Euthanasia - Abortion

I do not understand why society believes abortion and euthanasia is such a dichotomy. Both, involve taking a life.  One is taking your own life and the other is taking the life of another. It seems to me that abortion (taking the life of another) is far worse than voluntary euthanasia, the ending of your own life, when you no longer want to contend with constant physical suffering and your life quality is zero.  Yet, people vote to make abortion legal, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds abortion laws making it legal and society will flock to the streets in masses if legal abortion is ever in danger of being overturned. 

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent person that has no say in the matter.  Voluntary euthanasia is taking your own life and you make the choice.  Yes, I concede non-voluntary euthanasia is wrong just as I believe abortion is wrong.   

People argue voluntary euthanasia will lead to non-voluntary euthanasia.  Abortion of babies in the mother’s womb has not led to killing children outside the womb.  So, how can one argue on that basis one is wrong and the other is okay.  If one is morally or ethically wrong then both are.  I do not hold that it is an issue of morality or ethics when speaking of voluntary euthanasia. 

People who are "pro-life" are generally opposed to anyone taking any life - even their own - for any reason.

But, what is life without quality?  I have diabetes, in the final stage of heart failure, kidney failure, and COPD (lungs failing).  I am in constant pain, I cannot walk five steps without breathing spasms and basically confined to sitting.  To me that is not life!   I have been told by all my doctors my condition cannot be cured, it will never get better, it will get worse and all they can to is try to SLOW the progression.  That is not very comforting to me and I do not know anyone in their right mind that would applaud a doctors effort to prolong their suffering.  Now, I can stop the seventeen plus medications and suffer even more to achieve a solution – I guess.  If it is God’s will I believe I would live with or without the medication. 

Am I a coward, of course I am.  I want to end my life quickly and not have it drag on for days, weeks, months or even years before it happens by removing medication.  I really see no honor in being afraid to die and choosing to be a burden on those around me.  I have cared for two people that suffered for years, my mother and my uncle.  I could not have possibly loved my mother more than I did and I have no regrets for taking care of her, but was it extremely difficult – yes it was!  Did I ever have thoughts that I wished her suffering would end – yes I did and then I would feel guilt for weeks for having such a thought.

I believe before any act of euthanasia may be committed the suffering person must make some kind of assessment of the value of their life with the assistance of medical professionals, mental professionals and legal professionals.  There should be a waiting period involved to guarantee that someone does not wake up one day and decide this is a good day to die.

 The practice of euthanasia is Biblically wrong because it violates the principle that life is given by God. God does not approve of “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17). Life comes from God. It is God’s decision to give life and to take it away (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Job 1:21). In the Bible, shedding innocent blood is called murder (1 John 3:15; Genesis 9:6).  I do not need ten thousand replies telling me what the Bible says about the subject. 

The death of King Saul an example of euthanasia or suicide? (1 Samuel 31:1-6). Saul did not want the Philistines to find him alive, because he knew they would torture him. He asked his armor bearer to kill him. When the armor bearer refused, Saul fell on his own sword and died. Saul committed suicide, but he did it in order to avoid suffering at the hands of his enemy. He murdered himself to prevent suffering prior to it happening and therefore was guilty of sin in my eyes. (Exodus 20:13). 

I have a difficult time relating killing yourself because you do not want to be taken by your enemy and suffering from a physical disease without any hope of ever getting better.  You may say that I am greedy, but I have worked and saved all my life and I have no desire to give all my money to doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies when before I die I could give it to the poor. 

My father worked hard all his life and saved for his retirement and my education .  The last eleven days of his life he beg my mother and I to let him die and stop giving everything he had planned on my mother and I having to doctors when we all knew it was hopeless.  Of course we could not or would not end treatment and in the end we went from being a high middle class family to poverty.  His final hospital bill was 275,000 dollars, a lot of money in 1958.  The experiments like inserting a pigs valve in his heart did not help him and it has not help me now that I suffer as he did.

I know some Christians are thinking not all suffering is bad.  Even though we may not always understand why we suffer, some good can come from it.  The apostle Paul understood this (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). He had a “thorn in the flesh” which he asked God to remove, but he was made to realize it was for his good. Job is also an excellent example of this point (James 5:11).  I would be lying if I said I have not learned from my suffering for I have.  That does not mean I want to continue to suffer.

Do not tell me I do not respect human life.  I have been told when people understand and respect the sanctity of human life, they will not vote to end it.  You want to end it if you respect the life of your loved ones that are also suffering because of you.

I view euthanasia as the end of suffering when there is no hope of ever recovering from the illness and you are in need of life support (mechanical or medicinal) in order to barely hang on to life, it would be beneficial for both the patient and his/her family members to just let them go.  By allowing them to die peacefully, painlessly and quickly.  They will die on their own terms, rather than forcing them to live and let the disease slowly kill them.

I recognize the negatives of euthanasia and that is it could be abused by physicians and others who have the power to use this method of ending life. And more importantly, though the chances of recovery from certain diseases may be minimal, it is a known fact that some overcome this mountainous feat.  That is why I feel strongly only the suffering victim should be able to make the choice.  My niece was advised to remove all life support from my sister because she only had days to live, but my niece refused.  She continued to live three years most of it spent in a hospital and suffering.

Don’t insult me as one person did by saying a teenager that flunks a test or fails to make the football team may be suffering as much as I am and ask me would I say he has the right to end his life because he is suffering.  I will tell you as I told the person who said that to me – “You are a fool”.

I feel obligated to tell Catholic what our church says about euthanasia - So-called “mercy killing” and the efforts of the Hemlock Society and the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian to make euthanasia socially acceptable are condemned by the Church.

God alone should decide when someone leaves this earth — not the patient, doctor, or caretaker. Keeping the dying patient pain-free, comfortable, clean, nourished, and hydrated — and just allowing the natural death process to take its course — is how human beings die with dignity.  In other words if you die a miserable death you die with dignity and God is well pleased – I guess that is how they feel.  Our church always thought it was good for people to suffer. 

When death is thought imminent; the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable.

In closing, It is always unfair to directly kill an unborn child; the unborn have no say in what happens to them, and whatever interests are placed above theirs are done so in a biased and self-serving way. But this is not true in most cases of physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: in some cases death really is what the patients desire and what they ask for.  This does not mean that they are right in desiring and asking, nor that it would be right to comply; but it does indicate that the wrongness of euthanasia cannot exclusively be the wrong of unfairness to the person killed. This is a decision I should be able to make for myself – not you make for me.

Adultery/Cheating is no joking matter

What can we expect of millennials when many of our politicians, celebrities, athletes, ministers, judges and police think adultery - cheating is just normal behavior.  You know ‘boys will be boys’; there are so many women and you (have) so short a time; if you are able to support all your illegitimate children that is all that matters; Who isn’t entitled to happiness; etc.  I bet there are 10,000 more reasons to attempt to justify adultery/cheating. 

The thing I really do not get is the double standard.  Men can cheat and women cannot.  A woman cheats and she is immoral.  A man cheats and he is a hailed a model of manhood.  Destroy the women for extra affairs and make jokes about the men doing the same thing.

I am one of those people who thinks adultery – cheating is not acceptable and should not be joked about.  One undersecretary even said, “President Duterte can make jokes about extramarital affairs of government officials, (a crime under Philippine law and grounds for suspension of government officials), since he himself is not married at the moment.”  He is not legally married, but he is supposed to be in a committed relationship, with a child by his partner. 

President Trump defends Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes of FOX news for his sexual remarks because he has done the very same thing.  The same thing is true of President Duterte you cannot condemn others when you are guilty of the same sin/crime.  I do not care what your position in society is cheating on relationships is wrong.  It is demeaning!   Yes, the priest that takes a vow of chastity and cheats on that vow is scum, so bishops stop acting so sanctimonious.  

How would you feel if your spouse cheated on you? Some of you may know this from experience, but I think we can all imagine it—it hurts! You've been betrayed and lied to and you feel angry, depressed, unworthy, second-rate, unwanted. You want to lash out at the same time you want to crawl inside yourself and hide. Your spouse chose to seek out intimacy of one sort or another with another person  - not you. I think that "sucks" and anyone that does it is an self-centered, pompous ass. 

Infidelity is very hurtful, and does real psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage to one's partner.  I may be a bit old fashion, but I think hurting people is wrong, period!  Be honest and admit the relationship is over and each go their own way, but do not lower yourself to become a sleaze ball.

Yes, we should forgive, but forgiveness should come with a stipulation that you at least TRY to stop doing the wrong you are doing.  Only a fool keeps forgiving the same wrong over and over without expectation of change. 

Justice Assistant Secretary Aimee Neri said, “Duterte, as mayor, would show his displeasure when he hears a policeman is cheating on their wife”.  I am sorry, but I am not smart enough to comprehend that remark.  The employer should abide by the rules he dictates to his or her employees.  A father should abide by the same rules he holds his children to.  A man should not ask more of his wife or partner than he is willing to give his wife or partner. 

“This is a world of hypocrisy. Who among you here does not have a mistress?” President Duterte said in a speech aired live on television one Tuesday night, adding it was “a non-issue”.  I have known many men and women that have been faithful to their partners.  Unfortunately, my father was not one of them and each time it destroyed a little of my mother.  I loved by father, I was respectful of my father, I appreciated the material things he provided us, but I did not RESPECT my father. 

Just as Presidents Trumps remarks do not speak well of American men, President Duterte's remarks do not speak well of Filipino men. 

Instead of the stand the Catholic Church is taking on President Duterte they should realize the necessity of divorce and stop standing in the way of the Philippines joining the 21^st century.  Stopping divorce is not going to stop adultery and for some weird reason I think adultery/cheating is worse than divorce.

I realize in most Western countries, adultery itself is no longer a criminal offense, but may still have legal consequences, particularly in divorce cases.  The fact that it may no longer be a crime does not mean it is not morally, spiritually and socially wrong.   Adultery almost always constitutes a ground for divorce and may be a factor in property settlement, the custody of children and the denial of alimony. 

 Adultery is illegal in approximately half the world including about half of the United States in which jail time and fines are imposed, at least in theory.  The laws are seldom enforced, but at least all of society has not lost their moral compass.  These sensible people may think adultery does not deserve jail time or fine, but that there is still something wrong and immoral about it.  It seems to me where adultery/cheating is acceptable other types of corruption are more acceptable.

 An elderly actor and lawmaker in the Philippines is remembered for siring at least 72 children by 16 different women, only one of whom was his wife. Thirty-eight of the children bear his surname.  His other achievements in life are not remembered or worth mentioning.  I see nothing honorable about his behavior.

It is almost comical the Philippines is now the only country in the world that denies divorce to the majority of its citizens; it is the last holdout among a group of staunchly Catholic countries where the church has fought hard to enforce its views on the sanctity of marriage. Pope Francis, who visited the Philippines, has urged his bishops to take a more forgiving stance toward divorced Catholics, but this is a moot point in the Philippines: There is no such thing as a divorced Catholic in the Philippines. 

The Catholic hierarchy takes particular pride in the country’s status as the last holdout on divorce.  Do they also take pride in the number of Filipinos who find themselves in an unhappy relationship and simply move on to the next one? The women, of course, are expected to deal with the children. “For these women, the survival mechanism is to find another guy to support her and her kid”.

In the Philippines only 30 to 40 percent of the urban poor now bother to get married in the first place.  Thanks to the Catholic Church.  Cultural traditions make wedding too expensive. You are expected to have a big celebration, and they simply can’t afford it and the realization that once you enter into a marriage there’s no getting out.

Thanks to the Catholic church’s opposition to divorce and its opposition to virtually every form of contraceptive it has created millions of “illegitimate” children. No one knows the number, but one study suggests that about 30 percent of births in the Philippines go unregistered, often because of the stigma of illegitimacy.

So please tell me how adultery/cheating has made the world a better place.  Please tell me how it is a joking matter.

Catholic clergy sex abuse is a CRIME not a scandal!

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley vowed Thursday to make sure clergy sexual abuse victims have a voice on a Vatican panel addressing the crisis that rocked the Catholic Church, and he expressed frustration with resistance to change in some corners of the church.

His promise came a day after the lone clergy sexual abuse survivor serving on that papal commission resigned in frustration with what she described as “shameful” Vatican foot-dragging.

“The voice of survivors is very important I think, and we have to consider what is the best way to ensure that” they’re included, said O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.

O’Malley said he shared some of the concerns about Vatican stonewalling expressed by Marie Collins, a clergy abuse survivor from Ireland who on Ash Wednesday resigned in frustration from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, drawing world attention. O’Malley is chairman of the commission.  The departure of Collins has been viewed as devastating for the church by many around the world – me included.

She has remained a respected voice in the survivor community and the lay community in general for years. After resigning, she agreed to continue helping the commission educate bishops and priest about safeguarding children, BUT will that and do they listen?

I believe the cardinals on the commission would like to appoint a few more survivors of clergy abuse to the commission and they think that will satisfy the public.  I do not think it will satisfy those that want the issue FIXED.  The problems Marie Collins brought up over the years MUST be addressed and no longer swept under the rug.

A second survivor on the commission, Peter Saunders, was ordered to take a leave of absence last year after he clashed with other members. Prelates on the commission said he was revealing too much, too soon too the public. 

The main objection the commission had to Marie Collins was she wanted a tribunal setup that would hold BISHOPS responsible for protecting children from child abuse. Why shouldn’t BISHOPS be held accountable for what their employees do on the job?

The issue is crucial for the church: Bishops’ shielding of abusive priests led to the world clergy abuse crisis, and yet, more than 15 years after the crisis emerged, the Vatican has yet to show the world that it has a strong system for holding bishops accountable.

After the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith complained at setting up the tribunal, Pope Francis dropped the idea and instead issued a letter explaining how existing church laws (that have not worked in the past) should be applied to hold bishops accountable for failing to protect children.

Pope Francis is making changes, and a time of change is always difficult. There are people that are resisting those changes in the Vatican and some BISHOPS around the world who would like to keep the authority they have always enjoyed.  No one easily gives up power.

Pope Francis says a lot about the sexual abuse scandal, but then Francis recently reduced punishments for a handful of priests found guilty of abusing children, he sentencing them to a lifetime of prayer and penance instead of defrocking them.  These men need to be defrocked and THROWN out of the church!  There is a disconnect between Pope Francis words and his actions.

Francis’s decision is said to reflect a debate within the Vatican whether it is preferable to expel abusive priests entirely “and then there is no possibility of monitoring his activity or having any kind of control over his behavior,” or keeping them within the fold, and under the watchful eyes of the church, but permanently bar them from ministry.  The church has not done a satisfactory job of monitoring them in the past or watching them.  Most of the abuse takes place on church property.  The church should let the civil authorities take care of them and the police and public monitor them in the neighborhoods they choose to live in as other sex abuse CRIMINALS are.  Why do these criminals deserve special treatment?

The Catholic hierarchy still doesn’t get child abuse.  They continue to describe the cover-up as a scandal. This use of language means that they see sexual abuse as a moral issue and not a crime.  In the same manner Obama refuse to say EXTREME ISLAMIC MUSLIM TERRORIST.  You cannot address a problem until you correctly name it.  Sexual assaults on children are criminal acts and need to be addressed as CRIMES.  Some priest abused children because they could not because they could not control themselves. 

The hierarchy does not understand the effect of sexual abuse on children.  They believe children are young and will get over it.  THAT IS NOT TRUE!  For God sake what part of RAPE do they not understand?  I was appalled after one investigation in 1975 when cardinal Brady said he thought the boys enjoyed what happen to them.  I was likewise appalled when the hierarchy made the victims swear to secrecy if they wanted the church to settle with them monetarily.  They did nothing but help the CRIMINALS.

There are laws in some places (like England and Ireland) that go back as far as 1861 that protect children from child abuse and the church chose to ignore those laws.  The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1935 also covered sexual abuse. “Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows any girl/boy under the age of 15 shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable on conviction thereof to penal servitude for life.”  These Acts were updated and strengthened by the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990. The new Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill provided greater protection for children when it was finally enacted.  It is obvious England and Ireland take child abuse more seriously than the United States.

It is time to debunk some of the myths surrounding sexual abuse in the church and the world and view it as a heinous crime, not a behavioral problem that needs treatment.  Sexual abuse is still happening and children need the law on their side.

The Catholic Church in Ireland has been “almost fatally destroyed” by the clerical child sexual abuse scandal, according to a former Provincial of the Jesuit Order in Ireland.  WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS?

SIDE NOTE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DISHONEST HIERARCHY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH VIOLATES THE LAW TO PROTECT CRIMINAL PRIEST.   A Minnesota diocese filed for bankruptcy protection on Friday, the 14th nationwide and third in the state to do so in the face of mounting claims of sexual abuse by clergy.

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.  

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!

Grace Poe - disqualified because she is a foundling

There has been a case in the Philippines that has interested me. Philippine Senator Grace Poe filed to run for President in 2016.  The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) disqualified her as a candidate because she is a foundling whose parents are both unknown. A foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared for by others. Poe's Philippine citizenship cannot be established, recognized or presumed under the 1935 Constitution since the charter did not grant citizenship to children born in the Philippines whose parents' identities are a mystery.

The 1935 Constitution clearly required blood relations to the father to establish the natural-born citizenship of a child. The 1935 Constitution did not contain any provision expressing or implying the granting of Filipino citizenship to foundlings on the basis of birth in the Philippines. According to this interpretation, the child of a Filipino mother with a foreign father would not be a citizen by birth, because the law or the Constitution requires that he make a further declaration after his birth. The 1935 Constitution allows only children whose fathers were Filipino citizens to be automatically natural-born Filipino citizens.  It is argued that the framers of the Philippine Constitution did not want children born to alien fathers to be naturalized Philippine citizens.

There is a 1987 Constitution and it states: Natural-born citizen, “No person may be elected President or Vice-President or Senator or Congressman unless he or she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…” Grace Poe is presently a sitting senator. I do not understand why this issue did not come up until she decided to run for President. It seems strange that there was no outcry when she ran for Senator and it is even stranger that SET did not disqualify her then.  Did the people who are protesting her bid for president not care if she became a senator, but she now has become too much competition for others seeking the position of president in 2016? Politics are strange in every country, enemies become friends and friends become enemies, in order to get elected and after the election everyone kisses and forgets.

In the case of Senator Grace Poe she does not know who her father or mother is, therefore she cannot automatically be classified as a natural-born Philippine citizen unless someday it can be determined who her father is. No one is questioning if she was born in the Philippines. She was found in 1968 in a church in Jaro, Iloilo, Philippines. Originally she was cared for by residents of Jaro, Iloilo, and later adopted by Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces). Her adopted parents were both actors. Her adopted father is now deceased and himself was a presidential candidate.

There are issues about her becoming a U.S. Citizen, then returning to the Philippines and reclaiming her Philippine citizenship, etc. I am not interested in that situation. The only thing that intrigues me is the foundling issue.

Those opposing her candidacy also argue there is no International Law conferring automatically a nationality to foundlings at birth. There is the United Nations Convention of the Reduction of Statelessness that provides: “A foundling found in the territory of a contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary be considered to have been born within that territory to parents possessing the nationality of the State. The Philippines is one of the signatories of the 1945 United Nation charter, but the ruling powers in the Philippines claim that rule does not cover Grace Poe because it did not go into effect until 1975.

There is also under Article 2 of the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, “a foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.” The Philippines is not a signer to that agreement.

Under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Philippines did sign and which their Supreme Court has consistently enforced states, “Everyone has a right to a nationality.”  To deny Poe or anyone citizenship based on foundling status seems to violate that agreement.

One article written in the Philippines stated Grace Poe could not renounce her U.S. citizenship because U.S. law forbids it. It claimed once a U.S. citizen always a U.S. citizen that is not true.  More Americans gave up their U.S. citizenship (3415) in 2014 than ever before.  In 2013 there were 2,999 Americans who renounced their citizenship. Most expat’s do it for tax reasons. If they decide at a later date to reunify and regain their citizenship they must pay the U.S. Treasury $2,350 and complete the proper forms. The U.S. Embassy in Manila has confirmed Grace Poe renounced her U.S. citizenship and who in the Philippines has the right to question who the U.S. can or cannot allow to renounce their U.S. citizenship.  

Before you send me a negative comment please understand I am not questioning the right of the Philippines to deny citizenship to whomever they please. I am simply saying I am confused by what I read in the Philippine newspapers and hear on Philippine voice media. The stories seem to change based on who is telling the story and who the story teller supports for president in 2016.

U.S. code 1401 states regarding natural born citizenship of babies: a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person is a U.S. citizen; any person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth is a U.S. citizen; a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years and it is not proven they were not born in the United States is a U.S. citizen; a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years is a U.S. citizen.

I wonder how many Filipino’s have taken advantage of the lax U.S. natural born citizenship laws in order to become U.S. citizens or have dual citizenship.  I am sure the number is in the thousands as with aliens from all countries. I would think there are a few Philippine politicians that have taken advantage of U.S. citizenship laws.

Senator Ted Cruz now running for the Republican nomination for U.S. President was born to a Cuban alien father, American mother, in CANADA and is considered a natural born citizen of the United States.

For some time the U.S. has had a problem with mothers coming to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and then returning to their home country after the baby is born.  It entitles the child to U.S. citizenship, all rights as a U.S. citizen including, in State tuition fees, welfare, etc.  It is only against U.S. law if the mother lies about her reason for entering the U.S. prior to the baby being born. It is illegal to enter the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth. We now have a problem with wealthy pregnant women from China. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to adopt the same laws that other countries, like the Philippines have to eliminate the problem. I am sure if U.S. laws were changed it would have a negative effect on many Filipino’s as it would citizens from other countries.

I would like to see our immigration problems solved, but I could never bring myself to declare children born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s citizenship or being born to unknown parents stateless. Only a heartless person could mistreat a child who had no control of the circumstances surrounding his or her birth in that way. 

There are some cultural traditions in every country, in every religion and every denomination that should be changed and anyone in my opinion that still treats foundlings in this manner should make the needed changes as soon as possible. 

I wonder if the present Philippine foundling law is related to a Spanish tradition regarding male status in society or is it related to something to do with the Catholic Church.  The Philippines is predominantly Catholic and there was a time when I am sure the Catholic Church would have approved of the law.  I guess the bishops of the Philippine still approve of the law because their silence is deafening.   I certainly do not thank Pope Francis would approve of the law.