Dear John Silva,
First of all, I’d like to express my admiration for your writing. Since I’m still a rookie in the blogging world, I’m fully aware that my works don’t even compare to that of yours.
I wrote you this letter to express my Lone Opinion on your Open Letter to the Philippine Catholic Bishops. A loved one told me about your website when she was checking her e-mail. I got wind of this letter just today so apologies for the late response.
No John. I’m not a hardcore Catholic. I don’t go to Church every Sunday, and when I attend mass, I seldom take part in Communion. I don’t confess my sins to priests. I don’t hold hands and sing Kumbaya. And above all, I’m no goody two-shoes. I’m no bad ass but I guarantee you I’m not self righteous. I’m pretty aware that I’m a sinner like everyone else.
Blame it to my Alma Mater if I’m trying to play defender of the Church here. Even with all the reasons stated above, I remain a Catholic. I still pray to Jesus Christ. But if you take time to read my piece entitled 100 Days and Counting, with emphasis on the last part, I too am not a fan of the Church when it meddles with the State’s affairs. So you see, we agree on some things.
But I guess you just lost me with points 1, 2 and 4.
1. The Church is anti-women. On what grounds? Because the Pinoy bishops are against the RH Bill? The Church isn’t depriving anyone of information regarding health. Give me a break. That’s what the Internet and schools are for. Information is readily available almost everywhere John. All we need to do is look for it.
The RH Bill is yet another excuse for these politicians to look good in the eyes of the masses. There’s no need for the RH Bill. You want an effective way of birth control? How about common sense and abstinence? In an era where sex isn’t taboo anymore, do we really need to give a lecture about the birds and the bees? When a man and a woman starts to get it on, they know sex can lead to babies.
You don’t want to go through the trouble of early/unwanted parenthood? Abstain from sex. Can’t abstain? Use contraceptives. Who’s stopping you? The Church? It can condemn all these birth control methods, but at the end of the day, it’s your choice. It’s not like these things are illegal.
And where did you get your figures? 500,000 married Filipinas commit abortion? Though I suspect it’s close to the truth, the new age Filipinas aren’t pushovers. More and more Filipinas are moving up in the executive and political ladder. Meaning to say, this ain’t your traditional Maria Clara no more. Filipinas today are smarter and stronger. To blame abortion to the Church is an attack on the intelligence of Filipinas. It’s like saying that women can’t think for themselves or can’t do their own research for that informed choice. I repeat: information is readily available.
“God makes me gay and then makes His followers go around saying it’s a choice, as if I’d choose to be mocked every day of my life.” – Kurt Hummel, Glee
I know it’s unfair, but if the teachings of the Bible don’t favor homosexuality, I’m sorry but you just have to live with that. Asking bishops and priests to accept this notion is like asking a lion to eat vegetables. You can always shift religions anyway. As they say, it’s either shape up or shift out. You can go John. The door is open. You are free to enter and exit the doors of the Church. You don’t need bishops to escort you on your way out.
I do agree with you that the Church has to take disciplinary actions against these priests allegedly molesting the altar boys, and that they should also address the issue of having gay priests among their ranks. But wouldn’t it be better if you wrote to the Pope instead? I mean if you’re complaining about the employees, why not report directly to their supervisor or to top management – God.
If you’re so pissed off about this and have evidence, then why not expose these people for who they are. You have your website and YouTube to proliferate videos and information.
4. You (Catholic Church) are anti-poor. If you’re basis for this is reason number three in your letter to the Filipino bishops, then I’d say you got it all wrong.
Based on your justification, the Church is anti-poor because it’s against the RH Bill.
Think about this: If the government were to distribute contraceptives to the poor, it’s going to need money. Where does the government get its money? Wait for it…the Filipino people. There’s nothing free about that. As stated in 100 Days and Counting, I strongly believe the RH Bill will just help politicians turn us into their cash cows.
With every government project comes great profitability. I believe we are in unison when I say that at the end of every project, some government official will just end up with a bulge in his/her pocket bigger than ours. As BIR Commisioner Kim S. Jacinto Henares said, corruption can only be minimized but never eradicated. So if we give the corrupt an opportunity to steal from the public through useless projects like distribution of contraceptives, isn’t that being anti-poor?
Besides, condoms aren’t all that expensive. In a time where even vagrants and slum-mers got cellphones, I find it hard to believe that the poor can’t afford condoms. So if two people want to f**k each other without using contraceptives because they think it can get in the way of the fun, no religion or government can stop them.
The RH Bill isn’t exactly the answer to poverty. The government should spend more time thinking of ways of feeding the poor and giving them stable jobs and improving its services.
John, no religion is perfect. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only religion that stands against homosexuality. I also believe there are other religions with their fair share of closet queens. May your letter kick some sense into church leaders so they could get their act together and make things right.
I also agree with you that the Catholic Church can’t seem to see the poor around them, but only to some extent. The Church has its shortcomings to the poor. Though I’ve seen them do their part, you can say it’s not enough.
But let me ask you this John: Though the Church and the government have a responsibility to nurture the people, aren’t we responsible for ourselves first? Shouldn’t we be the ones taking care of ourselves instead of asking someone else to get the job done?
The Church can lay down all the rules, the government can offer various goods and solutions, but at the end of the day, we call the shots. We are the masters of our destiny.
I’m sorry John, but I think your whole excommunication thing is nothing but a publicity stunt. If you don’t enjoy being a Catholic, you can stop being one even without all the media coverage you are requesting. No need to call out the bishops John. Since you already beat the Church to item number 4 (by helping the poor with your deeds) why not get the job done yourself? Walk away from the faith and self-excommunicate.
Marlone Viardo
Founder/Editor/Writer
Lone Opinion
Marlone Viardo
Founder/Editor/Writer
Lone Opinion
the solution is burn down the slums!! haha just kidding.anyway although this letter not being directed at me, and without stating my position as regards what Mr. John Silva is claiming, i feel compelled to point out a rather bold assumption you made bro. you're saying that the information about reproductive health is out there, freely available to all who seek it, thereby making it their responsibility to educate themselves, right? but the question is WILL they look for it? do they know where to find it? more importantly will they understand it? and to add to that will they be able to distinguish myth from scientific fact? c'mon man this has been the same scenario since like the 90s WTF happened?
ReplyDeleteNow theoretically speaking (and i hope it stays that way given how eff'd up the world is becoming, a 10 year old can impregnate his/her playmate. now can you expect this 10 year old to well informed about sex ed or do his research the net while in the midst of experimenting with his/her playmate in bahay-bahayan(this is not too far from reality as i've visited the dude in Bilibid a few years back)
can schools teach sex ed? if owned a school i'd be wary of doing that, since i wouldn't like an angry parent barging in and complaining about his/her son being taught about fellatio.
abstinence? man, try convincing a horny hormone driven teenage on the brink of a bang.
having said that i proceed to the meat of the argument, the RH bill, just like any other law, should not be considered a one piece solution to poverty, it is NOT, and anyone who says it is is an idiot (yes offense, bring it on!!). i see the RH bill as more of a precursor for further and more comprehensive reproductive health legislation and regulation. the country needs abortion as evidenced by the 500,000 figure y'all conceded to (although i personally think thats a bit conservative). or at the very least some form of regulation as underground abortion is dangerous. but can abortion be legalized right now? NO. can abortion be regulated? NO. in fact its a crime. can the Supreme Court pull a Roe v. Wade? Nope, aside from the fact that its judicial activism, they are just not gonna do that given the current political climate. we can't do that because people in general think abortion is bad (pro-life), what the RH bill is doing is FORCING people to have an informed opinion about these things so that their place is legislative agenda would be at the very least based on informed consent. (btw im pro choice i'd rather kill a kid than let him/her live a life of poverty and squalor or suffer the effects of parents not ready for parenthood please react.haha) at any rate the RH bill is setting the stage for further legislation, if people are informed and still don't like the idea of abortion then, the discussions over as of the moment. think of it as something like John the Baptist coming before Jesus. Now, did Jesus need John the Baptist?
You should click the link on the words "Open Letter to the Philippine Catholic Bishops" so you can get a picture of what John Silva is talking about.
ReplyDeleteI guess putting sex ed in the elementary (grade school) and high school curriculum isn't a bad idea. But at the end of the day, it does promote premarital sex. And though we can't do anything about PMS (95% of kids will eventually engage in it anyway), I believe it would be best that the thought should not be encouraged, which will be a problem with thought-provoking sex ed.
At best, maybe Science and H.E.L.E. or T.L.E. subjects can be modified to educate youngsters. It can be a less explicit version of sex ed. And this something that the DepEd and CHED should handle, not something that law makers should waste their time on.
"abstinence? man, try convincing a horny hormone driven teenage on the brink of a bang."
Here's my answer to that, and it's in this very blog:
Can’t abstain? Use contraceptives. Who’s stopping you? The Church? It can condemn all these birth control methods, but at the end of the day, it’s your choice. It’s not like these things are illegal.
Contraceptives are not that expensive and there are ample condom ads stating the benefits of using protection.
Besides, what's masturbation for?
You're right about the RH Bill paving way for further legislation, but my problem is do we really need it?
Corrupt people will find ways to make a profit out of this law. Government officials will make excuses to make sex ed ads and purchase contraceptives for the people. And you know when the government is buying stuff, there'll always be kickback involved. That's means funds wasted on birth control/sex ed stuff. Funds which could've been spent or allocated to the education, agriculture, health (and I mean I want to see more hospitals and more jobs for nurses) sectors...military weapons, etc.
Generations have survived without the RH Bill. Economically and financially speaking, the Philippines was doing well without an RH Bill during the time of Pres. Marcos. Meaning to say this bill is not actually necessary in uplifting the lives of our people.
The RH Bill can help solve some problems, but if you're going to take a look at the bigger picture, it's not necessary, and with all the carnapping cases going on, shouldn't a the priority.
But what the heck? Those bastards already passed this bill.
his may be moot, but still academic.(no pun intended)
ReplyDeletefor your first point, its not encouragement, its more of acknowledgement and regulation. we acknowledge that the problem of premarital sex and unwanted pregnancies is out there and that if it comes you have somewhere to run to and know where to run to. they're gonna learn it anyway might as well learn it the right way. sex ed doesnt have to be explicit, but im pretty sure its gonna be tamer than kids watching their first porn flick. trying to pretend the problem doesnt exist is like signing up for 24 hour fitness with an eating disorder then pretending you dont have such a disorder and working out just like any normal dude. naturally you wont get optimum results. i believe the true issue of this point of your is at what grade/year should sex ed or whatnot be held.
"At best, maybe Science and H.E.L.E. or T.L.E. subjects can be modified to educate youngsters. It can be a less explicit version of sex ed. And this something that the DepEd and CHED should handle, not something that law makers should waste their time on. "
i agree to a certain extent. for something like this specialist knowledge is required and can stand on its own.however we hafta take into consideration that this is and always has been a controversial subject. its gonna earn shitloads of suits about its constitutionality and shit. so might as well make it a law. but then again we dont really NEED to, it just seems like the only viable way in the light of an integrated program.
ok we do need better reproductive health laws and we need them ASAP, but how are we supposed to produce support for these laws when people dont know shit about this kinda stuff? we are a democracy, for a good law to be passed the people must be informed. sure they know about condoms, but do they know about the pills? lets say they do, do they know how to use them properly? i mean for all we know they could be reusing condoms 10 times, picking up used condoms from sunken garden, taking pills like morning after pills, or doing it in the ear to prevent STDs(remember that episode of family guy?haha ) . think about it man, what other law could better pave the way for further legislation, than something informative. it can't be too conservative, neither can it be too radical. the RH bill with all its faults, is pretty much the only way better legislation can come into the agenda. neither can we assume bad faith on the part of politicians, whether or not they make a profit out of it is for the ombudsman to decide and us to watch over. otherwise might as well not make any laws at all.sure they can bag hefty sum but the situation is the same for all other laws regardless of whether or not people need the services. do you think a corrupt politician would give a f@ck about stealing food from starving kids? history says they don't.
yeah sure generations have survived without the RH bill and so has the world without internet. but does that mean the internet didn't do us any good? or that we don't need it? same goes with the US declaration of independence, the universal declaration of human rights and all other novelties. times change bro, what may not have been necessary back then may be necessary today. btw personally, the marcos time was just a bomb waiting to explode. all the elements of our current eff'd up society were already there and they've been there since the days of Rizal (food for thought haha but seriously think about it man).
as for the carnapping cases, the, cops, the DOJ and judiciary should take care of that, thats what the bureaucracy is for, the anti carnapping law is pretty solid. basically for things like that we already have existing machinery to address those problems. whether or not it will be effective is another story. in short the stage is set for that. the RH bill on the other hand is something new, we don't have the machinery yet, so we hafta to decide on it (work on it since it was already passed).
ReplyDeletelastly the RH bill also integrates all existing structures for reproductive health, thus easing the process and saving lotsa money since people would be able to make use of the old services thru better understanding and knowledge of the existence thereof plus easier access since its all integrated. coupling that with its paving the way role seems pretty good. but maybe you are right, we may not really need it right now, but do we always hafta go for what we immediately need? how bout investing in the future? most of the time investing in the future is the best option. delayed gratification bro. check out SLEX during the time when they stopped collecting tolls. theres no band aid solution to our country's current predicament we just hafta plant the right seeds, tough it out right now and hope for the best.
as for the anti gay thing, well the beauty of Catholicism is we're not limited to the Bible's literal translations. the Bible has gigantic opportunities for interpretation just like the Quran. we're not even limited to our ability to construe the Bible, we have the teachings of Jesus and the life he lead, and the belief that He lived a desirable life. contrary to what y'all think, i don't remember Jesus ever condemning anyone, as a matter of fact he welcomed everyone who was pure at heart. it was the pharisees who condemned people for being diff. the bishops etc right now are actually acting like those pharisees. Jesus left a lot of room for future generations to interpret the lessons he left us with, His stories are more of anecdotes and examples for us to live with. not literally follow to the T essentially because the world back then is very different from the world today.. thats why we have the term "what would Jesus do?". now, do you think that if Jesus lived today would he condemn gay people? i strongly believe He won't. that means the Church is choosing to be closed minded, by not using these things to accommodate new issues, and because they are closed minded im gonna hafta say their being anti-gay is out of prejudice and resistance to change. Jesus/Yahweh/Allah gave us the old and new testament plus the songs from the Quran not to give us reasons to discriminate and divide but for us to live a better life in peace. all the tools are there. but if we use those tools to sow hate and prejudice then i don't think we're any different from Al Qaeda who misinterprets 2 sentences of a verse from the Quran as a justification for murder of innocent people. so yes the vatican, the Church does have a choice, they're just choosing to be closed minded and for that they are to blame. the Catholic faith is complete, everything there is to live the good life in peace and unity is already there, people are just stupid enough to take it literally (the spanish inquisition, the crusades, and our current issues in west asia).
ReplyDeletejust a little bit more food for thought, Allah/Jesus/Yahweh (alphabetical order no one get offended)are one in the same. thats why i find it a big f@cking paradox that these three religions hate on each other so much and have the freakin gall to call each other infidel. now as Catholic or Christians using these teachings to fuel hate, prejudice and discrimination is just like spitting on the cross Jesus died on. i hope someday these closed minded a-holes grow a F@cking brain and wake up. again just my opinion, no harm meant.
ReplyDelete@rai: You won me over with people reusing condoms. LOL.
ReplyDeleteBut good points here man. I could say you make an RH Bill reasonable. But like I said in my blog, Reproductive Health is something of a personal responsibility rather than the government's. I don't see why the conservative (believe me, there's still ample above 20-year old virgins in this country who only prefer to have sex once they get married), the sex educated, an impotent, a sterile person, a celibatist and a person with sex hindering disability have to go out of their paying taxes so other people can understand and enjoy sex. You want to have sex, go figure out or research the consequences on your own. Don't bother the those who are aware of such, or don't even have any business doing it.
I'm not pretending that a problem doesn't exist. But it's not actually everybody's problem. That's why I think you're offering a good solution when you mentioned burning down the slums. LOL.
I don't think laws have to be passed just so the DOH, DepEd or CHED can launch sexually educating ads. I think DOH just launched a campaign against firecrackers and that didn't have to go through all these proceedings and debates. But I could be wrong. Sure RH Bill and Firecracker ban is two different things, but if it's supposed to benefit the health of the public, and if the DOH Secretary has balls to stand his ground, he should (or would if he really finds sex ed really important) find a way to promote sex educating ads even if the Catholic Church is against it.
"whether or not they make a profit out of it is for the ombudsman to decide and us to watch over. otherwise might as well not make any laws at all.sure they can bag hefty sum but the situation is the same for all other laws regardless of whether or not people need the services. do you think a corrupt politician would give a f@ck about stealing food from starving kids? history says they don't."
You're right about this one. But I'm against the RH Bill because I don't want to give these bastards more opportunities to steal money from us. Especially with a law that seeks to provide something that should've been a personal responsibility on the first place. They're already stealing too much the way things are.
I guess the best selling point, if you want to convince the Catholic Church to support this bill, is to tell them that since we can't stop people from f@(king each other, the government might as well educate and protect them. The government can probably do some survey to show them how many people are doing PMS and present these facts to the Church leaders. It may not be at par with their moral standards, but it is a lesser evil.
Sorry if I can't offer a strong argument on the whole church-being-anti-gay thing. I just see this as some sort of law. Since it's been there for a long time, if don't see any way around it, so I just I support the church's stand on this one. They put up "No Smoking Signs" in open areas in Trinoma, and I don't see why but we have to follow it. I guess the same goes for the whole anti-gay thing in the church.
"Bible has gigantic opportunities for interpretation just like the Quran"
But interpreting it ain't no laughing matter. I mean, these priests spend 8 years studying it. Who better to trust than them? And by the way, anti-homo is not exclusive to the Catholic faith. The same goes for other Christians sects like Jehovah's Witnesses and Iglesia ni Cristo. I just don't see why people are hating the Catholic Church when their not the only ones doing it. I think we should even commend them on being vocal about it. They know that in this new world, their gonna take fire and criticisms from this notion, yet they stood their ground. And that, in any book, is having guts.
And I've spoken to some priests (I graduated from a Catholic school) and they say their not directly against homosexuality. It's the act of having sex with the same gender that they're condemning. You're free to love anyone. It's the sex part where it's gets tricky. But, what's a relationship without sex huh?
ReplyDeleteAbout the carnapping thing. Again you're also right about it. But what I'm trying to imply here is that there a tons of things far more important than the RH Bill. People like you make it sound important to our lives, and for that, I commend you. Lots of valid points here. But, going back to my point that sex ed is a personal responsibility, while RH bill sounds good thanks to you, I believe it should take a backseat for the now.
Food for thought, and this is going to be a long shot, but when you take viagra, it's your job to learn about it's side effects. Shouldn't it be the same for sex?
(sorry bro this post is extremely convoluted hahaha) i'd hafta agree with the personal responsibility thing. maybe both the people and gov have a responsibility, just like everything else. each person is responsible for his or her well-being, the gov is responsible for guiding those people, providing them with the proper opportunities and all. so in that light we may look at the RH bill as something to jumpstart the process, maybe people aren't entirely aware of the responsibilities reproductive heath entails. the same way that they don't understand the responsibilities entailed by marriage and child rearing. evident by the fact that people are generally impulsive about getting married and having kids, unaware of the fact that you can't divorce etc. they consider it a necessary stage in life that you have to go thru to move forward when in fact you have to get to a few stages before you can even start thinking about the challenges of marriage and child rearing.
ReplyDeleteanyway as for the the people who don't benefit but will shoulder the expense, they do that because the policy behind the RH bill affects us all. reproductive health is a personal thing, but it has societal repercussions. an unwanted child who's starving and abused generally won't be such an outstanding citizen.the spread of STDs should also concern all of us, since HIV for instance doesnt require sex in order to be transmitted. either way its gonna be big baggage on our health sector. get mah drift homie? but yeah at the end of the day its both a personal and societal responsibility.
as for the anti-gay thing, if thats the case then i gotta do more research haha! its easier to defend sodomy(any form of unnatural sex: fellatio etc) from a legal perspective now that we have lawrence v. texas but in the light of religion? that may take a while.haha anyway yeah good point as to the Catholic Church being vocal about their stand on sodomy.
i'm not that sure as to what the reason for the Church's stand against sodomy is, so this may be a dumbass argument. at any rate here's my initial take and this goes for all abrahamistic religions: assuming the Church is against sodomy coz its unnatural and doesn't produce offsrping,in the same league as fornication and masturbation, basically one is enjoying the sex part without incurring the costs and responsibilities. the Church considers sex as something sacred and all it just so happened that everyone enjoys it. so they wanna take out the enjoy and put in the sacred. so in such a case, we hafta take into the consideration the context of the time this view was adopted. during that time im guessing, the faith was still spreading thru tribes and shit. so it would be beneficial for Christians to keep multiplying to increase the number of the chosen people or something haha! really not sure bro anyway my point is there are some things that we all take as dogma but were just peculiarities of the time the scripture was written. for instance when God told those few people "go forth and multiply" he couldnt have meant them to do that literally and for an indefinite period, otherwise aapaw ng tao. that thing he said made sense to those few people, but to us, we'll be like "are you serious?!"see where im going? sure there may be specific things in the bible but we always have to take into consideration the times we live in, sure priests spend lifetimes studying the Bible but don't you think outsider opinions and criticisms can further furnish their understanding?
ReplyDeleteif their argument however is sodomy is a sin coz its unnatural, then i dont think we should've gone to the moon, shaved our beards, cut our hair etc. those arent natural. sometimes being obsessed with naturalism gets you killed (check out how Bob Marley died).
as for the viagra thing, yeah it would be my responsibility, but im not gonna climb mountains,and swim oceans to get that info. thats where gov comes in. also thats me, i know there are such things as side effects etc. some people don't..:D
I like this latest comment of yours. it's a win-win situation. we're both right in some way. LOL.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insights man. I'll treasure your comments here and probably use 'em on some related post in the future. Keep commenting and reading.
So true about the "go-forth-and-multiply-thing". And I agree on the repercussion thing.
But here's one thing bothering me. MASTURBATION IS SIN! WTF?! I'M SINFUL!!!!!!!!! GOODBYE BELOVED HAND!!!!!!
And about the post being convoluted, I think credit goes to the issue being discussed. It is a sensitive one after all. But maybe if we limit the parameters to the intention of the blog, which is simply to answer Silva's blog, I guess it ain't too complex. If we elaborate on a lot of things, of course, the blogs and discussions would take forever. But point per point, I think I came up with pretty good answers for his itemized arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd...unnatural sex FTW!!!
yeah dude you have a point, we just wanna see both sides of the coin..:D as for the jacking off thing, yeah if i remember correctly masturbation is really a sin. but assuming its evil, its a necessary evil. better than raping someone or whatnot. sure your mind's thinking about some nasty shit but ain't nobody getting hurt. i mean c'mon man, if the only approved method of birth control is the natural method and you cant jerk off, dammit man life is gonna suck!haha and serious a dude who never gets laid and never jerks off is a social threat, you never know what he might hump haha:D yeah dude i love this blog haha
ReplyDeletein short, masturbation is good! dogs in heat dont jerk off, and see they hump almost everything they see..:D i REALLY wanna talk to some dude with the extreme view that masturbation is a sin haha
ReplyDelete