Your Say: In offense –and defense– of religious feelings

so sentimental. i sympathized with the catholics who knew the facts about the rh-bill and have to bear to listen to the lies so cowardly propagated in the pulpit. worse they cannot reply back, unless you want to go to jail like celdran. it's a one-way street. the catholic church speaks and the catholics, like sheep, have to listen and obey. the catholic church is not a democratic institution. dissent is not tolerated and this is how the catholic church had survived. it thrives on a close-information system where they used to burn people and books to maintain control.  fortunately, we are now living in the information age, an open-information system. here you can verify their claims at the touch of the keyboard. the internet will be the battleground of ideas and it will be the graveyard of all religion.

Sounds double standard to me.  The church can intervene with public/political affairs (whatever happened to the separation of church and state, btw) and yet forbids anyone to intervene with church affairs. Not only is it double standard but hypocritical as well -- I can criticize you, but you can never criticize me.  Where's justice here?

Section 133 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes an offense against hurting religious feelings.... ngayun ko lang nalaman na may ganun palang batas sa atin. Sino kaya nakaisip ng ganitong batas? Weird!

hindi naman religious feelings ng mga pari ang naoffend, kundi ang political feelings nila.

hindi rin religious ceremony yun kung tutuusin. iyon ay political gathering being passed off as a religious event.

While our Constitution subscribes a policy---not a law---of separation of Church and State, Congress should enact an enabling law enforcing that separation and penalizing priests who interfere with State matters.

 

Celdran may have offended "religious feelings", but everytime so-called infallible priests use mass services to babble to their captive audience matters of State, they offend not only our personal feelings, but also the State's policies.

 

And for the record, he was convicted because of the Church's meddling with the case and the judge. He's the first to be convicted on that obscure crime. Because, hey, whose religious feelings did he exactly offend?

 

If a skimpy dressed woman, or a known prostitute, comes to Church, people might think that the woman's appearance or the prostitute's presence offends their religious feelings. A drug lord or an ex-president going to church could offend religious feelings too, but priests wouldn't mind because those types of people give generously to them.

So many comments in here are more about moral [and legal, if there is such a term] equivalency. Let us focus on the case. This is a man who barged into, legally speaking, a private domain and disturbed a religious ceremony. The law is very clear. If we let go this man, what will stop the others to barge in, into a mosque, a temple, or any house of worship? Freedom of speech is guaranteed but not absolute. This case has nothing to do with other issues such as sexual abuse by priests or the heresy case against Galileo. The way we view jurisprudence should not be clouded by our biases. Suma total: Leave us Catholics alone and let us practice our faith as enshrined by our laws. For erring priest, bishops, or Catholic individuals, eh di kasuhan nyo. Catholics, like anyone else can commit mistakes or sins.

the punishment is too much..2 mos.to one year because he held a placard with a written damaso name.He might have disrespected a mass but he wasnt violent ,i think fine is ok as penalty.  

I know this sort of thing happens in pseudo-democracies like Russia, and I know the Catholic Church likes to think it is as powerful as the Russian Orthodox Church, but one year in jail is ridiculous! In advanced democracies he would have been escorted outside, and maybe fined for causing a breach of the peace. I truly hope this country becomes an advanced democracy one day, and it does not slide the way Russia is going.

The State already made clear its stand by declaring Celdran as having offended the law.  Now the Church, being an entity existing by reason of temporal and heavenly causes, should manifest the reality of Divine Providence by washing Celdran of guilt by immediate forgiveness after conviction of the crime.  Afterall, Celdran did not desecrate nor deny the presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament during his noiseless protest... If Saint Francis of Assisi were here, he would forgive Celdran, release him from jail, and reach out to him for healing.

Of course, Celdran used a religious ceremony to promote his agenda! Why wouldn't he. The priests find it effective to politicize the lectern so why shouldn't ordinary Catholics who disagree with them. 

 

It's funny how freedom of religion is apparently the right to keep our centuries-old privileges now. Where's my freedom of religion when the CBCP says my way or the highway? Where's my freedom of religion when I can't voice an opinion contrary to my priest's inside the church where we share one God? 

 

Article 133 is an egregorious violation of all of our rights. It privileges religious space but not other private spaces. Why? Because we're all FREE! Or so the Church would have us believe.

Hmmm. When is disrespect "truly called for"?

 

The problem I have with the author's argument is that the "primary purpose of a house of God" can be whatever the faithful wants it to be. What he described in his article is his own and not a universal definition. And the "agenda" that the priests propagate are based on long-standing doctrines for which the church was established (or so they say as it seems). These traditions have been there before we were all even born. It is thus their leaders' prerogative to determine what "agenda" to push in these ceremonies.

 

Now if you find that your own beliefs are no longer in agreement with your church then leave (as the author did as a teen). If you have lost faith in the religious traditions of your church, then find one that you can call your own. No one is forcing you to stay. 

 

You do not impose your logic on tradition (history buff Celdran should know this). It's like someone (whether foreign or local) going to one of our festivals holding a placard telling us Filipinos to stop what we have long been used to doing. It just instigates feelings of anger and disrupts social order.

 

The only reason the author is "glad" that Celdran did what he did is that someone managed to act on feelings he has long been wanting to do. Not because he was right to do so. The difference between the author and Celdran is that the former was mature enough (even as a teenager) to know that not all feelings need to be acted on. (Read: If I feeling like killing, then I should kill?) There are reasons for our laws. We need to maintain social order. 

 

Festivals or traditions cease to exist when people stop doing them. The only way the priests lose their influence is when people stop following them. We have already done this when we passed the RH Bill (And I believe it would still have passed whether or not Celdran held up that placard and shouted in church). We have already figuratively shouted that religious doctrines do not have a place in crafting our laws.

 

Now, enough of the disrespect and let the man face the consequences of his actions as the law has defined. Let's just use our energies to carry on the principles that has endeared us to Celdran (like nationalism, reproductive health, anti-epalism, vigilantism). Let us not turn Celdran into a religious icon or hero. (Does his show of disrespect measure up against the sacrifices of Jesus Christ or Jose Rizal?) As for the law being unfair and outdated, then let us work on updating them. The laws will not get updated by freeing Celdran.

Just like the author, I've left the church a long time ago, but that's not the problem or the issue here. The problem is the church I've left over a decade ago is sticking its nose and shoving its doctrines down my countries throat. That affects me and people who are not part of that belief system. Now is that fair?

 

Celdran only wanted separation of church and state (like how it should be). If it takes a couple of million people's feelings hurt to get the point across, then I'm all for it.

 

Sure he did not cause immediate change, but it did wake people up and kept the ball rolling. More and more people are leaving the church in a never before seen rate. The CBCP knows this and they're trying to put a stop to it by jailing people. It might take a 10 more generations, but we'll eventually get there.

 

Celdran will take it to the supreme court and probably lose. He'll go to jail and do his time. Most people will say he deserves it, for me, I say he took one for the team. Change don't come cheap.