blackshama's commentary on Philippine issues

All set to bravely defend the Republic against its enemies! My father who was with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and retired as a general officer had a son and once he could walk did not put him into a Gucci but into a Philippine Army uniform! The only "pabaon" General Vallejo ever had upon retirement after 30 years of service was a pistol and a high powered automatic rifle (which he was entitled to after serving the Republic in its wars against enemies sworn to destroy it). However after the 1986 EDSA revolution, he donated these weapons to the Philippine Army museum so that young soldiers will have an idea of what it means to defend the Republic. Dad also spent countless hours training me to be a marksman and that began as soon as I first opened my eyes as a baby. By the time I was in high school, I was already trained to shoot and be deadly accurate at it! But I never had that weapons fetish. I never got the wind about using guns as a way to project one...

Jesus Christ is known to have only held money once in the whole Gospel and it wasn't his own, it was from one of the crowd who was trying to frame him! The coin had the Image of Caesar and Jesus said it belonged to the Emperor and not to him! In contrast, Judas held the Apostles moneybags and probably held money every day. In the end it is the money that did him in! And so do we really have our own money? The Catholic Catechism says that money is for the universal destination of human goods (and that means for the good of all as God willed it to be). This is my take on the President's defenders when they say that if he used his own money to buy a Porsche then that is his own business. I believe that many people who share that view are Catholics who go to Mass. Well I have to say that your money is like your life, it isn't yours to keep forever. The reason why God allowed cash to be is that it should be for God's purpose just like your life. The only difference i...

The Philippine Daily Inquirer's (PDI) editorial for today is entitled "Holy Innocent" in which the blurb suggests that Reverend Ed Panlilio return the money to the Palace. As I have earlier made clear Panlilio made himself walk a spaghetti thin moral tightrope when he accepted the money. So the legal step to be taken is to return the money. I would agree but as usual the Inquirer editorial has serious logical flaws and non-sequiturs! First the PDI assumes that the priest is trained to be obedient. Possibly. But is Panlilio obedient to his bishop now that he is governor? I doubt it if he were he should have obeyed the Pope and not run for office. Thus we cannot really assume that Father Panlilio and Governor Panlilio are the same men now. Also read this "A pastor is bound by divine law. The politician’s actions, on the other hand, are permanently circumscribed by secular law. When the politician tries to be a pastor, the law becomes an obstacle to the higher purpose,...

It is really a matter of conscience. The bribe giver believes that conscience has a price and the bribe taker agrees that conscience can be sold. This makes me recall two interesting bribery scenes dished out by Hollywood in the movies. Incidentally these two scenes come from two of my favourite movies that got the Oscar best picture award (and best actor awards for the leading cast). The first one is a scene from Robert Bolt's "Man for all Seasons" when Thomas More was at the height of his powers and favour from King Henry VIII. While coming out of Cardinal Wolsey's Hampton Court Palace, he received a silver cup from Averil Machin, woman with a request from the court of requests of which More was the presiding judge. More also received gifts of candied apples to which More replied "ah to sweeten my judgement. I'll give your son the judgement as if he were my own, a fair one." He did not accept the apples but accepted Machin's cup. In a later scene, ...