Tradition/Culture can be weird (nasty) sometimes!

I usually avoid writing or talking about things that really piss me off, for when I do, I get carried away.  Yesterday happen to be a day that three things that piss me off occurred.  So here goes.

I am trying to establish a new/used retail clothing store for my caregiver and two sisters in Davao. They have been loyal to me for over ten years. I will not live forever and I want them to have a means to support themselves. We have had a stall at the Davao Street Market in order to get familiar with vendors, suppliers and customers. Now it is time to go bigger.

We do not want a typical Ukay-Ukay store that you find in the Philippines.  We want everyone regardless of economic status to have a pleasant buying experience. It will be a super, super, super small SM Department Store.  First class fixtures, organized, clean, signage, room to move around in, men/women/children new (Factory Overruns) and Pre-Loved Clothes.

We finally found the place in the St. Pedro Cathedral area.  I thought it was the place God picked - WRONG!  The rent was more than we wanted to pay, but I decided to take the risk and pay one year in advance rent. The owner was out of town, but we knew it was our place when she returned - WRONG!  We discovered she did not want Muslims leasing her property, because they were dirty and ALWAYS used it as a business and a place to live in the back. I guaranteed her it would not happen and if it did she could  keep deposit and advance rent.  That did not satisfy her. She just did not want to do business with Muslims.  Remember now I am a retired Catholic Priest.

Yes, we were disappointed.  We had heard from retailers in the area where the property was, that, "The old lady and her daughter that owns that property are bitches and no one that knew them would rent that property."  I thought maybe they are wrong or do not want competition. I was wrong about the mother for sure!

I cannot stand a caste system that is really what slavery in the southern part of the USA was.  I am originally from Alabama.  I had my taste of family that loved segregation days, which in their eyes was a milder form of slavery. Went off to college and met Dr. Martin Luther King and join the protest marchers. My mother made me promise on my life I would never let a family member know what I was doing. I hated discrimination then and I hate discrimination now. Those sixty years between then and now the hate is just as strong.

That was PISS off number one. Now Piss off number two.  I schedule to get to an appointment thirty minutes early. That way I am never late. I simply take a book and read until the time for the appointment. Being punctual is very important to me. My time is valuable to me and I assume others time is valuable to them. Being late is RUDE!  If an emergency arises CALL do not keep the other person wondering and waiting.

I am having some work done on my house. The man is talented and like able, but three times he said he would be at my house and did not come.  Surprisingly I did not say anything until yesterday. I may be old and in a wheelchair, but you are not going to disrespect me.  I think he now understand you do not waste my time.

That was PISS off number two.  Now number three. I ordered 200 factory overrun dresses from Manila. They had called and ask could they ship another brand of the same quality. I agreed. The delivery man came and I was alone. I went to the front balcony and advised the driver I would come down on my elevator, but it would take time. He said okay.  I go down, open the gate, he says "Are YOU Father Tom Martin" and I say, "Yes".  He says, "Do you have a picture I.D."  I NICELY tell him if he thought I was going to struggle to go back inside for a picture I.D. He was crazy. He says, "You do not look like a Father."  I said politely of course, "Young man. I am eighty years old, sick and in bed until you came. I am sorry I did not shave or comb my hair before I came down.  But, I will share a secret with you.  Your parish priest wakes up in the morning goes to the toilet, showers, brushes his teeth and then puts on his clothes and goes to work JUST like you. God does not do those things for us. I no longer work so I do what I want."  Side note the dresses were not the same quality. I guess that was PISS off number four. I hate liars and dishonest people.

The Catholic Church has not done enough to address the child abuse issue.

My church hierarchy(Catholic) still has not learned a lesson!

Irish abuse survivor Marie Collins has accused the Vatican bureaucracy of “shameful” resistance to fighting clerical sex abuse in the Catholic Church as she quit a key panel set up by Pope Francis.

In a major setback for the pope, Collins announced that she had resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors established by the pontiff in 2013 to counter abuse in the church. 

She said the pope’s decision to create the commission was a “sincere move” but there had been “constant setbacks” from officials within the Vatican.

“There are people in the Vatican who do not want to change or understand the need to change,” Collins said in a telephone interview from Dublin.

“I find it shameful,” Collins said. “The work we want to do is to make children and young adults now and in the future safer in the church environment from the horror of abuse.”

Collins was raped at age 13 by a hospital chaplain in Ireland  She was the only active abuse survivor on the Vatican panel since British survivor Peter Saunders was sidelined last year for his outspoken criticism. Saunders has not resigned or been formally dismissed.

The Catholic church is still telling newly appointed bishops that it is “not necessarily” their duty to report accusations of clerical child abuse and that only victims or their families should make the decision to report abuse to police.

A document that spells out how senior clergy members ought to deal with allegations of abuse, which was recently released by the Vatican, emphasized  bishops’ must be aware of local laws, but bishops’ only duty is to address such allegations internally. 

“According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors the moment they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” the training document states.  The training document also says little about preventing the problem in the future and it also downplay the seriousness of the Catholic church’s legacy of systemic child abuse, which some victims’ right groups say continues to be a problem today.

While acknowledging that “the church has been particularly affected by sexual crimes committed against children”, the training guide emphasizes statistics that show the vast majority of sexual assaults against children are committed within the family and by friends and neighbors, not other authority figures.  Why is this fact important to this commission or Catholics.  If one child is abused by a Catholic church official that is one too many and should be taken seriously by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  It seems to me they are more concerned that the sins of the church went public than the damage it did to children and families.

Pope Francis has called for the church to exhibit “zero tolerance” of sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults by clergy and that “everything possible must be done to rid the church of the scourge of the sexual abuse”.  It seems many in the hierarchy do not feel the same as the Pope.

SNAP, a US-based advocacy group for abuse victims that has been very critical of Pope Francis on the issue said, “It’s infuriating, and dangerous, that so many believe the myth that bishops are changing how they deal with abuse and that so little attention is paid when evidence to the contrary”.

The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, appointed by Pope Francis, played no role in the training program, even though it is Pope Francis Commission that is  supposed to be developing “best practices” to prevent and deal with clerical abuse.

The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (who should be the ones dealing with child abuse in the church) said their position is reporting abuse to civil authorities was a “moral obligation, whether the civil law requires it or not”. The official said the commission would be involved in future training efforts.

Keep in mind the abuse Pontifical Commission (the Popes Commission) forced one of two abuse survivors who had personally been appointed by Pope Francis to leave the committee following a vote of no confidence stating he released to much information to the public.  The other abuse victim on the commission has now resigned as of last week.

The Catholic sex abuse stories have been in the news now for 32 years.  The National Catholic Reporter, an independent Catholic publication, broke the first story 32 years ago.  It remains a story because even if the ones abused by clergy and bishops and cardinals have supportive family and friends, a financial cushion and plenty of time in therapy — all big “ifs” — they never entirely leave it behind.  They never completely heal.

It remains a story because many that have been abuse by clergy find salvation in telling their stories. This is not simply catharsis. They want to be assured that their abusers are known to the world and can never hurt another child. They want to know if their abusers had other victims. They want other victims to know that they were not alone, and that it was not their fault. They want to put their trauma to some use. Only then can they rest.  

Unfortunately many in the Catholic Church, officials and lay people, would like for them to just fade away so they can put these horrible acts (which still continue) behind them.  That is what made the problem worse in the first place lay people in the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to the problem and allowed it to go on for centuries.

The clergy abuse story remains a story because abuse victims often wait years before they are ready to speak. They are too ashamed, or confused, or afraid of not being believed. But eventually they tell someone, and once they start speaking, some cannot stop. That’s why the sexual abuse story has emerged so slowly, over years, in waves. Abuse victims are like combat veterans: The war is long over, but the coping is not. Years after the Vietnam War ended, people are still writing memoirs and making movies, still processing what happened.

Of course, child sexual abuse is an issue everywhere, not just in the Catholic Church.  It takes place in every denomination and even in independent churches.  It takes place in it in schools, scouting organizations, camps, United Nations missions and every public and private organization that involve children.  It happens so often it is hard to keep track: Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the most bizarre story of all — an international Christian cult called the Children of God.  But the scandal in the Catholic Church has proved far more extensive. 

You may ask why is it so extensive in the Catholic Church well one reason is the sheer number of Catholics— Catholics make up about a quarter of the American population and are the largest single religious denomination. The Catholic Church is also a hierarchical organization that keeps extensive records, so abuse usually leaves a paper trail.  Another factor, too, is the exalted position of priests, acting “in persona Christi” — in the person of Christ.  And then there is the church’s requirement of celibacy for priests. While many live by and value it, for others it has led to covert sexual relationships with adults, double lives and deep secrets.

Some also theorize that the all-male priesthood is a factor. While it’s quite possible that having women in the clergy would have instilled more accountability and sensitivity, child sexual abuse also happens in faiths with married clergy. It also happens in families.

American Bishops are not abiding by the reforms they agreed to in 2002, in response to the eruption of cases set off by the scandal in Boston. The American bishops agreed to report allegations to the authorities and to remove all credibly accused priests from ministry. They agreed to establish prevention programs in parishes and schools, teach children and adults about warning signs, and conduct background checks on employees.

As a retired priest I and many like me are stewing that colleagues who have failed to protect children make us all look bad — but then news is never about the planes that land safely.

In closing states should drop the statute of limitations for filing criminal charges in all child abuse cases, and extend the statute for filing civil cases to age 60.  Leaders of any organization that know of child abuse within their organization and do not report it immediately should be charged criminally and face a minimum of five years in prison.  

Stop trying to live others life's - live your own!

Today I am going to just ramble or vent a bit. I hope you will excuse me for doing so. Last night I met with a child of a friend at their request to talk to her about her attitude. During the conversation I said, "Why is it your teacher gives you a glowing report. She says you are the best student in your grade in the entire school and you are the most respectful child she has ever met. She claims she can only describe you as excellent - perfect", but that is not how your parents describe you.

She replied, "I am not the same at school as I am at home".  The first time I met this child several years ago I told her uncle they are going to have problems with her. She is "intelligent" and she knows it. The things they believe is cute now is not going to be cute in a few years. Well my prophesy was correct.

At home she wants to do things when she wants to do them and not when she is told to do them. If you cross her she yells and walks off.  You get the "whatever" with the hand in the air pointed towards you. If you try and talk to her she plays the I 'am sorry bit' and cries to make THEM feel sorry for her. She has the technique of getting and doing what she wants down pat. She has no problems calling cousins and siblings stupid because they do not excel in school as she does.

I ask her, "Why are you not the same at school as at home? Why are you not the same everywhere? Are you telling me that sometimes you are a phony - fake? Her reply was, "I do not know why I am different at school".

During my 3 a.m. prayer session it hit me like a ton of bricks - Tom why are you not the same everywhere with everyone?

My answer was - I was taught that I am to meet the expectations of those I am accountable to. That is a lesson I wish I had not learned so well. It has at times made my life miserable. I really did not want to be the best at everything I tried. I wanted to do MY best, but not try to be better than everyone else. I did not want to compete. I wanted to be good, fair, just, humble, faithful and loyal, but I personally did not have a need to be perfect all the time and I wasn't no matter how hard I tried.

Many in my family tried to live their life through me. I was the only one to go to college even up to today. I was the only minister. I was the only business owner, except for two uncles and grandfather. I was certainly the only one to graduate cum laud. All I wanted was to be was a minister from age six.

I was told in the seminary (cemetery) that a good minister has to appear to have all the answers. After all that is why they pay you and come to you for advice. I felt inadequate because I did not and do not have all the answers and it took me about ten years to realize I could just tell the people "I do not know". That was hard because I personally felt I had failed them. The authority figures in my life had told me I would be a failure if people thought I did not know it all.

Then came the time when I began not to agree with everything the hierarchy of my denomination handed down for us to teach. Do I tell the people I do not  believe abortion is an unforgivable sin and if it is forgiven the bishop must forgive it? Do I tell them I believe that having children they cannot afford is a bigger sin than using artificial birth control? Do I tell them Christ was not born in the month of December? Do I tell them the Shepherds did not arrive when Christ was a baby in a manger? Do I tell them that infant baptism is a ritual and it is okay, but I really believe it is best to wait until the children can acknowledge their own baptism? Do I tell them that I do not believe once saved always saved? Do I tell them I thing the Church is wrong to deny Communion to divorced and remarried couples or gay and lesbian couples? Will I be honest with myself or meet the expectations others place on me. Eventually, I began to preference things that I really did not support with - "THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES" and people in my parish knew that I did not whole heartily agree and then I would say other Christians believe -----.

Oh believe me when I say, it caused a lot of flack for me by some, but the majority supported me and did not want me to change. They were looking for truth and wanted to have the opportunity to pray, study and reason what was the truth. I would say the majority of Christians want to be TOLD what to believe.

Back to the beginning why have I spent my life trying to please others? All I really ever wanted was to please is God and myself. Why do I have to guard what I say so others will not be offended? What right do they have to impose their beliefs on me or what right do I have to impose my beliefs on them?

I sympathize with the gay and lesbian community. Their sexuality is between them and God as long as they obey the laws of the land (and lot of laws need to be changed) and they do not physically or emotional hurt others that is between them and God. What right do I have to judge them?

I do not want to anyone come back and say their actions emotionally offend me because it goes against what I believe God said - you should not be so emotionally weak. You can hold to your beliefs and let others do the same if you are really as faithful as you say you are.

I think a lot of Christians today have confused following God with trying to be God.

I am now getting nearer 80 every week and I frankly no longer care what others think of me and my beliefs if I feel I am right with God. I do not have to conform to anyone else belief system.  You have no right to judge me and I have no right to judge you. I can forgive the offences you did to me, but I cannot forgive the offences you did to others.  Only God and the ones you harmed can do that. By the way no other priest, bishops, cardinal or pope can forgive your sins either.

So in closing, I frankly do not care what you think of my of my political, personal or religious beliefs! I just want to be who God created me to be and please Him.

If you are allowing others to live their life through you or put demands on you to meet their expectations of what you should be or do my advise to you is make your own decisions and make yourself happy.

I just typed and did not worry about grammar or spelling or anything else. Please forgive me and do not nick-pick me. I actually have stupid people come back and say, "You were never a priest you misspell this or that or your grammar is terrible and you do not know where a comma, period or question mark belongs".  Hate to tell you priest are not perfect and they have the same bodily functions you do.  

Corruption in the Catholic Church

The official audit is out and it “ain’t” much better!

The annual audit of reports for sexual abuse by members of the U.S. Roman Catholic clergy was released last Friday and it showed a sharp INCREASE in the number of new claims.

The audit showed that 828 people came forward from July 1, 2014 through June 20, 2015 to say they had been sexually abused by priests, deacons and members of religious groups (yes, that includes cardinals and bishops). I will always believe the cover up was not to protect the Church, but to protect guilty cardinals and bishops.

Six dioceses in the U.S. have filed for bankruptcy because of the sex abuse scandal. Money that could have been used for the poor was paid out to cover the sins of evil priest. I am amazed how the bishops in the Philippines can be so critical of corrupt politicians stealing money from the poor when they are as guilty. As far as I am concerned the funds bishops used to protect evil priest was stealing from the poor.

It is true that the bulk of the cases are old cases changes in the legal system made it possible for old victims to file claims. Catholic parishes and other orders spent $153.6 million on settlements, legal fees and other expenses related to claims of sexual assault over the last one year period.  The Church spent $119.1 million the previous year. The church has paid out BILLIONS of dollars since 2002 because of the sex abuse scandal.

This is what happens when men are looking for a POSITION/TITLE and not a MISSION. Too many priest, bishops, cardinals are not looking for a mission they are looking for the respect a position/title brings. They do not have the character to earn the respect they want. They need the clerical clothes to demand the respect they want. Many young men had a mission when they started, but were corrupted when surrounded by older priest that had lost site of their mission. Their immaturity led them to mismanage their opportunity and away from their mission. Position means nothing if you do not understand your mission. The same is true of politicians.

God did not give us money, talents, blessing, opportunities, etc., in order for us to be important. God gave them to us to accomplish His mission on earth. The position/respect will come if you never lose sight of the mission. Unfortunately too many in the Church want the position, but not the mission.

Celebrating Mass does not take the place of a personal relationship with God. Celebrating Mass does not replace personal time with God in prayer, study and meditation. You do not know it all simply because you finished the obstacle course in the seminary. Knowledge comes with experience and experience comes with living it.

Success is hard to manage and if you cannot manage it you will eventually lose it. You are not fit to be blessed if you cannot manage it. Good managers are successful in good or bad times – they know how to survive. They survive because they know how to treat people. You cannot abuse people and survive!

Questions for Pope Francis

Pope Francis I love you, but who are you to judge the convictions of Donald Trump's heart when it come to his being a follower of Christ or not. I wish I could ask you if it is Christian for men of the cloth to rape children. Is it Christian for the leaders of my church, the church I have devoted my life to, to cover up those sins? Is it Christian for Bishops to live in mansions while people starve around the world? Is it Christian for priest to take personal money from the collections and you know they do? If we are going to judge we need to judge our own before we start judging others.

Have you tested what your preachers or religious leaders said?

Pope Francis during a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation and he is being attack by some theologians/preachers for saying it.

Christians should reject the idea that the world came into being by chance, but to continue to dispute proven scientific facts makes a mockery of Christianity and the Bible.  Why can evolution not be part of God’s plan?

The author or authors of Genesis were trying to explain something they could not possibly understand at the time. They were not lying, but theologians/preachers today that continue to support the fantasy that everything was created in seven days are lying and I believe they know it. It insults my intelligence, the intelligence that God gave me, for them to continue to try and force me to believe a fantasy in order for them to consider me a Christian.

Just as some theologians/preachers today have a need to think they can explain everything some of the authors of the Bible may have suffered from the same weakness. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is not the dictated Word of God. It is time for theologians/preachers to stop trying to force us to believe that the Bible is a science book or history book. The Bible is a book that God used and continues to use to teach us moral values. Unfortunately, some authors of scripture allowed their personal moral values, which were influenced by man’s traditions and culture, to be included in the Bible and we must use our God given intelligences to try and distinguish between what is God and what is man.

I do not need to believe in fictional stories in order to believe in God. I do need to try and understand the lessons that are being taught by those stories in order to have a better relationship with God and to be a better person. Quite honestly, I do not believe God endorsed slavery; I do not believe God endorsed the killing of innocent women and children; I do not believe God endorsed denying women equal rights; I do not believe God endorsed many of the things found in Proverbs and Leviticus and I do not believe theologians/preachers that claim to believe in the literal translation of the Bible believe it either or they would apply them to their personal lives, instead of ignoring them as they do.

A lot of Christians today are making the mistake of listening only to theologians/preachers, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us. Yes, He instructed the disciples to go forth into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but he never said they were to become our god or take the place of the Holy Spirit.  God does not come in confusion and when a theologian/preacher speaks words that cause you confusion you need to get alone with God and allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you.  Do you not inject your personal beliefs into the things that you communicate? If you do then why do you think theologians/preachers do not do the same?

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Catholic Mass, at the consecration in Communion, the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

 In the year 1215A.D. Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. Five years later in 1220A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration and or worship of the wafer and wine as doctrine. Then The Council of Trent re-confirmed the teaching: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."  The Council of Trent began Dec. 13, 1545 and ended on October 11, 1551. Was transubstantiation always ‘the conviction of the Church of God’ or did it come about in 1215A.D.

Saint Thomas said, “No act is greater than the consecration of the body of Christ. In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.” How many times does Christ need to be sacrificed for our sins?

This doctrine gave the men of the church tremendous power. They could do something that no other man or woman could do. People who refused to believe they had this power were killed.

No matter if I do or do not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation it does not make me love the Catholic Mass any more or any less. Regardless of my belief I like the dignity, honor and respect the Catholic Mass gives the Sacrament of Communion. A respect that I do not think most Protestant Churches give Communion and a respect that I believe Communion deserves. I do resent being told I must believe one way or the other in order to be a Catholic.

The Protestants do have a valid argument against transubstantiation. Some of the verses used to substantiate the Catholic teaching are the following: Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," John 6:52-53. "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves,” 1 Cor. 11:27. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." One could question are these words spoken literally or not and how could it have been possible for them to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ if He had not yet been sacrificed.

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom," Matthew 26:29. Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine", wine, if it was His literal blood? Jesus called it wine. There are many more questions rightly raised by the Protestants.

I have gotten alone with God, pray, meditated, studied and sought direction from the Holy Spirit and I am content with my decision on transubstantiation and other Catholics must do the same.

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or fiction to teach a moral lesson. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. We know that a man can live one day in the belly of a whale, but three days we do not know. Some Protestant theologians/preachers question the faith of Christians that do not believe the story of Jonah happened literally as told in the Bible.

I am content with the lesson we can learn from Jonah and the whale. It should bring comfort to all of us who fall short at times when it comes to obedience and when we attempt to run away from what we know God wants us to do. Jonah’s story should serve as a lesson to all who sometimes possess a short fuse and who at times are guilty of a superior attitude. What is more important, the lesson to be learned or accepting the story to be literally true.  I happen to think the lesson to be learned is more important.  

If anyone asks you do you take the Bible literally be careful how you answer. If you say "Yes," they may quote some Bible verses that, if taken literally, make little sense. For example Mark 9:42-48, which tells Christians if their hand or foot "offends" them, they should "cut it off," and if their eye "offends" them, they should "pluck it out." Do you really take that scripture literally? If you say “No.” they may claim the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to mean. Therefore, any person’s interpretation is as good — or poor — as anyone else’s.

I have found the best reply is, “I take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and I use common sense, my experience, my knowledge of language and grammar, the techniques of hermeneutics (interpretations) and rely on the Holy Spirit for help in knowing the difference.  I do the same thing you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything."

Knowledge of the Bible is a great thing to have; it can help you defend your faith and to teach others in it. But knowledge alone does not signify spiritual maturity. It is our personal relationship with God that causes us to grow spiritually. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to right interpretations. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to a stronger faith.

I think God prefers us to know what we believe and why we believe it rather than being spoon fed religious beliefs without questioning them. I know it makes for a stronger faith and not a weaker faith. Unfortunately the beliefs and faith of the majority of Christians today are based on what the leadership believes and not what the Christian personally believes.  

Do you feel the Catholic Church has failed you?

I have reached a point where I can no longer justify the actions of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I have not had anything done to me personally, but I have witnessed for years how the hierarchy’s thirst to hold on to power and control has hurt and even destroyed others. I have managed to continue to attend Sunday after Sunday by telling myself the church is not at fault it is the hierarchy of the church that is at fault.

I thought Pope John Paul I would bring change, but his death came too quickly. I thought Pope John Paul II would bring about change, but he caved to the misguided Cardinals. I knew when Pope Benedict XVI came to power all hope for change was lost.  I still cling to hope that Pope Francis can bring about change, but I do not think I will live to see it due to my bad health.

I realize the church is governed by men who are not perfect. Anyone who expects them to be flawless is not logical. I can deal with not personally agreeing with some of the decisions they make, but when I see people being hurt by their decision it is difficult for me to deal with that.

For years I have ask God Do I leave or do I stick it out and continue to hope for change? There are many denominations that I could attend like Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, but I love the Mass. No other denomination could replace the Mass for me.

 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.

No matter the issue of hurt, harm or anguish, Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope, not the cardinals, not the bishops and that will never change.  Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy of the church have come to believe it is their church, they are in charge, they make the rules and the rest of us must follow without questioning them.

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11.

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Luke 11:13.

When in doubt I go the Bible and the Holy Spirit for guidance. If the words of the hierarchy do not line up with the Bible and the direction the Holy Spirit leads me I ignore their words.

The Holy Spirit does not just speak to the hierarchy of the church He speaks to us to. When we are living in close relationship with God, the close proximity of our heart to His allows us the privilege of hearing as He speaks to us with peace in our decision-making processes.  If you are walking with God and do not feel peace about a situation then something is wrong for our God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor. 14:33). There is a reason the Holy Spirit is not giving you peace and this should guide your decisions in all situations, including church situations.

There was a time when it bothered me to hear a Christians say, ‘The church has failed me’.  I now think differently because if you are Catholic you have no say in the decisions of the church. If you are Protestant you do. Protestants have a say in making the church what it should be, but Catholics do not.  If you risk speaking out in the Catholic Church you risk being excommunicated. There is no democracy within the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church would be the first to admit that. The hierarchy has unquestionable authority. The priests cannot even question their authority.

Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe artificial birth control is a sin? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorced and remarried people should be denied Communion? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorce should not be allowed? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe you can pray the dead into heaven? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and priests believe the same on the issue of homosexuality? Do you honestly believe all Catholic priests were for the bishops covering up pedophilia by other priests?  I know they do not and did not! Many priests reported child abuse to their bishops and it fail on deaf ears.

The church hierarchy is not infallible; neither are the pastors. What do you do as a Catholic when you are assigned a pastor by the bishop that is lazy, arrogant, and stubborn, has a bad attitude, and never prepares a homily? You do nothing because you have no say on who your pastor will be or who the assistants will be. You pray you can tolerate him for six years. If you are Protestant you take it up with the Board or Elders.

For decades and decades and decades we sat silently suspecting something might be odd with our priest, but we never uttered a word that he might be molesting children. When some began to speak out they were not only attack by the hierarchy of the church they were attacked by some priests and some of the laity.  We had been trained well. Catholics never speak in a negative way about their priest. To speak against the priest or the hierarchy is to speak evil of the Catholic Church. I would venture to say some feel it is speaking evil against God.

I am all for having people of authority in the church, but I am not for those people abusing that authority. All organizations need authority figures, especially the church.

There was a time in history when absolute control may have been justified, but not today.  Any curious challenge or genuine question about Scripture, teachings traditions or doctrines is seen by the hierarchy as a direct attack on church leadership. I know people who have been branded as spiritually rebellious for questioning something they've been told rather than silently accepting it without question.

I feel like the hierarchy of the church is preoccupied with maintaining its position of authority in a changing society rather than seriously challenging itself. It appears to me the hierarchy would prefer the church to be an outdated museum than a relevant part of modern society. It refuses to make any changes to adapt to modern society. The attitude seems to be if it worked in 300A.D. it should work today and if it does not then something is wrong with you. The Church hierarchy has allowed the church to become out of touch and ineffective. It has become steeped in hypocrisy and complacency.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9).

This is speaking of confessing our sins to God not man.  There was a time when only the bishops could forgive abortion and allow you to take Communion again. Now the bishop can allow the priest under him to forgive abortion and permit you to take Communion again.  This is a change and a good change, but whose Communion is it, the bishops, the priest or Gods? Why does a woman have to tell her bishop or priest about the abortion if she has confessed it to God, repented and sought forgiveness. It seems to me the change did not go far enough, but we do not have the right to question if the change went far enough or not.

“…for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (herself).” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

This scripture does not say he that gives the Communion brings damnation to himself. It says the one taking the Communion unworthy brings damnation to himself. Should the worthiness to partake in Communion be between God and the Communicant or the hierarchy/priest of the church and the Communicant? Should anyone have the right to deny another Christian the right to take Communion? None of us hierarchy/priest/laity are really worthy.  How can my divorced friends and homosexual friends feel a part of the church when they are judged by the church every Sunday?

Don’t tell me we cannot change we no longer own slaves, we no longer kill our children that talk back to us, we no longer require women to remain silent, we no longer consider women property of men, we no longer require women to cover their heads in church, we allow women to do the 1st and 2nd readings and we are now allowed to attend weddings and funerals at churches of other denominations. This is just a few of the unjust and silly cultural/traditions that we have done away with.

My closing words to the hierarchy/priest/pious laity is take the 2x4 out of your eye before you try to take the splinter out of your brother’s or sister’s eye. Then maybe we can become the church God called us to be.

Catholic - Justice

Molest children and the Catholic Bishops will send you to another parish so you can continue your evil deeds on more unsuspected parishioners. Make the mistake of using a hoverboard and you get suspended! I think God is in heaven wondering about the priorities of our bishops. Bishops - I think suspension is a bit much considering your past record on handing down punishment. Bishops remember GOD knows all your sins and mistakes - how many of you need suspending?

Catholic Hierarchy - Double Talk.

 The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Tuesday urged voters not to support candidates in the 2016 elections who are pushing for divorce, death penalty and other measures that it said are against the Church's doctrines.

CBCP President Archbishop Socrates Villegas issued some guidelines for Catholic voters to follow in choosing their candidates in 2016. According to Villegas, a Catholic voter should not support a candidate "who’s legislative or executive programs include initiatives diametrically opposed to (Catholic) Church moral teachings on such vital issues as abortion, euthanasia, the return of the death penalty, divorce and the dilution of the character of Christian marriage," even if the candidate is honest, qualified and the best candidate. We all know there are NO Catholics in the Philippines that are violating their marriage vows taking Communion every Sunday in the Philippines. 

"While we expect every public officer to give life to the constitutional posture of 'benevolent neutrality' in respect to the attitude of the State towards religion, the Catholic voter cannot and should not lend his support to any candidate whose ideology binds him or her to make of the Philippines a secular state that has no tolerance for religion in its public life," Villegas said.

"It has never been the practice of the Catholic Church to hold out a candidate to the faithful as the 'chosen' candidate of the Church," he said. "Church doctrine has remained consistent: Partisanship is an arena into which the Church should not venture."

Villegas also urged the voters to consider political aspirants from other religions. "A Catholic is not closed to the candidacy of a non-Catholic," he said. "In fact, there are worthy candidates from other Christian communities and other religions." "Their qualifications and aspirations must be given serious heed by our Catholic voters, their truly helpful plans and visions must be supported,” Villegas said. As long as they uphold Catholic teachings!

There are an estimated 75,594,148 Catholics in the Philippines according to the latest statistics. The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. The total registered voters in the Philippines as of January 22, 2013 were 52,014,648. Roughly 75% plus (85%) Filipinos are Catholic. That is enough to control any election if 75% (85%) of registered voters are Catholic. I know it is said that Catholics tend not to block vote. But, any time the hierarchy of the Catholic Church speaks out about an election it has to have some influence on the election and to pretend they do not try to choose candidates in my opinion is not entirely honest.

The Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from Vatican City, which lacks divorce laws. How could anyone deny that is not due to the influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the Philippines? The Catholic Church does get involved in the political arena in the Philippines the recent battle over artificial birth control is evidence of that. They have a strong influence over any and all laws passed in the Philippines. To my knowledge the only time they have lost a political battle was the one over artificial birth control.

UPDATE: THE BISHOPS LOST THE WAR, BUT WON THE BATTLE THEY MANAGE TO GET THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS NOT TO FUND THE REPRODUCTIVE BILL IN THE 2016 BUDGET - FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE NO FUNDS MEANS NO REPRODUCTIVE BILL. 

Any non-Catholic candidate would need to adhere to Catholic doctrine, even if his or her denomination or religion did not support Catholic doctrine, if they wanted the support of the Catholic hierarchy. In other words a non-Catholic candidate might have to go against his or her religious beliefs to satisfy the Catholic hierarchy of the Philippines in order to be elected. Most mainstream Protestant denominations support divorce and artificial birth control.  Many Protestant denominations are not opposed to the death penalty.

I cannot reconcile in my mind how the Catholic hierarchy can maintain they do not demonstrate some partisanship when they dictate what a candidate must believe or support in order to get the Catholic vote.

For a country to have tolerance for  religion in its public life is one thing, but to dictate religious doctrine in public life is quite another. Is the Philippines a secular state where freedom of religion is allowed or is it a religious run state?

While the Philippine law does not permit divorce it does permit Legal separation which allows a couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry again. In fact, they face being charged with adultery if caught with another partner. I wonder how many Filipinos are forced to violate the law because of the Catholic hierarchy’s position on divorce.

Banning divorce in my opinion has not stopped couples from separating and starting new families. Banning divorce appears to me to have contributed to illegitimate births which may cause inheritance problems and certainly could cause emotional stigma for a child.  I have absolutely no problem with Catholic hierarchy requiring Catholics to follow their doctrine, but to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics is unjust to me. 

I have heard obtaining a civil and church annulment can take up to four years and $4000. That would likely be more than a years’ worth of income for the average mall worker. I wonder when forced to choose are they going to choose annulment or to ignore the law. In addition a married couple must have lived separately for five years or had a legal separation for two years before an annulment can be granted.

In 2012 there were only 10,528 people who applied for annulments in the Philippines. There were 476,408 marriages registered in 2011. I find it impossible to believe that only a little over 2% of the marriage ended. It is estimated 40 to 50% of marriages end in divorce/separation in First World countries and I do not believe that number would be much different in any country.

Could it be possible that divorce laws may make couples think twice before walking out on their marriages? Statistics show that the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1981 was 5.3 per 1000 people and in 2012 it had fallen to 3.6 per 1000 people.

The Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines does get involved in politics and governance in the Philippines. When the clergy called for civil unrest and even threatened to excommunicate President Aquino over contraception how can they say they do not. There is no proof that Catholic doctrine pertaining to separation and artificial birth control is even being followed by Catholics and to attempt to impose that on non-Catholics is unjust. 

I would not be surprised if sometime prior to the 2016 election there is a list floating around with the names of candidate that the Catholic hierarchy is supporting.  Of course the Catholic hierarchy will deny having anything to do with it like they did the banner flying from a Catholic church in one of the previous elections.

Is it just for religious leaders in a country that is supposed to have a democratic form of government to use threats of excommunication against any elected official, elected to represent ALL the people, in order to get what they want? 

The Church’s influence in the Philippines is diminishing. The power of social media is taking its toll. It might help the country if they put their devout Catholic past behind them and move toward a more secular state. Politics needs to go beyond religious groups and be more concerned with the needs of all the people regardless of religious affiliation. But, keep in mind no group gives up power without a fight and the Catholic hierarchy will not either.

Protestant denominations are growing in the Philippines and other predominantly Catholic nations like Mexico. How much of that growth could be contributed to the Catholic hierarchy’s desire for influence and control in the political arena. 

Do women not have the ability to be priest - church hierarchy think not.

The Catholic Church (my church) declared Mary the most important human being of all time. The Catholic Church has put more attention on Mary than any other denomination. I think they have put too much emphasis on Mary and it has caused confusion among Catholics. Instead of revering Mary some Catholics, especially in third and second world countries worship and some even want to put her on the same level as Jesus Christ. But, the same church refuses to ordain women.

God has given women many important roles in history, but man continues to deny her the right to be a priest. The men of the church hierarchy claim they have in the past and continue to deal with the question of ordination of women the same way they approach every other important decision; with prayer, the Bible, Church Tradition and the wisdom of theologians. They claim, “The Church wants to know what God has to say about this, and we believe God does not want women ordained priest.” The words they use seem to tell me they really see themselves as “the church”. PRIDE!

John Paul II, whom I love and respect, said: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I have no problem with Pope John Paul II decision not to ordain women that was his right to do so. I disagree with his believing that all Catholics must agree with him and not question what he said.

There are many people in the Catholic Church that pray and read the Bible as much as the hierarchy of the church. I also believe God speaks to everyone’s heart. In fact, I know many priests that the only time they read the Bible is during the Mass. I know many priests that do not have any personal prayer time. I know many priests that do not consult God on personal or professional decisions.

The thought that theologians know more about what God wants than devoted Christians is arrogant to me. One of the problems within our church is that many of the theologians think that seminary training makes them experts in all things pertaining to God. It certainly does not make all of them good preachers. It seems some priest think wearing the right vestments and clerical clothes make them more important than the laity in the church. They think because they are the only ones that can administer the sacraments the church cannot function without them. This alone is a good reason for ordaining women.

I do not think Pope John Paul II was a chauvinist, but I do think he relied too much on church traditions, that were established by men, and considered the personal feelings of Cardinals and Bishops too much when making his decisions.

Relying on church traditions have value, but they can also be abused and prevent needed reform. One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is Protestants rely more on the Bible than traditions and it seems Catholics often rely more on traditions.

Many traditionalist Catholics disliked Pope John Paul II because they felt he was "too liberal". Many of us who loved Pope John Paul II thought he would bring more needed changes to the church, but he did not because he was too conservative in many areas and unlike Pope Francis did not have the personality to stand up to those who opposed his ideas.

 I do not think his position on ordination of women was about discriminating against women or that women did not have the abilities needed to be a priest, but rather he thought he was following God's desire for the Church and feared it would cause too much division in the Catholic Church. Some in the church will argue he was proven right because Methodist, Anglican and Episcopal ordained women and it caused their attendance to decrease and caused divisions in their denominations.

Change regardless if it is good or bad always brings division and causes some to leave that cannot adapt. All denominations, including Catholic, have suffered losses in attendance. This is due more to changes in society than anything else. We would suffer more loss in attendance if not for Second and Third World countries where “OBLIGATED ATTENDANCE” is still taken seriously. In addition our membership grows every time we baptize an infant.  

There are less conservative people who will argue that Pope John Paul II did not declare for the church to not ordain women from the 'Chair of Peter', therefore the statement was not "infallibly" made. I am one of them. He left the door open for change someday.

The ultra-conservatives in the Catholic Church will argue that those of us who make the “infallibly” claim are the same ones who want same sex marriage and contraception use approved by the pope. They are correct when they accuse me of wanting to broaden contraceptive rights. I am for non-abortive artificial contraception. I think God is more pleased with people who use contraception, instead of bringing children into the world they cannot properly educate, clothe, feed and provide medical care for. I believe each denomination has the right to decide if they will perform or not perform same sex marriages. I believe the government should provide some type of protection for those in same sex relationships that want to commit to one another and have the same protection as those in opposite sex relationships have. I do not want to call it “marriage” because I do respect the tradition of “marriage”.

I think Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be influenced by traditions when it came to some issues pertaining to male and female. One cannot deny that Jesus Christ gave power to women that at the time were unheard of. I know that Jesus Christ broke many Jewish traditions, but that does not mean He did not choose a female to be one of the twelve disciples because He did not believe women were qualified to have the title disciple or that He was sending us a message in 2015 that women should not be ordained. I think He did not bestow the title of Disciple on a female follower because it was a tradition that He knew would make His ministry and the ministry of His follower even more difficult than it was.

Those that argue Jesus was a tradition breaker and would have given the title of Disciple to a female if it was acceptable to His Father will say He broke other traditions pertaining to women such as healing a woman on the Sabbath; speaking with the Samaritan woman and freeing the woman caught in adultery from being stoned. They will argue that Jesus was clearly not afraid to break the traditions of His time; therefore if it was okay to ordain women today He would have designated a female disciple. It is true that Jesus was not afraid to break Jewish traditions, but He also honored many Jewish traditions in order not to offend the Jewish leaders unnecessarily. He knew to pick and choose the battles He wanted to encounter.

Ultra-conservatives within the Catholic Church will argue we have to consider that there were women performing similar roles to a priest in other religions at the time of Jesus, therefore it is inaccurate to say there was no historical precedence for women being priest. There were not women performing priestly duties in the JEWISH religion. The women performing priestly duties were priestesses in PAGAN religions. The Jewish leaders bitterly opposed the priestesses and I am sure they would have accused Jesus of starting a pagan religion if He would have suggested women priest or women disciples. It would have created an unnecessary battle for Jesus and His followers to fight.

Ultra-conservatives will say scripture refers to the Bride and Bridegroom when speaking of the relationship between Christ and the church. I certainly agree with that, but scripture is talking about JESUS CHRIST relationship with the CHURCH not a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest relationship with the church. Are they trying to say that a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest has the SAME relationship with the church as Jesus Christ?

Their argument is the priest represents Christ "In persona Christi" when administering the Sacraments, and as such is the groom of the church and must be male. In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning "in the person of Christ" a man-made theological concept, not a Biblical concept and refers to the action of a bishop or priest while celebrating a sacrament.

The priest acts in the person of Christ in the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite. There are essential moments in the rites where the priest's words and gestures confect the sacrament, change bread/wine to body/blood. I guess it really comes down to they believe men have certain mystical powers women do not have when it comes to saying ‘certain words’.

Ultra-conservatives will argue that Pope St. Gelasius (494 AD) wrote a letter of discipline to an area that was allowing women to serve at the altar. They will say it does not prove there was a historical precedent for female priest it only proves that some in the church were violating the rules of the church and they were wrong and just as Saint Paul did Pope St. Gelasius stepped in to correct mistakes in the administration of the Eucharist.

Ultra-conservatives put total faith in the magisterium which gives the pope, cardinals and bishops the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. I believe unity is not only important, but is essential, but unity dictated by a few in the hierarchy of the church without the opportunity for the laity to offer opposing views can also be dangerous. In essences it requires Catholics to turn their brains off when it comes to matters of the church, religion, teachings, etc., and accept the words of the hierarchy to be the only truth.

It could be interpreted by non-Catholics or Catholics who are not willing to turn their God given brain off that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is trying to say God only speaks to them. According to the church hierarchy if they say God does not want women to be ordained the matter is not open for discussion. I think it also says volumes about the hierarchy of the church wanting to guarantee that males control the church.

I would say most Catholics do not know that women with theology degrees are now "Chaplains" in most Catholic high schools and universities. Ultra- conservatives argue the term "chaplain" can only be used for a priest, Canon Law 564-572. They also claim that some of these women are not being made to be extra careful to uphold the teachings of the Church the way the priest are.

Here are some of the arguments the ultra-conservatives use to try and get women chaplains removed from schools and universities – THEY TEACH: Scripture is not inerrant, and only parts of it are the true Words of God, it should be read with a critical eye; Many of the miracles can be explained in natural ways, like the miracle of the loaves came from people sharing what they already had; Purgatory is an invention of the Middle Ages to keep control of the masses and keep them obedient to the Church and make money; Contraception is good if sex outside of marriage is going to be practiced and total dependency on chastity among youth, due to peer pressure and hormones, is unrealistic in society today; The Magisterium is an "old boys club", not the institution put in place by Jesus to guard and direct the Church; Same sex attraction is very complicated and the Church should not make an absolute pronouncement that it is disordered to act on it; Confession is a good psychological cleansing, but that's about all it is. A priest isn't necessary to reconcile with God and Baptizing is a good tradition that fosters belonging, but it is not the means of salvation.

I have found male chaplains that teach and believe the same way the female chaplains do. There does not seem to be the same outcry against the male chaplains as it is against the female chaplains. Is it possibly a sexist thing? I have found many priest believe as the female and male chaplains do.

One ultra-conservative said this, “… my prayer is that one day the majority of women with theology degrees who work in high school chaplaincy offices will focus on teaching the Word of God, rather than challenging it. All the faithful women I know have absolutely no interest in challenging the Church teaching on a male priesthood.” Of course they don’t, because they are comfortable with being where they are in the church structure and have no desire to advance to a higher position within the church. I do not think these women chaplains are challenging the Word of God they are challenging the Word of Catholic men in authority.

Ultra-conservatives use the fact that the Catholic Church included in our Bible the book of "Judith", book of “Esther” and the book of “Ruth” as proof we do not discriminate against women. I really do not see the connection, but I suppose they do. They get really excited over the fact that Ruth wasn't even a Jew, yet she plays a key role in salvation history.

They even claim if the Catholic Church discriminated against women they would have rewritten the story of Mary – do they really believe we didn’t when most Catholics turn to Mary more than they do the Holy Spirit. I think we gave Mother Mary a role that God never intended her to have.

They think they have a real argument supporting the Catholic Churches refusal to ordain women by pointing out that the Catholic Church recognizes Martha, Mary Magdalene, Anna, Elizabeth and a dozen more women as a prophet. It would be hard not to recognize these women as prophets. I honestly do not see how recognizing a few women as prophets have anything to do with ordaining women.

Most ultra-conservatives put their hopes in Pope Benedict the XVI. They believed he would close all the doors that Pope John Paul II cracked open. I had one tell me that he bet I prayed every day that Benedict would die. I never hoped that and certainly never prayed that, but Benedict took care of the problem himself or divine province did when he retired.

I prefer to see qualified women ordained rather than see parishes closing because we do not have men to staff them and for some strange reason I think God prefers the same. The harvest potential is great, but there are not enough harvesters.

 

Democracy - Oligarchy - Caste System?

I had a blog in 2011 and I stopped writing it and deleted most of the writings. I did it because I wrote an article that offended a newspaper reporter and an attack on me began. I said nothing in that blog that I had not heard Filipino friends say and that I had not heard on television or read in newspapers. I had been warned that foreigners do not have a voice in the Philippines and I foolishly ignored the warning. Now I am afraid that I am about to step into it again, but it is hard for me to ignore discrimination or injustice.

It may not be called a caste system, but in my opinion there is a caste system in the Philippines. I guess I should not let it bother me since it does not appear to bother Filipino’s, but it does.

The Philippines certainly is not India, but there is a distinction made between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, titled and untitled and having the right surname certainly will get you a lot of respect and privileges you may not deserve.

If you ask you will be told that the Philippines is a democracy, but I think oligarchy would best define it because it is well known and obvious that power is in the hands of a small exclusive class. This exclusive class are the rich.

I think people in the West would be surprised at how many Filipino’s have college educations. A college degree is no longer reserved for the rich. But, a college degree is not a guarantee that you will move up the social ladder. Most working in mall retail shops have a college degree. If you are from the right family and have a degree you will naturally go farther than if you are not. Your family connections are usually more important than your degree.

The uneducated are happy to get a job in farming or as maids, drivers, or child care provider. 

I have not and will not accept the cultural tradition that those who work for me should not eat at the table with me, eat at the same time I do, sit in the living room with me and watch television or carry on a conversation. They do not even want to enter through the front door because they think it disrespects me in front of my neighbors. My being a Christian and being a retired priest will not allow me to discriminate or disrespect anyone in that manner.

The Vice President of the country is looked down upon by some because of his dark skin. That reminds me of blacks in the United States who at one time thought the shade of their skin mattered. During the slave period dark skin blacks were not selected to work in the Masters house they were selected to do field work.  I have even heard some discouraging remarks made about Filipino-Chinese, but it appears to me that the Filipino-Chinese are the ones with the most money so that may be more jealousy than discrimination.

When I first moved to Davao the local bank employees told me that I did not have to wait in line or take a number. I could just walk directly to the counter. I had noticed that some people walked in and went directly to the counter while we all waited and it disturbed me, but I said nothing. Then when I was told I could do the same I became upset. I ask to speak to a bank officer and I ask why this was allowed. He laughed and said that is just the way we do it in the Philippines and you will get used to it. I have not gotten used to it and I continue to take a number and wait my turn.

This became an issue for me again when I ask a neighbor why they did not visit me anymore. They seem shocked that I ask and appeared to be embarrassed. I guess they thought the question made them lose face and that is another thing you do not do to a Filipino no matter how wrong he or she may be. I ask had I done anything to offend them and at first they said no. I kept insisting on them to tell me what the problem was and if I could fix it I would. They went on to explain to me they did not like it that I treated my ‘caregiver’ and ‘housekeeper’ as family or friends. I stood up and told them it was nice knowing them, but that was something I was not willing to change or fix for them or anyone else. I will love those Filipino neighbors from a distance from now on.

These neighbors call themselves devout Catholics and they are active in the church, and friends with all the priest in the parish, but obviously they do not know that Pope Francis warned the hierarchy of the church not to be “a closed caste” but to lead in reaching out to all who are rejected by society and the church. I would think the Pope intends for the laity to do the same.

The Philippines is a Catholic Nation and a Catholic should not accept or participate in a caste system regardless of what you may call it. If they do they are not being faithful to the teachings of Christ or the Catholic Church.

Pope John Paul II told visiting Roman Catholic bishops from India that Christians must reject divisions based on caste, saying any type of prejudices towards people violates authentic human solidarity and is a threat to genuine spirituality. Pope John Paul II also said customs or traditions that perpetuate or reinforce caste division or prejudices should be reformed. Are some groups of humans inherently superior to other groups? Not in God’s eyes.

The Jehovah Witness' strive not to participate in a class system. They recognize that social classes have no place in the eyes of God. Therefore, they have no clergy/laity division, and they are not segregated according to skin color or wealth. Although some of them may be wealthy, they do not focus on “the showy display of one’s means of life.”

Every Jehovah Witness accepts the responsibility to share in the work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom to his or her fellowman. Like Jesus, they honor the downtrodden and neglected by visiting them in their homes, offering to teach them God’s Word. Those with a humble status in life work side by side with those who may be viewed by some as upper class. It is spiritual qualities that count, not social class. As in the first century, all are brothers and sisters in the faith. We could all learn from them when it comes to discrimination.

The liberal Democrats in the United States are desperately trying to encourage class warfare in preparation for the 2016 election. The United States imagines itself as a classless society, based on a faith in natural equality – that all are “born equal. Even if there are wide inequalities in income, wealth or education, the bowing and scraping before the ‘upper classes, is completely unknown. Accusations of “elitism” are especially damaging in a culture that instinctively rejects the idea that certain people are born to rule, and others to be ruled.

In a self-defined classless society, people will naturally not want to separate themselves from their fellow citizens. That is why, according to Pew, almost nine in ten Americans define themselves as ‘middle-class’.

At its best, America displays the culture of a true civic republic in which, every individual can “speak their minds, walk tall among their fellows, and look each other squarely in the eye.” Somebody once remarked that the only thing different about rich people in America is that they have more money. They may be better off: but they are not better. This means that a certain respect is accorded to everybody, whether they are tending pumps in a gas station or moving millions on Wall Street. “Disrespecting” somebody is a social crime in a classless republic.

I was shocked at the pedestal priest are put on in the Philippines. That is not the case in the United States. If the priest says or does something the people do not like or agree with they have no problem telling him. Wearing a clerical collar does not guarantee respect in the United States and that is the way it should be.

 No doubt, American classlessness is overstated. But it remains real to some extent, but I am beginning to wonder if it will last. It appears that Democrats see creating division among the classes as a means to get votes. There is most definitely a lower class - middle class - upper class, but movement between the classes is allowed and I do not see that ending. With hard work - education - determination - you can move all the way up. Republican candidates for President in 2016 Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Dr. Carson all came from poor families. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz parents were immigrants with Cuban heritage. 

Since I have no intention of returning to the United States and I now think of the Philippines as my home I will have to accept the cultural differences, but that does not mean I have to adopt them.

 

Do Catholic Homilies have to be boring?

Is there a Cannon Law that states Catholic homilies must be boring?

Sunday after Sunday I find myself sitting through another boring homily. Out of respect I listen intently and leave empty. I am beginning to think the reason Catholics go to Mass is strictly out of obligation because other than communion there is no reason to go. We Catholics have been taught that the priest homily may be painful and embarrassing, but we’re not supposed to complain.

How many times have you heard a priest say God is merciful, you can seek God’s mercy whenever you need it, and God always forgives you if you are really sorry for God is full of mercy? I am sure you have heard it a few thousand times and not one time did a priest ever tell you how he had personally experienced God’s mercy. Sometime I want to stand up and ask have you ever experienced God’s mercy or do you know anyone that has or can you tell me a 21^st century story that I can relate to and apply to my life regarding God’s mercy?

The homilies aren’t always boring. Some are just bizarre. One year during Advent I heard this at daily Mass: “Did you see the movie, The Nativity? Well, Hollywood is wrong. Mary did not have any pain when Jesus was born. We know she didn’t because the Bible says she wrapped him in swaddling clothes. Now if she had a regular delivery she couldn’t do that, she’d be too weak.” I wrote a blog title “Was the birth of Jesus as we have been taught?” In it I explain I think Mary felt the pain of child birth.

Often when I hear these bizarre things I look around and try to see what the reaction of those around me are. If I don’t see anyone rolling their eyes I figure they must have been thinking about what they need to get at the store for lunch following the service. I have been frustrated with poor homilies, but I have also been fortunate to hear some really good homilies. These are generally delivered by the younger priest.

Most Catholics are supportive of their priests, regardless of the quality of their preaching, but if you get them talking many will say they wish the homilies they hear on Sundays would be better. The main comment I hear from Catholics is that the homily should relate to our real lives. Many say that the bar is set low, and the most they hope for is a short sermon. They would like to see one central message, inspired by the scriptures and illustrated by real life stories.

Maybe some priests have lived such sheltered lives in the seminary and rectory they have lost touch with real life. They do not have to worry about rent, house payments, food, medical cost, clothing expenses, educating the children, utilities, etc.

Maybe some priests believe they must portray their personal and family life as being perfect. I thank God every day for the hard knocks I had growing up and still have and the problems my family went through. I was never ashamed to use my personal experiences like family members having children and not being married, a family member who was divorced five times, rape, sickness, death, grieving and yes even my being raped by an uncle when I was thirteen years old. Sharing those experiences helped me, helped others and gave life and meaning to my homilies.

I know not everyone is gifted with public speaking skills. Some are just really uncomfortable in front of an audience. While seminaries require classes in preaching, they do not guarantee success. I was one that public speaking did not come natural and certainly was not easy. I never remember stepping behind the pulpit and not having a mild case of nerves. How did I compensate for my weakness in public speaking – I spent hours upon hours late at night preparing my Sunday homilies. I did not take advantage of opening a little book and delivering someone else’s homily. I kept a binder on incidents or personal experiences that I may could use in future homilies.  Where there is a will there is a way.

To deliver an effective homily in a limited time requires editing and proper organization of the material. Before I gave a homily, I prepared it and said it aloud to myself beforehand not once, but several times. I tried to keep my homilies at twenty minutes so they were all well timed in advance.

That kind of preparation takes time. These days many parishes, especially in the United States, only have one priest, and being the pastor, the priest must attend and plan meetings, counsel people, prepare liturgies, meet with couples to be married, celebrate sacraments - all by himself. While I sympathize with these demands you cannot allow it to be an excuse for poor preaching.  Delivering the Gospel is essential to being a good priest.

In the States we have a Permanent Deacon Program. Married men attend classes on the weekends for one or two years and are taught how to handle priestly duties, including preaching, but excluding confession. Permanent Deacons can often add the perspective of people with wives, children, and careers outside the church and I have heard some of the best preaching from Permanent Deacons. Unfortunately some priests are too proud or too threaten to use these men to preach. 

Canon law does make clear that the person who should preach is the priest celebrating the Mass, but there is a narrow opening for others taking on this role. The General Instruction for the Roman Missal states that a priest celebrant “may entrust the homily to a concelebrating priest or to a deacon, but never to a layperson.”

Pope Francis ordained 19 new priests in Rome, instructing them to serve the flock rather than manage it, and to feed the people of God with heartfelt homilies rather than boring sermons. Pope Francis told them to deliver to the people a message that comes from their hearts.

The best homilies have three things in common: they are delivered with a genuine sense of passion, they give people an idea of how they can take action, and they are relatively short (twenty minutes) and to the point.  Regardless of how eloquent or charismatic a priest is these three qualities ensure that parishioners will listen, remember and talk about the homily with others and that should be the purpose of the homily.

I do not expect an improvement in homilies anytime soon, but perhaps if your parish priest is so boring that you cannot take it anymore and before you start thinking of leaving the Catholic Church for a Protestant Church you should start visiting other parishes. Yes, I am saying “Go priest shopping”!