Celebration of Life

To celebrate one�s day of birth is to celebrate life itself. It is a great event. It is a momentous occasion. It is a time of joy and thanksgiving. However, there is a need to look back at those years that have passed to be able to traverse the road of the future. I was born 36 years ago yesterday.

Looking back at those years, I experienced failures and successes, defeats and victories, triumphs and pains, happiness and sadness. There were moments of motivation and there were moments of humiliation. There were challenges solved but there were more left unsolved. Amidst these contrasting experiences I can only thank the Lord for the gift of life. These contrasting experiences have sculptured my personhood. There constantly emerged a new person each year.

I do not claim perfection for it belongs to the one from whom I received the gift of life. Neither do I claim fulfillment for it remains to be seen. But one thing I can be proud of is that I constantly try to live my life to its fullest. Endowed with the gift of vocation, my being was given a new dimension- my life became a life I can no longer claim to the confines of the self. There emerged a conviction for the service of others.

To my brother priests at the PCF, thanks for the greetings and for gracing the "canto" party last night. To my friends and relatives, thanks for the presents and greetings too.

G.C. UANAN
26 May 2006

ERAP ADMITS SIGNING AS JOSE VELARDE

If memory serves me right, the allegation that the then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada signed as Jose Velarde on an Equitable-PCI Bank account was one of the things that were vehemently denied and defended by his phalanx of defense lawyer�s during his impeachment trial in late 2000 and early 2001. Then Rep.Joker Arroyo even used a 500 peso bill to illustrate the similarity between Erap's signature and the one who signed the Jose Velarde account. Today, in his testimony at the Sandigan Bayan, Erap admitted that he signed as Jose Velarde . I will reserve my comments for the future lest I may be cited in contempt for discussing something that is already sub judice. I just want to remind my readers that the Jose Velarde account is one of the things that triggered EDSA DOS.

G.C. UANAN
24 May 2006

The Da Vinci Code "Ho-hum" Movie

I watched the Da Vinci Code movie with the thought that I will be better prepared to to answer the questions of those who are intrigued by it. The movie turned out to be "ho-hum" two and a half-hour long. I was amused at how the Opus Dei "Monk" was portrayed. He is dressed like a Franciscan (the Franciscans must be laughing no end). It is absurd! There is no such thing as an Opus Dei "Monk" and neither is there a self flagellation being done by the members of the prelature to atone for sins committed. How Dan Brown’s characters- Langdon and Teabing were so convinced about the Christ and Mary Magdalene relationship without any credible historical evidence is despicable. Even as Dan Brown claims to have based his allusion to the purported wedding of Christ to Mary Magdalene in the apocryphal “gospels” of Philip and Mary Magdalene, there is nothing in such writings that refer to the wedding theory. I do not think the film will have that faith-shaking effect anticipated by the modern day Judases who sell Jesus once more (this time for millions of dollars) to publishers and film-makers and unassuming readers with the hope of misguiding them as Fr. Cantalamesa (the Papal Preacher) said in his homily on Good Friday.

My impression on the movie? It is a PURE FICTION which lacks the convincing power of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST which is based on the GOSPELS--- our real source of the TRUTH. But even if it is merely a fiction the novel/movie should be subject to our critical judgement. What if it were a case of a fiction depicting Hitler as a Saint? We cannot just take it sitting down and be lame duck Christians. The Opus Dei should file a defamatory case against the author, publishers and producers of the novel/movie. I think they have a strong case because they were portrayed wrongly and maliciously. For our part, rather than call for the banning or boycott of the movie or go on a book-burning spree (which will make bigots out of us), we have to take it as an opportunity to educate our people on the Divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord.


Again I reiterate that the following online articles should be read especially by those who have read the novel or watched the movie:

http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/dvh_excerpts1_jan06.asp

G.C. UANAN
22 May 2006

Year of Social Concerns

The declaration of the CBCP for a Year of Social Concerns in the Philippines is well-timed as the country is presently plunged in a political turmoil stemming up from a dubious presidential mandate that has been the bone of contention and the cause of disunity among our political leaders for almost a year. It is my ardent hope that the Social Concern catechesis would deal with the very issue of why the Catholic Church sets foot into the domain of politics. Explanations should be made in words that are palatable to the “masa” who comprise majority of our people. There were previous publications by CBCP such as the “Pastoral Exhortation of Philippine Politics” (1997) and the “Catechism on the Church and Politics” (1998), but they were too highly-worded for the masa and were not widely circulated to reach the grassroots.

The issue on the Church’s involvement in politics has been debated upon and rehashed for ages. Those who have been admonished by the Church would cry out that it is an intrusion, a violation of the separation of Church and State. On the other hand, for those who seem to have benefited from the Church’s pronouncements, the Church has the right to deal with the morality of politics.

Aside from declarations and exhortations, the Bishops must also put their acts together. It is disgusting to note that there were instances (quite a lot) wherein the CBCP issues its Pastoral Statement on a certain socio-political issue and on the very next day there are a handful of bishops who would tend to speak or do things contrary to such pronouncements. Such actuations send confusing signals to the laity. Dissenting opinions by individual bishops should be confined to their plenary assembly and not addressed through what seems to be self-aggrandizement through the media.

G.C. UANAN
13 May 2006

OF SPOON AND FORK

“Mommy, I don't want to eat anymore. My teacher is telling me that eating with a spoon and fork is yucky and disgusting.” These were the words of seven year old Luc Cagadoc to her mother. From what I have read from an article from the The Chronicle online ( http://www.westislandchronicle.com/pages/article.php?noArticle=6063 ), Luc is transferred by his school's lunch monitor to a table isolated from other kids whenever he is “caught” eating with spoon and fork. When the mother confronted the lunch monitor and complained to the principal. She was shocked to hear the principal’s reply: “Madame, you are in Canada. Here in Canada you should eat the way Canadians eat.” And when she asked about the punishment of isolating Luc in a table, the principal remarked: “If your son eats like a pig he has to go to another table because this is the way we do it and how we’re going to do it every time.”

Is there anything wrong with using both fork and spoon? When I was a kid, I was taught by my mother how to properly use spoon and fork. When I entered the seminary, I learned the more gracious way of using both utensils through our “social graces” seminar. Using fork and spoon in eating is a cultural mores just like the use of chopsticks in other Asian countries. Saying that such manner of eating is wrong is like saying that our culture is wrong. How much more if they see us Filipinos eat “kamayan” style? I love to eat with my bare hands especially when sumptuous native meal is served (that would be tuyo, daing or salted egg with kamatis). Does that make me a pig or lesser human? Certainly not!

Four years ago, Bishop Eijk of the Diocese of Groningen, Netherlands (communio partner of our diocese) paid a visit to our diocese. Among the many affairs he attended was the Diocesan Youth Day. We ate “kamayan” style as it was a barrio-fiesta type of celebration. The couple who were part of Bishop Eijk’s entourage were betting whether or not he would use his hands to eat as it was anathema to do so in Netherlands. They were surpirsed when he began to wash his hands and he ate with his bare hands. I admired him for his flexibility and respect to a tradition. He did not feel degraded to eat with his hands and more so, he did not hesitate to do what was anathema in his homeland. More so, during meals at the Bishop’s Residence, he ate with both spoon and fork.

Punishing Luc for using spoon and fork is wrong. Saying that his manner of eating is disgusting is worst. It is plain discrimination under the guise of instilling table etiquette into Luc. I pity the child because the sad experience seems to have traumatized him.

Does using spoon and fork turn us into lower beings and turn the Canadians who eat with fork and knife into higher beings? NO!!!!

I hope that this is just an isolated case. Otherwise, some Canadians are bigots and racists.

G.C. UANAN
8 May 2006

FOR HOW LONG CAN SHE HOLD ON?

Since June 2005, the Philippines was plunged into a quagmire of political bickering and debacle. I have written in a previous blog that in the end it is the common Pinoy that will suffer while politicians would just shrug it off and go abroad if the situation gets bad or worst if revolution erupts. Such situation would not have much effect to politicians who can still buy the basic necessities even if the prices would have doubled because of the political tension. When there is a change in leadership, it would be easy for politicians to just throw their support to the new leader if ever the president resigns and there will be status quo of the benefits they enjoy at the expense of the people. But the poor....God help us, our politicians are feeding us to the dogs!

Almost a year from thence, the bickering continues. After the failed impeachment and a hodgepodge of expose' and hearings-in-aid-of-legislation and rallies that failed to attract multitudes, the opposition remained divided and unable to gather much footing from the masses and the decisive middle class. More so, they seemed to be busy only with criticism and fault-finding. Military adventurists tried but failed to “withdraw” their support. GMA seems to have an answer to everything thrown at her. I see the hands of a master political operator in everything that GMA used: the NO-EL scenario which appeared attractive to self-serving politicians, the EO 464, the CPR, the Proclamation 1017 and the much ballyhooed People’s Initiative for charter change. These schemes were designed to divert attention from the real issue of whether or not GMA cheated in the 2004 elections. There is a tell-tale sign on all of these schemes- there are gray areas on their constitutionality. But GMA’s political operator’s motto seemed to be that “these schemes are constitutional unless proven otherwise”. They put the burden on those who challenge the constitutionality of such schemes. GMA has succeeded in using such diversionary schemes pending the resolution of their constitutionality. The Supreme Court have so far decided against EO 464 and CPR and upheld Proclamation 1017 with certain caution on abuses. But by then, they have already served their purpose- to intimidate and to temporarily divert attention. The question is: How far can she sustain? I do not think such schemes have totally removed the cloud of doubt about her victory. Her defiant stance will only further plunge our beloved country into uncertainty as impeachment season begins come July. The semblance of economic recovery highlighted by the stronger peso which they have projected is superficial for it is based from the peak months of remittances from OFWs.

I must admit that in the past 10 months I have been against GMA stepping down because I dreaded the return of ERAP (as advocated by his sons and blind supporters). Nevertheless, after observing the ill-effects of GMA's obscure mandate, I am now one with those who clamor for SNAP ELECTION. To those who think that there are no visible alternative from among the opposition I say: Does the next president need to be an oppositionist? Have they ever considered the admirable meekness of a Magsaysay or the economics savvy of a Roxas? Does it have to be a Ping, an Erap or even a Susan? Besides, GMA can still run and if she really have the support of the majority then she can have a fresh mandate.

G. C. UANAN
3 May 2006

The Gospel of Judas: Is it really faith-shaking?

The Gospel of Judas was hyped by the media (those with the hidden agenda of undermining the truths of our Catholic Faith) as something that would shake the faith of its readers specifically on the passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The showing of the documentary on the said gospel over the National Geographic Channel was obviously deliberately timed to coincide with the Catholic Church's Palm Sunday celebration to add more sense of relativity. A brother priest sent me a copy of the said Gospel of Judas. It has seven pages on PDF format. I read it and found nothing faith-shaking.

The said gospel is believed to have been written by the Gnostics which is described by the Catholic Encyclopedia as those who believe in the "doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics regard themselves as "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know."

Gnosticism is a heresy. Projecting the Gospel of Judas as historically true is tantamount to reviving a doctrine of the Gnostic heresy. Those who brought it up have an agenda. They point out that the Gnostic Gospels were not included in the Canonical Books that would comprise the Bible because mainstream Crhistianity wanted to silence Gnosticism. My sacred scriptures professor in UST, Fr. Angel Aparicio, OP contends in an interview that "the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic writings such as the supposed Gospel of Mary Magdalene were excluded from the final canon of the New Testament not because the Catholic Church was trying to silence other Christian groups, but because their authenticity and fidelity to the teachings of Christ were suspect right from the start." (cf. http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=72478 ).

The peddlers of the Gospel of Judas try to project that Christ has mandated his own betrayal and that Judas facilitated the salvation of the world by his act of betrayal. One passage quotes Jesus telling Judas, "For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." I only have one argument against such claim that Judas merely obeyed our Lord Jesus Christ in betraying Him: If that was the case, why did he feel the guilt and committed suicide???

The Gospel of Judas failed its peddlers for it did not snowball faith-shaking doubt from believers. The text itself is incomplete, there were missing lines as the manuscript has deteriorated.

I conclude by quoting James Martin in his article "Betrayal or devotion?: No revelations in Gospel of Judas": "The Gospel of Judas will continue to be fodder for television shows, magazine covers and lunchtime conversations. But the answer to the question raised every Good Friday remains the same. Why did Judas do it? Because Judas, like many of us, wanted to make God in his own image- rather than the other way round." (cf. The international Herald Tribune, April 12, 2006, p. 8 )

G. C. UANAN
23 April 2006