible reality that has an invisible and supernatural dimension. And so it will really be futile to apply political categories to the Church. It is at the same time conservative and progressive. It is ancient and current. It is old and new. It preaches death and Life. A mystery.
But just like in any institution the Church is best understood from the “inside”. It is not a spectator sport.
About the Church’s future, we can read this comment from Conrado de Quiros in his February 15, 2013 column, Crossroads: “Far more than Benedict’s actual resignation, it’s the relative lack of impact it had for much of the world that’s the more dismaying. It shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church has been epically diminished in the eyes of the world. Indeed, it shows more than anything else how the Catholic Church stands at a watershed, or crossroads, in history between continuity and obscurity, relevance and irrelevance, life and death. If you’re one of the faithful, of course, it won’t occur to you that the Church can possibly die. But if you’re not, which much of the world is, it most certainly can.”
The general tone of the comment, so it seems to me, is negative and pessimistic. The Church is dismissed by the world, the Church is between life and death and it can die. The usual problem with a negative and pessimistic outlook is that objectively it is not realistic. Reality is black, white and gray and all the colors in between. Moreover, because we lack perspective, it is usually difficult to just the present from a historical viewpoint.
Historically, when the Church was just beginning and Christians were few the Roman Emperors vowed to destroy it. Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Decius, Valerian and Diocletian tried to exterminate the Church. It could have died. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformation seemed to succeed in diminishing the Church’s numbers and sucking life out of it. In the same century, it spread to America and the Philippines. In the eighteenth century the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution aimed at destroying the Church in France. It survived and the French Revolution is now history; though Enlightenment ideas are still here with us.
The Church can die? The Church is a mystery: though it has a human component – it is made up of men – has also a divine dimension: God, Jesus, his teachings, the souls in heaven, grace,.. Can you kill God? Can you kill Jesus? Can you kill an idea? Can you kill a soul in heaven?
For twenty centuries people have been claiming the Church is dying. And yet the Church is still here with us with more than a billion members.
Of dynasties and the elite
Here a compilation of my past articles
emphasizing the point that this country's main problem is the so-called
old 'elite', 'de buena familias' that has incompetently, corruptly, and
at times even traitorously controlled this country's business and
politics. Feel free to share:
> It's the inequality, stupid!
> Tama na, sobra na, palitan na!
> Our mad, lunatic, insanity
> Of Ilustrado and the elections
> Still on the elite
> Vox populi
> Occupied Philippines
> Coffee with Jose Almonte
> The politics of excuses
> The trouble with priests
> Class war
And two somewhat technical articles on our oligarchy problem and how international trade and a good competition policy law could be of help to the country:
> Trade and human rights
> Anti-trust and corruption
> It's the inequality, stupid!
> Tama na, sobra na, palitan na!
> Our mad, lunatic, insanity
> Of Ilustrado and the elections
> Still on the elite
> Vox populi
> Occupied Philippines
> Coffee with Jose Almonte
> The politics of excuses
> The trouble with priests
> Class war
And two somewhat technical articles on our oligarchy problem and how international trade and a good competition policy law could be of help to the country:
> Trade and human rights
> Anti-trust and corruption
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)