Tour guide Celdran disrupts mass,protests church involvement in politics/RH Bill

[chua_riwap]

I saw this news item in Saksi. He's dressed like Dr. Jose Rizal........






http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx...bCategoryId=65

Tour guide disrupts Mass, protests Church's opposition to RH bill


MANILA, Philippines - Manila tour guide Carlos Celdran interrupted a Mass at the Manila Cathedral yesterday afternoon to protest the religious leaders’ interference in the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

Celdran, who is a known RH advocate, took church officials by surprise when he went near the altar and raised the placard with the word “Damaso,” referring to the fictional character Padre Damaso from Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel “Noli me Tangere,” which tells the abuses of the Spanish friars. Damaso, a Spanish friar, had a daughter by a Filipino woman.

One of those who witnessed Celdran’s protest said that at first no one reacted because they thought that it was part of the ecumenical prayer service for the second anniversary of the “May They Be One” Bible campaign.

It was only after he shouted, “Stop involving yourselves in politics. Politics, politics,” did the policemen approach him and escort him out of the cathedral.

Once outside, Celdran said the Church officials “need to hear what the Filipinos are saying: that 90 percent of the people want the RH.”

He then reportedly goaded the authorities to arrest him. He was later brought to a nearby police community precinct of the Manila Police District (MPD).

Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes, who previously headed the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines-Episcopal Commission for the Biblical Apostolate (CBCP-ECBA), said, “What is approved by people does not mean it is approved by God.”

He also believes that it was not proper for Celdran to disrupt the ecumenical service to express his objection to the Catholic Church’s position.

When asked if he would file charges against Celdran, Bastes said he would leave it up to the police. “I have no jurisdiction over this church. It must be the Archbishop of Manila or the parish priest. I am just a guest,” he said. – With Sandy Araneta

[Monseratto]

He has a point. The HYPROCRITICAL Church should not interfere in the affairs of the state. But they threatened the state with civil disobedience if goverment defy their wishes, something you won't hear of in other countries. When Spain approved same *** marriages and the right to divorce, wala magawa yung simbahan dun. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has become insignificant to them. Since the scandals involving PEDOPHILE PRIESTs and the GERMAN POPE who tried to hide them, lalong bumaba ang paningin ng mga tao sa simbahan. except here in the Philippines.

[CVT]

Agree. Why threaten the government with civil disobedience when the welfare of the state is at stake here? Also, where's the omnipresent free will of everyone?

Separation of power. Let's respect each other's charter.

10.8K:lalala:

[Monseratto]

Wasn't JOSE RIZAL excommunicated when he challenged the Church?

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/202332/c...ceptive-stance

CBCP head: Aquino might be excommunicated for contraceptive stance

Updated 8:28 p.m.) President Benigno Aquino III might face excommunication from the Catholic Church for supporting the use of contraceptives for artificial birth control, a leading bishop said Thursday.

Bishop Nereo Odchimar of Tandag, speaking as president of the influential Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said in a radio interview that the Catholic Church can “possibly" subject Aquino to religious censure if the President insists on his stance that Filipino couples should be given the choice to use artificial contraceptives.

“It can be a possibility. But I do not say that, right now, it is a proximate possibility," Odchimar said in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas on Thursday, adding that the bishops are "open for dialogue."

Portions of the Radio Veritas interview with Odchimar were quoted in the report of GMA News' Claire Delfin aired over "24-Oras" on Thursday evening.

Despite the possibility of excommunication, President Aquino said hours after Odchimar’s statement that he is not changing his position on contraceptive use.

"We are all guided by our consciences. My position has not changed. The state's duty is to educate our families as to their responsibilities and to respect their decisions if they are in conformity to our laws," Aquino said in a statement on Thursday.

The President likewise maintained his stance on “responsible parenthood," saying that the state should respect the choices couples make on the kind of birth control method they want to utilize. (See: Aquino opposes Church on birth control issue)

During a meeting with a Filipino community in San Francisco last week, the president said the government "is obligated to inform everybody of their responsibility and their choices, at the end of the day government might provide assistance to those who are without means if they want to employ a particular method."

[tidus1203]

My conspiracy thoery is the Catholic church really was created to make this country poor. No offense to Catholics, pero country where majority of the population are practicing Catholicism is a moderately rich country at best. Lahat ng mga mayayaman na Western countries are practicing a form of Protestant religion like Baptist or Methodist etc...

[chua_riwap]

Relative ba ni David Celdran yan ng ANC? Parang hawig eh.

[shadow]

naku, papayagan pa ba siya mag guide around intramuros?

[jimnyeatworld]

My conspiracy thoery is the Catholic church really was created to make this country poor. No offense to Catholics, pero country where majority of the population are practicing Catholicism is a moderately rich country at best. Lahat ng mga mayayaman na Western countries are practicing a form of Protestant religion like Baptist or Methodist etc...

Spain and Italy and Ireland are predominantly Catholic. the poor nations are those from South America and us. why? bec. we never really did get the message.

kung tuusin we are really blessed kasi ang close ng family ties ng mga Filipino compared to kanya-kanya sa mayamang bansa, kaya nga mataas ang suicide rate sa kanila eh

[tidus1203]

I don't consider SPAIN, ITALY and IRELAND rich countries... In fact they are part of the PIIGS of Europe. Countries with high debt and they are in financial trouble. Rich European countries are Germany, France and the UK. They are Protestants...

[shadow]

Manila city jail walking tours anyone?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[ab_initio]

^^ mas mapaganda niya ang city jail if nandiyan siya pero 2 months lang... we'll see ano pwede maiambag niya sa loob...

[oliver1013]

The Church has done it again!!

[ghosthunter]

Pedo priests should be thrown in jail!!!

[Boy Bastos]

Pedo priests should be thrown in jail!!!

Isama mo na rin yung mga money-minded religious leaders like....all of them pala.

[niky]

Nice law.

That means I can start my own religion, set up a place of worship outside any church, and declare that the homily blaring through the PAs is offensive to my religion.

MIght just work.

[shadow]

^^ mas mapaganda niya ang city jail if nandiyan siya pero 2 months lang... we'll see ano pwede maiambag niya sa loob...

he can train convicts to be tour guides

[falken]

They should also jail the priest in Cebu who was caught smuggling ivory. And what about those pedophile priests that this damned catholic church is moving heaven and earth to protect.

[ghosthunter]

Montero-Sport Bishops.... kulong dapat. "Society's moral compass" my ass.

[shadow]

Blessing in disguise... Magagamit na niya condoms na pinamimigay niya Sa Manila city jail...

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Altis6453]

A nice discussion on the "clash of rights" involving Celdran and the RCC/CBCP

From: Interaksyon.com

MEL STA. MARIA | Let's discuss: Carlos Celdran and 'Damaso' - Free speech or abuse of right?
By: Atty. Mel Sta. Maria, News5
January 30, 2013 12:08 PM



InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5

Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is a professor at the Ateneo School of Law. He is the resident legal analyst of News5 on TV5.

The exercise of freedom of religion is one of our cherished rights under the Constitution. This freedom includes not only the right to believe or not to believe in any GOD, but also the right to peacefully practice that belief or non-belief.

It is so important that Section 5 Article 3 of our Constitution on the Bill of Rights provides, among others, that no law shall be made "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed." Article 32 of our Civil Code also provides that any private individual shall be liable for damages if he or she, "directly or indirectly, obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs" another's exercise of the freedom of religion.

Meanwhile, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are equally high in our constitutional hierarchy of rights. Indeed, free expression is at the heart of any democratic society. Section 4 Article 3 of the Bill of Rights thus also provides that "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press." Even Article 32 of the Civil Code provides that any person who "directly or indirectly, obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs" another's exercise of his or her freedom of speech shall be liable for damages.

All these freedoms, of course, must be exercised with an awareness of the great responsibilities that come with them. Freedom is not without limits, especially where the dignity of others can be trampled upon. Crudely, the exercise of freedom may be likened to an official boxing match where a boxer can hit the body, but he cannot hit below the belt. There are rules. It is not a brawl where anything goes. Free-for-all translates to chaos.

Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - under Article 29(2) - recognizes legitimate limitations, though it stresses that "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare of a democratic society."

In our Civil Code, there is the Abuse of Right Doctrine. This precept is embodied in the Code's Article 19 and provides that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith".

Abusers can be held accountable. Article 26 of the Civil Code provides that "every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons." Among others, we are all reminded to avoid "vexing or humiliating others on account of his religious beliefs."

And so while everyone is entitled to speak out his thoughts, every citizen must be careful not to unduly injure others. Thus, as the legal anecdote goes, one is free to shout "Fire!" in the streets even when there is no fire. But when he or she shouts "Fire!" inside a dark movie house, that would be deemed a dangerous act. It may lead to a stampede, injuries, and even death - all for which he or she can be held accountable. That is abuse of right.

Likewise, one is free to talk about anyone or anything. That is free speech. But if he or she gossips and seriously injures the feelings of others, the gossips may constitute defamation, slander, or "intriguing against honor" - all of which are all punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Gossip may be tantamount to abusing one's freedom of speech.

Going now to the celebrated case of the artist-activist Carlos Celdran:

He has a very legitimate advocacy. He is for the Reproductive Health Bill (now law). He passionately exhibited this advocacy by, for example, distributing condoms to people along the streets. In this, he was, has been, and is in conflict with the Catholic Church which opposed the RH Bill and continues to oppose it now that it has been passed into law.

In 2010 Celdran dressed up like Jose Rizal, our national hero known for his critical view of Spanish friars, and inside the Manila Cathedral, the seat of Philippine Catholic worship, during a concelebration of the sacred Mass, the centerpiece of the Catholic faith, he stood up and hoisted a placard with the word, "DAMASO". Anybody who has passed through high school or college in the Philippines likely knows Padre Damaso. He was a character in Rizal's Noli Me Tangere who has long been invoked as symbol and code for Catholic hypocrisy.

Celdran chose a place of worship where there were many priests and many faithful. It would be crazy to even suggest that no one was offended by his act.

He was charged and convicted for violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code which provides the penalty for imprisonment "upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."

But there are moves to elevate the issue to one which involves the infringement of Celdran’s exercise of his freedom of expression. And to complicate matters, there are also some who would suggest that this case involves a fundamental clash between the peaceful exercise of one's freedom of religion, on the one hand, and the legitimate exercise of another's freedom of speech on the other.

Which will be preferred? Is there a violation of human rights here? And whose human rights were violated?

Moreover, was the punishment meted out for the content of Celdran's advocacy (which is clearly within his right of free expression and therefore should not be penalized) OR was it meted out solely for the manner by which he expressed himself, i.e., in a sacred place of worship, during a religious activity?

Other questions:

Could we separate the manner of expression from the content of his advocacy? Was his advocacy and the manner by which it was relayed, though intrusive, so fundamentally inseparable that any disrespect against another's right to peacefully exercise his religion is outweighed by the paramount importance of the speech exhibited by the protest?

Is this case really as complex as some people project it to be? Is there really a clash between two conflicting constitutional rights? Or is this just a case of abuse-of-right?