articles

Santo Rosario Parish Church Project

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:26:53 +0100

Peace of the risen Lord’

Through a decree, Most Rev. Nerio P. Odchimar. DD, ICD, Bishop of Tandag elevated the Holy Rosary Quasi Parish, Gamut, Tago, surigao del Sur, Into a Full-Fledged Parish Last May 31, 2011. Despite its elevation Holy Rosary remains as it were before- nothing has change to its place of worship. The faithful are at present celebrating the sacraments, specially the Holy Eucharist in the once old, small chapel, now a Parish Church.

The significant increase of attendance during celebration of Holy Eucharist over the past year has prompted the faithful to build a new place of worship. The construction has started three years ago. Relying on local resources and is far from completion.

The Parish Pastoral Council in its desire to finish the project has decided to raise funds through solicitation. The instrument therefore is asking your financial assistance.

You may deposit your donation to:

Bank: RCBC, Tandag Branch

Account Name: Holy Rosary Parish – Project

Account No.: 1-423-35821-8

Or Visit our Parish Convent at Sto. Rosario St., Gamut, Tago, Surigao del Sur and look for Rev. Fr. Jose Ricky F. Cortez, Parish Priest or Mrs. Publia T. Yu, PPC project Coordinator Mobile No. 0063-9205107120

Deep wounds threaten Red Mountain of Surigao

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:16:50 +0100

TANDAG, Mar 07, 2010 (Asia Pulse Data Source via COMTEX) –

As one enters the eastern part of Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur, backing the Pacific Ocean, he will be greeted by an alluring coastline with towering green mountains afar off.

The mountain range, commonly called "Iron Mountain" or "Red Mountain" due to its immense iron deposits and becomes reddish as seen from afar during daytime, sits on the old towns of Claver and Carrascal.

But anyone could not just reach the 120-year old Carrascal town without passing Novienta, or the most mysterious, exciting and scary road called Kilometer 90.

Local people would say ?novienta? because its 90 degrees uphill road. Like the zigzag roads in Baguio, passing the narrow and curvaceous road of Novienta is quite an adventure for the motorists.

Since it is rich in iron ores, Iron Mountain becomes amber red during day time. And the reddish color is reflected in the once alluring seascape and white beaches in Claver town.

With the entry of seven large-scale mining operations in the Pacific Ocean side of the provinces, the towering red mountain, inch-by-inch is devoured by machines for shipment to Japan , China and Australia .

Machines that literally slice the red mountain into hundreds of wounds, causing the mountain to cry and drift its tears down to the Pacific.

Medio Suhian, president of Carrascalanon Hiniusang Aksyon Alang sa Yutang Gilauman (CAHAYAG), laments: ?They (mining companies) started to appease the peoples? resistance with promise of development like community livelihood. They started to build center for operations and wharf for the loading of minerals to the ship.

Employment was promised to all, yet until now only half have been employed for construction, and at this time, they have mostly been laid off. All these were also the promises made by the mining companies which ultimately were proven to mean economic and physical dislocation of the people.?

?I was offered an amount of P50, 000 per one hectare of land. But we earned more than enough from our farm lots annually.? says Bashing Aclan, a resident and a woman leader of Nasipit, Adlay, Carrascal.

Carrascal is the host of the largest mangrove forest in the province or if not, in the entire Philippines . This mangrove forest serves as the cradle of marine life and sanctuary to various species of fish, one of nature's most interesting habitat.

But " Carrascal bay is threatened by sedimentation from the on-going mining operation which also translate to a threat to our livelihood in the coastal areas as well as the food survival of the community,? says fisherman Ramon Ellorico.

The people of Carrascal are self-supported by fishing and farming with a population of about 13,000 people distributed in 16 villages.

Today, residents of Cantilan are also alarmed after Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) issued a mining permit inside their critical watershed area. A town dubbed as the rice granary in Surigao del Sur is at stake.

The Red mountain, or Iron Mountain, reminds the people of its majestic height and abundance. It serves as the backdrop of every farm lots and fishing grounds in the community.

But pnce it?s gone, it?s like killing the farmers and the fisher folks of their survival. (PNA)

How Abortion Hurts Women: The Hard Evidence

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:47:56 +0100

by Erika Bachiochi

Over the last three decades,the abortion debate has been characterized as the clashing of rights: the human rights of the unborn on the one hand and the reproductive rights of women on the other. This decades-long rhetorical deadlock has left a good number of Americans -- the great majority of whom understand that an individual human life is taken in each abortion -- personally opposed, yet unwilling to "impose their beliefs" on anyone else.

The popularity of this so-called pro-choice position is due, in large measure, to the success abortion advocates have had in convincing Americans that abortion is a necessary precondition to women's well-being and equality. If you want to stand for women's progress, the line goes, then you have to stand for abortion. Indeed, in our current cultural milieu, to oppose abortion is to risk being called anti-woman -- and few, regardless of their sense of the moral wrongness of abortion, can withstand that accusation. "Personally opposed, but can't impose" seems to many the only pro-woman option.

I once numbered myself among the ranks of "personally opposed" pro-choicers, though I must admit to being more "pro-choice" than "personally opposed." I penned the following words during my junior year at Middlebury College while one of the leaders of our women's center:

The state's suppression of a woman's right to choose [was] simply a perpetuation of the patriarchal nature of our society.... To free women from [the] gender hierarchy, women must have a right to do what they please with their bodies.

The story of how I came to change my mind about abortion is rather lengthy, complicated by elements that are philosophical, religious, moral, psychological, and political. Suffice it to say, my unwavering support for abortion was based on my status as a feminist. Thus, central to my eventual opposition to abortion was the dual realization that abortion both harms women's well-being and that it is antithetical to a genuine feminism -- one that recognizes and celebrates the uniqueness of women as women.

In order to persuade the "personally opposed" pro-choicer like me, then, we must address this 1970s feminist fallacy that abortion is necessary for women's sexual equality and well-being. In point of fact, medical evidence, sociological data, and the lived experience of many women tell a very different story: Abortion harms women physically, psychologically, relationally, and culturally.

Here's the proof.

Destroying Women's Health

Women who have had abortions suffer an increased risk of anxiety, depression, and suicide. A study published in a 2005 edition of the Journal of Anxiety Disorders found that women who aborted their unintended pregnancies were 30 percent more likely to subsequently report all the symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder than those women who had carried their unintended pregnancies to term. A study of a state-funded medical insurance program in California published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry in 2002 showed that the rate of mental health claims for women who aborted was 17 percent higher than those who had carried their children to term. And, according to a 1996 article in the British Medical Journal and a 2002 article in the Southern Medical Journal, the risk of death from suicide is two to six times higher for women who have had abortions when compared, again, with women who have given birth.

Several studies analyzed in a landmark 2003 article in the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey show that induced abortion also increases the risk of placenta previa by 50 percent and doubles the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies. Placenta previa -- where the placenta implants at the bottom of the uterus and covers the cervix -- places the lives of both mother and child at risk in that later pregnancy. Pre-term birth is associated with low birth-weight babies, and very low birth-weight babies (those born between 20 and 27 weeks) have 38 times the risk of having cerebral palsy -- not to mention medical costs 28 times greater -- than full-term babies. According to Dr. Byron Calhoun, director of the Antenatal Diagnostic Center at Rockford Memorial Hospital in Illinois, approximately 30 percent of pre-term births -- which now account for 6 percent of all births -- are attributable to prior abortions.

But that's just the beginning. The link between abortion and breast cancer has attracted much media attention. It is important to understand that there are two different mechanisms by which abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer -- one is beyond dispute, the other hotly contested. It is now common medical knowledge that a full-term pregnancy, especially before the age of 32, acts as a protective mechanism against breast cancer. Thus, research shows that teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who have abortions before their 18th birthday have an incalculably high risk of developing breast cancer. Indeed, an abortion clinic in Portland, Oregon, recently settled a lawsuit with a 19-year-old woman who claimed the clinic had failed to inform her of this link between abortion and breast cancer -- especially since she'd indicated a family history of breast cancer on her intake form.

Approximately one-fifth of women procuring abortions are teenagers, and half are younger than 25 years old. The risk of breast cancer is high for those young women who are delaying their first full-term pregnancy through abortion, yet such women are rarely informed of this indisputable link.

The more hotly contested link -- though one supported by numerous epidemiological studies and breast physiology -- is that abortion itself can cause breast cancer. Through abortion, a woman artificially terminates her pregnancy at a time when her breast cells have been exposed to high levels of potentially cancer-initiating estrogen but before those cells have matured into cancer-resistant cells (as they ultimately do in a full-term pregnancy). According to breast surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, "The same biology that accounts for 90 percent of all risk factors for breast cancer accounts for the abortion-breast cancer link."

Astonishingly, many states do not require that abortion-related complications be reported to their health departments. Nevertheless, a review of available data reveals that thousands of women are injured each year from short-term complications such as hemorrhaging, uterine perforation, and infection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approximates that one woman in 100,000 dies from complications associated with first-trimester abortions. A 1997 study reported in Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, however, found maternal deaths from abortion to be grossly underreported to the CDC -- probably because such reporting is entirely voluntary.

Further, a 1994 article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology revealed that abortions performed at more than 16 weeks' gestation have 15 times the risk of maternal mortality as those performed during the first trimester. The same study also showed that black women and other minorities -- who have a disproportionate number of abortions when compared with white women -- are also 2.5 times more likely than white women to die of an abortion.

Finally, due to the FDA's rush to get RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, onto the market quickly, at least three American women have already died, and scores of others have suffered serious drug-related complications.

Planned Parenthood estimates that 43 percent of women will have abortions before they turn 45 years old, and with more than a million abortions performed each year, these collected data reveal a serious women's health issue that must be addressed. Yet all too often, the evidence is simply denied or ignored.

Is Legal Abortion ‘Rare and Safe'?

One of the common arguments used in the run-up to Roe v. Wade was the claim that legal abortion would be safer than the "back alley" abortions that -- advocates alleged -- killed 5,000 to 10,000 women each year. As many now know, one of the two men leading the change, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, OB-GYN and co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, later recanted the claim, admitting that he and other pro-abortion activists simply fabricated the figure to further the cause of abortion rights.

This is not, of course, to say that illegal abortions were safe; though the actual data are nowhere close to the 10,000 claimed, at least 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972. But an additional 24 women died that year from legal abortions in states that had weakened their laws in the years before Roe came down. As the medical data above reveal, more than three decades of legal abortion have not made the procedure much safer -- women are still dying or suffering serious harm. Even Warren Hern, noted abortionist and author of Abortion Practice, a leading medical textbook, writes, "[T]here are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazard as abortion."

Another consistent argument one hears in defense of the abortion license is that the government should never come between a woman and her doctor. Indeed, the Court in Roe considered this relationship paramount. Until viability, the Roe Court said, "the abortion in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician." Yet only about 2 percent of women having abortions do so for health reasons, and studies have shown that two-thirds of obstetricians and gynecologists -- especially female doctors and those under 40 -- refuse to perform abortions at all. The vast majority of women who have abortions, then, are not contemplating a medical decision in the care and counsel of their personal physician. Instead, most women receive little or no pre-op counseling about the nature of, risks of, and alternatives to the procedure. They meet the abortionist just minutes before he operates on them and are unlikely ever to see him again.

Abortion's Second Victim

It's no wonder that 81 percent of women surveyed in a 1992 study reported in the Journal of Social Issues said they felt victimized by the abortion process, and that they were either coerced into the abortion or that information about alternatives or the actual procedure had been withheld.

Though informed consent requirements are constitutional under Roe, Women's Right to Know laws that provide women with information regarding the nature, risks, and alternatives to abortion are in effect in just over 20 states. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey: "In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehends the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed." Not surprisingly, abortion advocates view neither the Casey decision nor the passage of informed consent laws as a step toward a more informed choice; instead, they're characterized, in court battle after court battle, as an encroachment upon the rights secured in Roe.

While some men lament the choices of their wives or girlfriends (husbands and boyfriends, after all, have no legal rights in the abortion decision), other men serve as the catalysts behind such choices. Nearly 40 percent of post-abortive women in one study reported that partners pressured them into having the abortions. Indeed, in her study of the data, the late Emory University professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese reported that "the most enthusiastic fans of abortion have been men -- at least until they have children of their own."

So while "pro-choice" feminists hail abortion as the symbol of women's sexual freedom and equality, the ordinary young woman may find no such liberation when she has sex with her date, thinking, as women are prone to do, that sex will bind the two emotionally. Instead, when he doesn't share the depth of her feelings and then hands her $400 for the abortion when she becomes pregnant, it's not only her heart that's broken. She alone has to live with the possible short-term and long-term medical consequences of the abortion for the rest of her life. For many women, "reproductive freedom" has meant that women continue to negotiate all that comes with reproduction while men enjoy the freedom of sex without consequences.

The victimization felt by such a large majority of women who undergo abortions, though not appreciated or even recognized by today's "pro-choice" feminist, was acutely foreseen by an earlier generation of feminists. America's pioneering feminists, who fought for the right to vote and fair treatment in the workplace, were uniformly against abortion because they recognized it as an attack on women as women -- those uniquely endowed with the ability to bear children. While these pioneering feminists endured the painstaking fight to change male-dominated political and economic institutions, the "pro-choice" feminists of the 1970s and today instead sought to change the very nature of women, convincing many of them that, if they're to be equal to men, they must simply become like men.

Relying on Abortion

The importance American culture has placed on abortion as an equalizer of the sexes was the central reasoning the Supreme Court used to uphold Roe in its 1992 Casey decision: "For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." The Court went on to say that "the capacity of women to act in society" was based largely on the availability of abortion.

In other words, we've gotten used to not having to change much in our market-driven society to allow women to enter our colleges and workplaces on an equal footing with men. We're not interested in ensuring women the capacity to act in society -- to have a place in society -- if they aren't aping men. We can't afford to do the much more difficult work of creating environments that welcome women who have children -- which, of course, is the great majority of women. Instead, we'll just continue to tell women what Roe told them a generation before. You choose: your baby or yourself, your baby or your future, your baby or your success; this is a man's world, and you better become like a man -- that is, not pregnant -- if you want to succeed.

It's no surprise that more than 30 years after the second wave -- the abortion wave -- of the women's movement, studies show that women are still perplexed about how to combine career and family. Abortion usurped a pioneering feminism that sought to influence society to recognize the distinct dignity of women. In so doing, it forestalled solutions to the question of how women could fulfill their unique role as mothers while participating in the wider society. Increasingly, young women are addressing the problem in their own countercultural way: Highly educated women are passing up the career track during child-bearing and child-raising years while leaving their options open to reenter the professional world later in life.

Today, more women are challenging the pro-abortion feminist idea that their children are a burden to success and equality. Ordinary women want to be honored as women -- not to have to sacrifice their children for equality with men. Women are beginning to realize that they'd been sold on the idea that a mother is of far less value than a fully engaged professional person. During an era in which motherhood was revered much more than it is today, President Theodore Roosevelt said: "[The mother] is the most indispensable component part of society." The work of men, he said, is not "as hard or as responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children.... I think the duty of the woman the more important, the more difficult, and the more honorable of the two."

In the professional world, a woman often feels expendable -- that many other people could perform her job just as well -- but no one can equal a mother in the care and education she provides to her children. Sadly, a feminism that puts the fight for abortion at the center of its crusade has convinced many women that their social status and power are more valuable than the very lives of their children and the influence they have in the world through their work as mothers.

Some social scientists have argued that such a feminism, having driven unprecedented numbers of mothers with small children into the work force full-time over the last few decades, is largely to blame for the difficulty most single mothers today have at making ends meet. After all, the financial power of the dual-income family -- the norm today -- has driven up the price of life's necessities. While two-parent families with a single income struggle and sacrifice to allow one parent to remain at home with young children, single mothers -- responsible for both bread-winning and child-rearing -- are faced with an almost insurmountable financial obstacle.

What is the abortion lobby's answer to the "feminization of poverty" they themselves have helped create? Ready access to government-funded abortion. And "pro-choice" feminists don't limit their claim to represent poor women to our shores; they believe that all of the world's poverty-stricken women deserve ready access to free abortions.

It was precisely this elitist element of the abortion movement that first jolted me to rethink the "pro-choice" position I held in my early college years. I'd been studying in Washington, D.C., during a semester of my junior year and interning with a small think tank that helped state legislatures in their efforts to reform welfare. As I became immersed in the problems of the poor -- especially poor women -- I grew disgusted with the argument put forth by abortion advocates that the availability of abortion would lift women out of poverty. The thought that we, as a wealthy nation, would claim to solve the problems of the poor by helping them rid themselves of their own children haunted me.

Many who hold the "pro-choice" position do so because they think abortion provides a means to manage the burden the poor place on the rest of the society. Justice Blackmun, author of the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe, epitomized this tragic view in a later case in which he dissented from the majority's refusal to require taxpayers to fund abortions (Beal v. Doe). Blackmun said that the cost of elective abortion "is far less than the cost of maternity care and delivery" as well as "the welfare costs that will burden the state for the new indigents and their support in the long, long years ahead…." And so, he went on to say, without taxpayer funding of abortion for the poor, "the cancer of poverty will grow."

The Road Ahead

America's reliance on abortion has relieved our culture of the costs associated with creating environments truly hospitable to women and their children. If a nation as rich as ours were truly committed to women's well-being and equality, we would look for real solutions to the underlying causes of abortion -- including the serious challenge women face of balancing work or school and family, the disrespect for motherhood, the feminization of poverty, and society's eugenic distaste for the imperfection and vulnerability of the disabled.

This moment in history marks a time of great political and cultural opportunity. While the mainstream media persist in confusing the public about its own views on abortion, polls show the tide is turning. A good 75 percent to 80 percent of Americans disagree with the reasons that underlie 95 percent of all abortions. Only about a fifth of Americans believe that the status quo should be maintained, that abortion should be permitted at any time during the pregnancy, for any reason.

Women can rise to the challenge of an unintentional or even abnormal pregnancy -- if they have the emotional, financial, and professional support they need. Carrying and giving birth to an unplanned child will take self-sacrifice. There's no denying that. But women who have aborted -- and those who have merely lived during this long era of abortion -- have sacrificed far more.

Erika Bachiochi is the editor of The Cost of "Choice": Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion (Encounter Books, 2004) and is the at-home mother of three small children. Her Web site is http://erika.bachiochi.com. This article originally appeared in the June 2005 issue of Crisis Magazine.

Blessed Is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:38:21 +0100

by Mark P. Shea

Sufferers from Mariaphobic Response Syndrome have certain passages they love to bang away at in order to make sure that nobody thinks Mary is special or anything. Indeed, so zealous is the tendency of some Christians to diminish Mary that some even like to bang away at things Scripture does not say about Mary.

Take, for starters, these little samples of popular Mariaphobia from various anti-Catholic Web sites chosen at random. It doesn't take a Freudian to get the sense that some disturbing monsters from the id are at play just below the surface of these attempts to create as much distance as possible between Jesus and Mary:

Please note that Mary is not the "Mother of God," as God was around long before Mary was born. Mary is the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14), but she is never called the "Mother of God." Jesus never called Mary "mother," but "woman."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary. Jesus never called her "mother." He called her "woman."

Remember, Jesus never called Mary "mother."

Indeed, some of the more adamant polemicists find themselves going down some very strange roads as they pour on the rhetorical steam to try to deny Mary any honors. Adopting a "Simon Says" approach to Scripture, they hammer away at "Jesus never called Mary 'mother,'" while failing to note that this argument also "proves" Jesus never got goose bumps when cold, never sweated when hot, never laughed, and never blinked, since these, too, are not recorded in Scripture.

This strange emphasis on denying Mary any connection with motherhood results in statements that are not only catastrophic from the standpoint of simple reason, but that are also just plain . . . creepy. And so, as we see above, one of the oddest tendencies of those bound and determined to reject the Theotokos is their peculiar insistence that Love Incarnate somehow had a relationship with His mother that was more alienated and cold than Joan Crawford's daughter had with her Mommie Dearest.

Indeed, this weird portrayal of the relationship between Jesus as the son who won't call His mother "Mother" can, in the ramped-up rhetoric of the (relatively few) Protestant critics bent on refuting the Theotokos, result in the complete dehumanization of Mary. The sheer gynecological disgust of the critic grows . . .

Mary did what women do. What animals do. There is only one command that mankind at large obeys, and that is to reproduce. It requires no brains, no nobility, no courage, no faith, no virtue. For women it is painful, and I will not deny that.

And grows . . .

Mary was just an incubator. All she supplied was a virgin womb. God was both Father and Mother of Jesus, Who was the Word, not Mary's ovum made flesh.

And grows . . .

Jesus could not in any way have proceeded from the genetics of the fallen, degenerated human race. The undeniable truth is that the chromosomes of the child Jesus did not come from Joseph, but they also did not come from Mary . . . . Mary's womb was chosen by the Creator to give form to His Human Image. The initial cell of that Human Image, with its 46 chromosomes, originated from the Throne of "the Majesty on High" (Heb 1:3). Mary's womb was the special "incubator" used by the Eternal One to initiate and form the "Word of God" which was "made flesh." The blood from Mary's womb was used by God to protect and feed the embryo, which then became a fetus, which then became the holy child that was born. However, the blood that began flowing through the veins of that Special Human Being had absolutely nothing to do with the blood of the womb from where He was formed throughout the gestational period. For many centuries, the spirit of the deceiver has presented Mary as divine, blasphemously converting her into the "Mother of God."

. . . until, in the effort to save Jesus from contact with the "degenerate" flesh of Mary, He is even saved from contact with the flesh of Adam. The problem is, that means Jesus no longer shares our human nature, but is instead the sole member of a brand new species, born of an egg created ex nihilo and implanted by divine in vitro fertilization into the animal or Incubator Unit He does not deign to call "mother." And that means He can't save us from the death that Adam brought into the world, since Jesus is not a member of the human race capable of undoing what Adam did.

Of course, most Evangelicals don't go to these lengths to keep Mary at arm's length. Instead, they typically content themselves with assuming that Jesus meant to diss His mother in this famous scene from the Gospels:

As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Lk 11:27-28).

Silly Catholics! Praying "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus!" all down the centuries when Jesus Himself is saying . . . well, what exactly? That He is not blessed? That can't be right. That Mary is not blessed? That seems a bit awkward, too, given that Mary herself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit -- who, you know, conceived Jesus -- says (as Luke himself just recorded a few short chapters ago) that, "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). So what is the point of this saying?

The first point (for our purposes) is, "Friends don't let friends do Mariaphobic exegesis." That's because Scripture -- and especially Luke -- is not Mariaphobic. So the whole attempt to read Scripture as suffused with the Mommie Dearest spirit is boneheaded. Jesus' point is not that there is something wrong with saying, "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." Rather, His point is the same as when He tells us, "A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:18-20).

This passage is intended to be read "spiritually." That is, we know Jesus is not talking about horticulture. He is talking about spiritual fruits. However, it is all too common for us to think "spiritual=disembodied." Mary proves this wrong. Her good fruit (which was, as it is with all of us, a gift of God) was supremely real, tangible, and embodied. In her, the Word became not a metaphor, or an idea, or another word, but flesh. And it is precisely due to her enormous faith that she could do this. So the passage that so many Evangelicals take as yet another swipe at Marian devotion turns out to mean that if you have faith, you are a lot like Mary, whose faith resulted in the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is a recommendation that we imitate her and likewise enflesh the word of God in what we do, say, and think. It is for us to bear good fruit as Mary did, by bringing into the world another saint conformed to Christ's image.

Mark P. Shea is a senior editor for www.CatholicExchange.com and a columnist for InsideCatholic. Visit his blog at markshea.blogspot.com.

A Catechism on Family and Life for the 2010 Elections

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:25:59 +0100

Episcopal Commission on Family and Life
December 27, 2009, Feast of the Holy Family

Why is a Catechism for the 2010 Elections necessary?
We are going to face serious challenges in the 2010 Elections that are not only political but also clearly and profoundly moral. We are a nation that values family and life and yet for years our elected leaders have been attempting to make laws that pose a grave threat to these values. So once again we find the opportune occasion for the Church to exercise its teaching authority to guide us in carrying out their political responsibilities in a faithful citizenship.

The family has always been among the Church’s urgent concerns because it is both the Domestic Church and the Basic Unit of Society. A strong family is the only assurance to having a strong society.

In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the CBCP encouraged the faithful to exercise their Christian responsibility to be involved in politics in the conscientious selection of candidates, among others. We have consistently spoken out in defense of life and family. We do so again at this historic juncture in our national life.

As Catholic voters, we understand that to protect our society from the invasion of anti-life and anti-family values, we have to form our conscience well. This will enable us to use the power of our vote to demand accountability and coherence from our candidates. We would like to ensure that we have a democracy that is firmly founded on a consistent moral framework that will strengthen the foundation of our society and protect its weakest and most vulnerable members.

This Catechism is written primarily for the Family and Life Ministries of the different dioceses in the Philippines, which fall under the care of this Episcopal Commission. This is also intended as a reference for all families. The aim of this Catechism is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth with regards to family, life and responsible parenthood. It will help to make their faith operative when it comes to living their life in the Church and in society. The intention is not to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. The responsibility to make political choices rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election.

This Catechism cannot be read with a casuistic mentality, of one searching for a fine line dividing mortal sin from venial sin. Rather, it should be read from a magnanimous perspective of one who strives to ask how to best serve the Filipino, the Filipino family and the country.

Will this Catechism on family and life concerns not violate the separation of Church and State?

The separation of Church and State prohibits the State from interfering in Church matters, and prohibits the State from having a State religion. It does not imply a division between belief and public actions, between moral principles and political choices. In fact, the freedom of religion upheld by our Constitution protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.

The Church has the duty to teach Catholics about the importance of taking their Faith with them in all their endeavors, including voting. Catholics must live their faith in order to integrate God into their lives. For faith to be genuine, it must be evident not only in Church activities, but in all aspects of life, at work, at home, and in politics as well. The Constitution guarantees the right of each citizen to exercise his or her religion. Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but rather enrich the nation and its political life.
Every Catholic is both a faithful of the Church and a citizen of our beloved Philippines. The exercise of this faithful citizenship means that when they go to the polls to vote they should not leave God outside. They should take with them, among others:

A renewed understanding of how God views life: “God created male and female, in the divine image He created them” and “found them to be very good.” (Gen 1:27. 31).
A remembrance that God created marriage and “that is why man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two of them become one body” (Gen 2:24). It is not a lifestyle choice that the law can remake into something that God never intended it to be.
Knowledge of what their beliefs as Catholics are and vote with a well-formed conscience.

Shouldn’t the Church be limited to the spiritual and religious realms alone?

The obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of our society is a basic part of the mission which the Church received from Jesus Christ, who offers a vision of life revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The Second Vatican Council teaches that Christ, the Word made flesh, in showing us the Father’s love, also shows us what it truly means to be human (Gaudium et Spes 22). Christ’s love for us allows us to see our human dignity in full clarity and compels us to love our neighbors as he has loved us. Christ, the Teacher, shows us what is true and good, that is, what is in accord with our human nature as free, intelligent beings created in God’s image and likeness and endowed by the Creator with dignity and rights.

We Catholics share the same respect for the dignity of every person in common with many non-Catholics who accept these truths which are self-evident through the gift of reason. But undeniably what our Catholic faith teaches about the dignity of the human person and the sacredness of human life helps us to see more clearly these same truths because these are at the very core of the Catholic moral and social teaching. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square. Church authorities exercise their teaching function also by reminding Catholic civil leaders of their moral obligations, especially in matters related to family and life.

How do we Catholics enrich the democratic process this way?

Our manner of active involvement in the democratic process means that we will use the power of the vote, as citizens of the Republic, to elect political leaders who will uphold and promote the dignity of human life and the sanctity of family and marriage. Through our active participation in the democratic process, including voting, we contribute to ensuring that our democracy firmly underpins moral and ethical values and standards. In the absence of ethical values and standards democracy will become the totalitarian rule of the rich and the powerful who can trample on the rights of the weak and vulnerable, such as the unborn babies, mothers, the elderly and the poor families.

A law-making process that is based simply on the will of the majority and not on ethical principles can easily lead to unjust laws because the will of the majority can be manipulated by powerful interest groups, leaving the weak and vulnerable unprotected.

On family and life issues, including reproductive health, some Catholics justify their support for positions that are clearly against Church teachings by saying that they “simply follow their conscience.” Should we not follow our conscience?
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains to us that “moral conscience, present in the heart of the person, is a judgment of reason which at the appropriate moment enjoins him to do good and to avoid evil… When attentive to moral conscience, the prudent person can hear the voice of God who speaks to him or her” (no. 372). Conscience is thus not the same as one’s opinions or feelings.

One must always follow one’s conscience. But one also has the obligation to form one’s conscience, because of the possibility of having an erroneous conscience. “One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience” (no. 376).

As Catholics, how do we correctly form our conscience?

The same Compendium of the Catechism tells us that “an upright and true moral conscience is formed by education and by assimilating the Word of God and the teaching of the Church. It is supported by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and helped by the advice of wise people. Prayer and an examination of conscience can also greatly assist one’s moral formation” (no. 374).
The Church’s teaching authority, also known as the “Magisterium,” endowed by Christ Himself, assists us Catholics in understanding God’s will in specific issues. The Church, as our Mother and Teacher, takes into account what is happening in society and the data offered by the sciences and other fields of knowledge and offers us clear guidelines on certain specific questions.

Thus, for example, we should not think that “abortion is wrong because the Church says so,” but rather, “abortion is wrong because it kills a human being who is one of us, and the Church reminds us of its wrongness.” Indeed, whether the Church says so or not, abortion is always a most violent, unjust and inhumane act committed against the most harmless, defenseless, and weakest member of our society –the baby– and committed by those who have the greatest duty to care for, love and defend him or her most –the mother, father, doctors and other health care professionals.

Similarly, the intrauterine device (IUD) is not wrong because the Church says so. Rather it is wrong in itself whether the Church says so or not, because the IUD can kill a 5-day old baby by preventing him or her from implanting in the mother’s womb. In fact, it is medical literature and not Church dogma that describes the IUD’s modes of action, and it is from these sources that the Church bases her defense of the 5-day old baby. We were once like this 5-day old human being, and he or she, if not killed, would grow to become like us.

Through prayerful reflection of the Word of God and a careful study of Church teachings on family and life (as in other matters), we strive to live out our faith in the world. A well-formed conscience is always formed according to the official teachings of the Church, which Christ Himself instituted to guide us.

What does the Church teach regarding “responsible parenthood”?

The profound link between the conjugal union and the gift of life gives married couples a vocation to give life, as long as they can responsibly care for the children they beget. Hence, responsible parenthood calls for an understanding of the reproductive processes of the spouses’ bodies, including the woman’s fertility cycle. And as with any other passion (anger, fear, love for food, desire for more, etc.), the sexual drive should be placed under the control of the intellect and the will, through the exercise of virtues, rendering the sexual faculties truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons.

Responsible parenthood further involves the decision either (1) to generously raise a numerous family if the couple is capable of doing so, or (2) if there are serious reasons (health, economic, social, psychological, etc.), not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely (Humanae Vitae 10).

Thus, responsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do. The sexual union is appropriate only within the context of marital love, which must always be faithful, permanent, and exclusive between one man and one woman that is open to the gift of new life.

Responsible parenthood also has nothing to do with encouraging or coercing couples whether directly or indirectly to have only one or two children. It is not a population control program. Neither the government nor the Church may tell couples how many children to have, for the decision to have either a small or a large family rests on the couple themselves.

What is the difference between procreation and reproduction?

Reproduction is the process by which living things replicate, to assure the continuity of their species. It is necessary for the species, but not for the individual. Reproduction, as in the case of plants and animals, does not require any bond between persons. On the other hand, procreation is the proper term for human generation as it refers to a loving act between spouses which prepares for a possible creation by God of a new person. Procreation points to a collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life. None of these characteristics of human procreation may be found in plant and animal reproduction.

The conjugal act is like a language with two meanings: the unitive and the procreative. Through their union in the conjugal act, a man and a woman give themselves totally to each other in and through their bodies. They are telling each other: “I give myself totally to you, and I love and accept you totally; we are one flesh.” That is the unitive meaning.
Furthermore, the structures and functions of the male and female reproductive systems are such that when a sexual act is performed, there is a possibility of new life to be formed. This gives a procreative meaning to the sexual union. Thus, to accept each other totally includes saying, “since I love and accept you totally as you are, including your bodily functions, I also totally accept the possibility of our love bearing fruit, the gift of a new child.” Thus, the unitive and the procreative meanings of the sexual act cannot be separated from each other.

Textbooks consistently using the term “reproduction” instead of “procreation,” even if intended for Catholic schools, should be thoroughly checked for the contraceptive mentality. They may confuse the students on the Church’s clear teaching on family and life. Presenting the views of dissenting theologians as being on equal authority with Church documents would bring about such confusion.

Why is contraception morally wrong?

Contraception is any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception. In contraception, it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” In short, contraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act.

Since many contraceptives have also been shown by medical science to have various ill effects, their use could signify further contradictions and lies. It endangers then the physical well-being of the wife as well as the spiritual health of the marriage.

Why are natural methods of birth control not contraception?

The natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile. It is scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non-procreative decision by the spouses. In this case couples do not do anything to prevent the normal consequences of the marital act from taking place. Rather, they make use of the wife’s God-given cycle in their decision whether to have another child or not for the time being.

What is reproductive health?

The UN defines reproductive health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. It states that people have the right to a “satisfying and safe sex life.” The conjugal union is natural and proper in marriage, but in contrast, reproductive health disposes all people, including children and adolescents, to the sexual act and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to reproduce, provided that these are not against the law. (UN Cairo Conference, Program of Action).

Following this definition, if having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this causes will negatively affect the person’s mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind UN agencies’ insistence that reproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion.

Furthermore, the Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, or from having satisfying and safe sex. This item, along with the fact that certain contraceptives actually cause the abortion of 5-day old babies, is often ignored in supposedly unbiased and scientific surveys on the acceptability of the Reproductive Health bill.

All these are in the name of reproductive health and rights. What about the rights of parents? And the rights of the unborn?

What are some experiences in other countries in relation to reproductive health and related to family and life issues?

Family and Life workers and families in the Philippines, to whom this Catechism is primarily directed, could easily and clearly see the probable goals of reproductive health and rights advocates in the country, by looking at what is happening abroad. In some countries, school clinics are required to inform parents if their child has been treated for a minor scratch; on the other hand, the same school clinics are PROHIBITED from informing parents if their child seeks treatment for abdominal pains caused by a recent abortion. In other places, children are required to obtain parental consent for a tattoo, but not for an abortion.

A high-ranking official of a foreign country massively funding reproductive health services in the Philippines categorically stated last April that, “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.” A local columnist wrote in November 2008 that “In Mexico City… the long struggle for reproductive health and rights culminated in the recent passage of a law lifting all restrictions on abortion.” Many countries all over the world and the United Nations agencies work for reproductive health and rights until they have fully facilitated access to abortion.

Underlying this concept of reproductive or sexual health and rights is a view that radically separates sexuality, procreation and the complementariness between men and women. It is a view that identifies pleasure as the ultimate goal of sexuality and reduces procreation as a function of the health care systems. It also implies that men and women relate in temporary and modifiable unions that are a far cry from the beauty of conjugal love that is fully human, total, faithful, exclusive and open to life.

Men and women are persons before all else, and for this reason sexual behavior cannot be used only for pleasure. Otherwise it would mean using a person simply as an object.

In defending family and life, do we Catholics not impose our beliefs on others and violate the principles of tolerance and dialogue?

Many Protestants, believers of other religions, and even non-believers share our belief in the dignity and value of human life. Tolerance means respect for the right of other persons to profess a different opinion and belief. However, tolerance cannot be understood as believing that other peoples’ points of view are equally good as one’s own, since this would blur the lines between good and evil and renounce the judgment of a sound and well-informed conscience.

In fact, publicly proclaiming one’s own beliefs is a service for dialogue, because through this way others can know exactly what and how one thinks. One offers one’s thoughts for reflection to others while respecting their beliefs, but without assuming that all beliefs are equally valid.

Attempts to enact legislation promoting anti-family programs receive huge financial assistance and provide alluring incentives to persuade our politicians to commit themselves to their advocacy. Foreign-funded lobby groups have been operating for more than a decade to openly advocate for the enactment of population control laws, as well as abortion-friendly laws in pursuit of the UN Cairo Conference objective of universal abortion rights. It makes one wonder why countries with below replacement fertility rates, desperate for babies and spending huge sums of money to encourage their own citizens to bear more children, contradict themselves by spending huge sums of money to suppress our population growth.

All these are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interest” which identified the increase in world population as inimical to the interest of West. This document has been coming out in recent public debates on reproductive health policies, and is available on the internet. Do not reproductive health advocates bow down to their impositions? Is it not more correct to say that they are the ones imposing their policies on our country?

Is it morally acceptable to vote for an anti-family candidate?

With the foregoing considerations, it would not be morally permissible to vote for candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health (in the particular understanding being presented in the recent debates, which includes, among others, promotion of abortifacients, penalties for parents who do not allow their adolescent children to engage in sexual acts, etc.), or any other moral evil such as abortion, divorce, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Otherwise one becomes an accomplice to the moral evil in question.

The gravity of these questions allows for no political maneuvering. They strike at the heart of the human person and the family and are non-negotiable. Supporting them renders a candidate unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. The right to life is a paramount issue and hence cannot be placed on the same plane of discernment as the candidate’s positions on the environment, unemployment, health care, or others. This is because, as Pope John Paul II says, the right to life is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” It is also because the family is the basic unit of society. A candidate lays down the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone if he refuses solidarity with the unborn in the first few days or months of life, or with the dying. Why should anyone vote for such a candidate?

How should we Catholics engage questions related to family and life similar to the ones discussed in this Catechism?

Whenever we explain our desire to further strengthen the Filipino family, we should base our arguments primarily on legal, medical, economic, educational, psychological, sociological and other scientific data rather than on religious teachings alone. This translation of our faith into legitimate inputs to the policy making process helps our elected officials see more clearly the reasonableness of our advocacy.

For example, factual demographic data from the UN Population Division showing rapid ageing and collapse of the world population in 40 years, or the drop of Philippine fertility below replacement rate in 15 years, are reasonable grounds to encourage elected officials to instead opt to file bills banning contraceptive attempts to bring fertility down. The fact that contraceptives are also abortifacient and cancerous reinforces this argument. This way elected officials will see that those who promote family and life (including in their opposition to the Reproductive Health bill) are not only the Bishops, as the mass media frequently portray, but above all parents, whether Catholics or not, who truly understand the issues, not only as taught by the Church, but as supported by data from the different fields of knowledge.

We Catholics should always remember that we are not only members of God’s People, but of Philippine society as well. Hence when it comes to voting in the 2010 Elections and even beyond, and holding dialogues with our political leaders, we should carry out our responsibilities and demand our rights as citizens. When we speak with our Honorable Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors and other officials, let us highlight our place of residence in provinces and barangays rather than our parishes, our membership in civic groups rather than Church organizations, and our occupation as office workers, businessmen, farmers, fisherfolk, bus or tricycle drivers, vendors, youth and women advocates, and others. Let us emphasize to them that we are their constituents—citizens, taxpayers and voters—who have put them into office, and demand that laws protecting the Filipino Family be firmly upheld.

+PACIANO B. ANICETO, D.D.
Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga
ECFL Chairman

"Simbang Gabi is for worship, not for courtship". Catholic editor remind youth

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:54:22 +0100

MANILA, Dec. 17, 2009─With the onset of the traditional dawn masses or “simbang gabi”, editors of a Catholic journal would like to remind young people of the religious dimension of the celebrations.

“Simbang Gabi is for worship, not for courtship,” the editors said as they noted the penchant of young people to congregate with their peers or their loved ones outside the Church while the “Simbang Gabi” is being celebrated.

Fr. Gerry Patio and his associate editors at the Theological Centrum Documentation Service, a publication that tackles Catholic faith and morals, have dedicated two of its monthly issues on the topics of Advent and Christmas in an effort to evangelize popular traditions as the “Simbang Gabi.”

Popular tradition

“Simbang Gabi” has become one of the most popular religious traditions in the country. The traditional Aguinaldo Masses, a nine-day novena in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begins December 16 as early as 4:00 o’clock in the morning, and culminates with the “Misa de Gallo” on Christmas, the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus’ Birth.

There has been a noted increase in Church attendance of “Simbang Gabi” this time than in recent years. Some churches now hold two or three dawn masses and anticipated “Simbang Gabi” Mass to accommodate the request of parishioners. Priests said many of the people filling up the church during “Simbang Gabi” are not regular Sunday mass goers.

But the “Simbang Gabi” is not just a tradition that is celebrated because many others do so. It is a significant moment not only because it strengthens relationships among family members, or among friends, but also because it is the time where our faith is intensified.

National Youth Day

Despite the popularity of the “Simbang Gabi”, many still do not know that the start of the Christmas novena, December 16, is National Youth Day. During this day the Church in the Philippines celebrates the presence of the youth in the Church and encourages all the faithful to support the apostolate with young people.

Collections on all Masses on December 16 are directed towards youth ministry. The money collected is submitted to the local bishop within 15 days and divided accordingly: 70% to the Diocesan Youth Ministry, and 30% to the Episcopal Commission on Youth.

The collection is only a concrete gesture of the Church in her maternal care for the “future of the Church”, as John Paul II fondly called young people during his Pontificate.

While they participate in the “Simbang Gabi”, the youth can find special significance from the messages directed to them by the bishops in the recent Asian Youth Day in Imus.

“The coming together of young people is always a great event of the church, as time of faith, life and love,” Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales said.

For his part, Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo encouraged the youth, as they gather together, not simply to celebrate their faith with peers, but strengthen their commitment to Christ.

Bishop Joel Baylon, Chair of CBCP Episcopal Commission on Youth said that the gathering of young people is expected to provoke some renewal among them so that they become agents of transformation by living out the Word and the Eucharist in the Asian realities. (Fr. Mickey Cardenas)

Cantilan residents install checkpoint to prevent mining firm from transporting ore

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:57:56 +0100

Cantilan residents install checkpoint to prevent mining firm from transporting ore

by MindaNews Friday, 20 November 2009 00:07

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY (MindaNews/19 November) -- Hundreds of residents of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur led by Mayor Tomasa Guardo installed a checkpoint at the triangle along the highway crossing in Barangay Pag-antayan Monday morning to prevent a mining firm from transporting nickel ore to what city officials say is an “illegal stockyard in Barangay Consuelo. The checkpoint, to be manned by police and volunteers 24 hours a day, is intended to ensure that Marcventures Mining & Development Corporation (MMDC) cannot transport ore to its Consuelo stockyard,

The stockyard violates municipal ordinance 18-2008 which prohibits the construction of stockyards for storing mineral ore within 500 meters of the shoreline. The stockyard was constructed without permit from the municipality, a press statement from the CarCanMadCarLan Baywatch Foundation said.

According to the press statement, a flag ceremony was held at the town kiosk and from there the mayor led the one-kilometer march to the triangle, passing through the MMDC offices.

The mayor was joined by around 500 placard bearing fisherfolk, farmers, religious groups, teachers and students from Saint Michael’s College but more farmers and students from Surigao del Sur Polytechnic College and Cantilan National High School waited at the triangle.

Fr. Pete Ubalde celebrated the mass with Fr. Paeng Batoliño of Carrascal, Fr. Bebot Pastera of Madrid, Fr. Ritchelle Espinola of Parang and visiting priest, Fr. Tito Maratas who grew up in Brgy. Palasao, a rice-growing community.

Ubalde in his homily appealed to parishioners to be honest, sincere and open about their "anti-mining" stand. He also challenged the local government to sustain the activity.

The activity is the first of a series of activities planned by the Multi-Sectoral Environmental Protection Task Force led by the mayor to fight the mining firm. Earlier in the week, Baywatch launched its Information & Education Campaign, “Bangon KanTilang, Mina Hunongon, Agus sa Tubig Padajunon.”

In April this year, about a thousand residents led by the mayor and Surigao del Sur Bishop Nereo Odchimar staged a four-kilometer march bearing placards declaring Cantilan is a “no mining town.”

“As long as I am the mayor, no mining will ever be approved in this municipality,” Mayor

Guardo told protesters then.

The Sangguniang Bayan of Cantilan led by Cantilan Vice Mayor Rosa Carreos had earlier approved an ordinance opposing the entry of MMDC and Carac-and Development Corporation (CDC).

Surigao del Sur Bishop Nereo Odchimar expressed disappointment over the issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) to MMDC and CDC by Environment Secretary Jose Atienza Jr on December 22 last year.

“I felt betrayed upon learning that the Department Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had already issued Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) to MMDC and CDC two months prior to having been assured in a dialogue with Sec. Lito Atienza that he would look deeply into the watershed proclamation vis a vis mining,” Bishop Odchimar, the incoming President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

The Bishop had earlier expressed opposition to the operation of the mining firms in Cantilan, Madrid and Carrascal.

Emma Hotchkiss, president of the CarCanMadCarLan Baywatch Foundation, said the operation of these mining companies threatens the watersheds critical to the support of the province’s irrigation system, water supply and Cantilan’s proposed mini-hydro power project. “We shall take a unified action and urge the government to cancel the Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) of MMDC and CDC,” Hotchkiss said in press statement in April.

The MMDC and CDC, both owned by Butuan-based businessman Mario Vijungco, are eyeing to operate within the Manobo ancestral land in Cantilan, Madrid and Carrascal. Marc Venture Mining has an MPSA over 4,799 hectares in Barangay Cabangahan, for nickel and gold.

MindaNews tried but could not reach an official of the MMDC.

In last Monday’s protest action, Vicente Iriberri, Baywatch Vice President, talked on the alleged violations and inaction of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) and challenged those who want to run for any post in 2010, “to unite and not get into the trap of the mining companies to ‘divide and rule’ by pushing for two anti-mining groups to run for local elections.”

Iriberi stressed that the 2010 election is “neither about personalities, nor partisan politics but about Cantilan, the watershed, and life.”

Datu James Bat-ao spoke on the violation of indigenous peoples’ rights, while Amping Ortega, president of the Surigao del Sur Irrigators Federation (SURIF) spoke about the opposition of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and the Irrigators’ Association.

Retired Gen. William K. Hotchkiss III, president of Cantilan Bank, described the activity as "People Power in Action.”

Hotchkiss committed his personal support as well as his bank’s to stop mining in Canitlan.

Although MMDC was issued a “Notice to Proceed” with its developmental activities by the Mines Geosciences Bureau Director Horacio C. Ramos, it does not have the necessary permits from the Local Government Units nor does it have endorsements from the LGUs, which are necessary requirements in the Philippine Mining Act.

The firm also violated pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, particularly Sections 26 on the duty of national government agencies in the maintenance of ecological balance and Section 27, which requires prior consultations.

The Sangguniang Bayan of Cantilan, Carrascal and Madrid issued resolutions opposing the MPSA of MMDC claiming it is located in the watersheds of the rivers that supply the three towns’ irrigation systems and domestic water supply. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan refused to endorse the firm’s MPSA for the same reasons.

The Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) granted MMDC mandates the mining company to delineate and exclude from its mining operation all areas within its MPSA that area declared as Watershed Forest Reserve.

On March 23, 2009, President Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo issued Proclamation 1747 declaring that area where the mining site of MMDC is situated as Critical Watershed Forest Reserve.

MMDC is the respondent to the administrative case filed by the Irrigators’ Association, Baywatch, and Lovers of Nature Foundation with the DENR for violations of the Philippine Mining Act. (MindaNews)

Damgo lang ba Ikaw?

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:59:08 +0100

.SANTO ROSARIO PARISH CHURCH OF GAMUT, TAGO. SURIGAO DEL SUR

Tuig 2003 tungod sa pag lambo sa mga membro Katoliko Romano sa Gamut, ang atong Kapilya sa Santo Rosario nahimo nga bag o na nga Parokya nga sakop sa Diocese sa Tandag. Nabahin ang lapad ug luag nga Parokya sa Tago nga mao ang Parokya La Purisima Concepcion. Tungud sa panabang sa atong mga kaigsoonan sa Gamut ug sa mga silingan nga mga ka barangayan nga sakop sa Parokya, na tukod ang bag-o ug maanindot nga duha ka andana nga Kumbento sa Santo Rosario. Tungud niini, nadasig ang mga katawhan sa pag tabang sa atong bag-o nga Parokya tungud usab sa pagdumala sa atong batan-on ug madasigon nga Kura Paroko Rev. Fr. Paul Bernard Cotejar. Mipadayong ang pag usbaw sa atong katilingban, ug nahimo nga guot na alang sa mga magsisimba ang atong daan nga balay alampoanan ug mahimo na nga piligroso alang sa katawhan ang nagkagabok na mga simbahan. Kini nga mga problema nakita sa atong Parish Pastoral Council sa Santo Rosario, mao nga namugso ang ?usa ka plano nga dugay na nga gidamgo ug gipanganduy sa katawhan sa Gamut ang paghimo ug bag-o ug moderno nga simbahan. Tungud sa kalisud sa panginabuhian sa katawhan, kini nga mga panganduy nag pabilin lang nga mga damgo alang sa katawhan sa Gamut tungud kay nahimo nga dakong imposible alang sa uban kung asa makakuha ug kantidad, ang atong bag-o ug wala pay pundo sa panudlanan nga parokya. Apan nagpadayon sa pag dasig ang atong mahal nga Kura Paroko, si Rev. Fr. Paul Cotejar, sa matag adlaw nga Domingo sa iyang homiliya iya kanunay nga gipahimangno ang katawhan nga mag madasigon sa pagtabang alang sa atong katilingban sa Gamut kay matud pa niya nga “naningkamot man gani ako nga dili man ako taga diri sa Gamut maka tukod kamo ug nindot nga Simbahan, ako lang kana biyaan sa sunod nga molabay nga mga katuigan kay ma assign na usab ako sa lain nga parokya, kamo pa kaha nga taga Gamut, nga inyo man kining garbo nga aduna kamoy nindot ug moderno nga simbahan” Kana nga mga pulong ang nakapadasig gayud ug dugang sa katilingban. Ug niadtong miagi nga tuig 2008 penal nga nagkasabot ang mga membro sa Parish Pastoral Council sa Santo Rosario nga ipadayun ang dugay na mga damgo sa katawhan sa Gamut ang pag pa tukod sa Moderno nga simbahan. Tungod kay wala may dakong pundo ang atong Parokya, nangulikta ang Parish Pastoral Council ug mga hinabang gikan sa mga Gagmay’ng Kristohanong Katilingban (GKK zone) sa Gamut ug sa mga nahisakop nga mga Kapilya sa kabarangayan ug sitio nga sakop sa Parokya sa Santo Rosario. Gi target usab sa atong pinalangga nga Kura Paroko nga makalikum ang Parish Pastoral Council ug kapin sa Usa ka Milyon ka peso alang sa pagsugud sa konstraksyon.” Kun aduna kita’y usa ka libo (1,000 persons) ka mga tawo nga muhatag ug tag usa ka libo ka peso matag usa kanila (Php. 1,000.00), makalikom ang atong Parokya ug Usa ka milyon ka peso (Php. 1,000,000.00)” pamulong pa sa atong mahal nga kora paroko Rev. Fr. Paul Cotejar. Ug niadtong Miagi nga Bulan sa Junio 2009, nasugdan ang konstraksyon sa atong simbahan, ug ang matag zona sa GKK sa Gamut ug sa mga sakop nga kapilya, maoy naga padala sa mga panday, mason ug laborer isip mga boluntaryo nga nga trabahador sa konstraksyon. Hangtud karon ang atong Batan-on ug madasigon nga Kura Paroko Rev. Fr. Paul Cotejar ug ang mga membro sa Parish Pastoral council sa Santo Rosario sa Gamut, nangalap pa ug mga lista sa tawo nga maga commit o maga pledge sa ilang mga Donasyon alang sa pagpadayon sa konstraksyon sa Simbahan sa Parokya Santo Rosario sa Gamut, Tago, Surigao del sur.

Alang sa inyong mga pledges ug Donasyon sa pagpadayon sa konstraksyon sa Parokya sa Santo Rosario sa Gamut, Tago, Surigao del sur; mahimo ninyo akong sulatan ug ipadala sa email address: ?

gamutnon@yahoo.com

o ipadala ang inyong mga donasyon sa

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC Tandag branch)

Peso account No.1-423-35821-8

Account name: Holy Rosary Parish - Project

O kaha Pakigkita sa opisina sa Sto. Rosario Parish Church sa Gamut ug ni Rev. Fr. Jose Ricky F. Cortes ang Kura Paruko o kaha kang Mrs. Publia T. Yu Project Coordinator Cell phone No. +63-9205107120.