Catholic Defender's Stupidity

Joining the parade of Catholic stupidity, FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA asserts that the Roman Catholic Church was never the state religion in the Philippines during the Spanish times. He says,

“Eh sabi ng referensya, yung 1876 Spanish Constition which makes Catholicism as state religion, was never extended in the Philippines. Nangangahulugan eto na hindi rin extended sa Pilipinas yung rule na Catholicism ang state religion. So base na rin sa argumento mo, lalabas na merong separation of church and state sa Pilipinas sapagkat walang state religion sa Pilipinas.” (FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA-Facebook Comment)

This ridiculous assertion came after he had failed to support his other ridiculous definition of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. According to LUGENA,

"Ang separation of church and state eh hindi lang nakatali sa prohibition ng pagtatayo ng state religion. Yung exclusivity at distinction sa duties ng gobyerno at simbahan ay isang porma ng separation of church and state. The fact na ang gobyerno eh walang kapangyarihang magsagawa ng misa at mag administer ng mga sakramento, at ang simbahan na magpasa at magpatupad ng secular laws at mag appriate ng pondo ng gobyerno ay nagpapakita na merong separation between church and state.” (FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA- Facebook comment)

When challenged to apply his stupid definition of concept of Separation of Church and State to countries with union of church and state, he had no choice but to deny that Roman Catholic was not the state religion of Philippines during Spanish times. LUGENA also avoided answering the question whether Spain itself had separation of church and state based on his street-heard definition.

STATE RELIGION

Does being a state religion anchor solely on Constitution? Definitely NOT. More often than not, the constitution only put in writing the previous and existing ruling state policies. In the case of Spanish Constitution of 1876 declaring the ROMAN CATHOLIC as the STATE RELIGION OF SPAIN, this constitution only reiterated the agreements between the POPE and the Queen of Spain. The immediate preceding CONCORDAT in 1851 agreement between the Catholic as a religion and Spain as a state specified that “the Roman Catholic religion was to continue, to the exclusion of every other, to be the only religion of the Spanish nation, and was to be maintained, so far as his Catholic majesty has the power, "in all the rights and prerogatives which it should enjoy according to the law of God and canonical sanction.”

Although the Spanish Constitution of 1876 was not extended to the colonies including the Philippines, the CONCORDAT agreement served as the legal basis of the union of church and state in all its colonial affairs.

Joaquin Bernas, in his essay, DID NOT say that Catholicsm was NOT the state religion. He said that Catholic Church was the established church or the official church on the basis of state protection under the Penal code of 1884 which was in effect in the Philippines. By definition, a state religion is the official and established religion.

The terms of the CONCORDAT of 1851 were really in effect in the Philippines. Reviewing the terms in this agreement between the POPE and the Queen of Spain, one may surely understand why Joaquin Bernas did not discuss this CONCORDAT because of possible complication of exposing the dark realities inside the Catholicism.

CONCORDAT of 1851

There were previous CONCORDATS between Spain and Vatican before 1851. According to Catholic encyclopedia, “the first was dated 13 May, 1418, between Martin V and John II of Castile. The second, between Philip V and Innocent XIII, may be regarded as the forerunner of the agreement made 2 January, 1753, by Benedict XIV and Ferdinand VI, which remained the basis of the union of Church and State in Spain and her colonies until the death of Ferdinand VII in 1833. “ In the subsequent years in Puerto Rico, the state “despoiled the Church of much property and disbanded the only two communities of religious men, the Dominicans and Franciscans, appropriating to the State their convents and properties.” To resolve this conflict, a new CONCORDAT was concluded by the Spain and the Pope in 1851. The Concordat highlighted the greed of the Catholicism.

TERMS of CONCORDAT of 1851

1. Roman Catholic as state religion of Spanish nation.
This is not in consonance to Rizal' statement:

“No one has a monopoly of the true God, nor is there a nation or religion that can claim, or at any rate prove, that it has been given the exclusive right to the Creator or sole knowledge of His Being. “- RIZAL
Annotations to Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas - translated by Austin Craig

2. Conformance of education to Catholic doctrine.
Rizal portrayed the Catholic Church defective policy on education in Chapter 27 of El Filibusterismo.

3. Rights of Clergy and religious orders for RESPECT and compensation from government.

“They say that prudence is sanctity. But, what sanctity have they shown us? To pray and kneel a lot, kiss the hand of the priests, throw money away on churches, and believe all the friar sees fit to tell us; gossip, callous rubbing of noses.”- RIZAL, To the young women of Malolos.

“Why, then, do the friars now refuse to stir a foot unless paid in advance? And, as if they were starving, they sell scapularies, rosaries, bits, and other things which are nothing but schemes for making money and detriment to the soul; because even if all the rags on earth were converted into scapularies and all the trees in the forest into rosaries, and if the skins of all the beasts were made into belts and if all the priests of the earth mumbled prayers over all this and sprinkled oceans of holy water over it, this would not purify a rogue or condone sin where there is no repentance. Thus, also, through cupidity and love of money, they will, for a price, revoke the numerous prohibitions such as those against eating meat, marrying close relatives, etc. you can do almost anything if you but grease their palms. Why that? Can God be bribed and bought off, and blinded by money, nothing more nor less than a friar”-RIZAL, To the young women of Malolos.

4. Right of the church to acquire property
In El Filibusterismo novel, Kabesang Tales lost his land property to greedy Friars.



LUGENA ALIBI

LUGENA insisted with his idiot definition of Separation of Church and State by challenging:

“Kung totoo yang claim mo na walang separation of church and state nung panahon ng Spanish Occupation, dapat sana may mga pari na nagpapalakad ng gobyerno at may mga guadia sibil na nagmimisa.” (LUGENA-Facebook comment)

Accepting his idiotic challenge, there was indeed a time when an archbishop of Manila, Manuel Rojo was appointed as the Governor-General of the Philippines in 1759 during the British Occupation of Manila.

LUGENA replied:

“Ilitaw mo rin na may guardia sibil na nagmimisa. Part yun ng hamon ko sayo. Kung totoo yang haka mo na walang separation of church and state nun, dapat homogenous ang simbahan at estado. Priests do the job of government officials and vice versa. Kaya ilitaw mo rin na merong mga government officials na nagmimisa." -(LUGENA, Facebook comment)

Continuing to accept his idiotic challenge, there are CHAPLAINS assigned in military. These CHAPLAINS are government officials doing the religious functions.

LUGENA further asserted his alibi:

“Military chaplains are priests. Maliwanag yan sa Canon 564. They are capable of celebrating mass because of the fact that they were ordained, not because the state granted them the power/authority to celebrate the mass. Even so, you have yet to show us an instance during the Spanish colonial period that members of the guardia civil can celebrate masses. The fact that until now you failed to show any evidence means that there is simply none. Celebrating masses are exclusive for ordained priests of the church. [Canon 900, par.1] The exclusivity of this duty of the church testifies to the existence of separation of church and state. “ (LUGENA- Facebook Comment)

It is wrong to say that military chaplains are priest because even lay person can be a chaplain. It is irrelevant if a chaplain is a priest or not. The point is a chaplain is a government official being paid by the government to do religious functions.

So, LUGENA insisted that there should be a “guardia sibil” not just any government officials, that can celebrate mass to prove otherwise that there was a separation of church and state.

Since it is very difficult to find this absurd proof, the challenge was returned to LUGENA to prove his definition by showing “guardia sibil” celebrating mass in countries where there is an union of church and state such as SPAIN and VATICAN.

LUGENA avoided to answer the question whether Spain had separation of Church and State because he knew that his definition will not match. It is indeed absurd to let Guardia Sibil to celebrate mass. In the case of Vatican, where there is an obvious union of church and state, are the swiss guards authorized to celebrate Mass? LUGENA replied:

“Dahil yung swiss guard eh under ng Pontifical Commission for Vatican State na pinamumunuan ng mga pari. Kung kaya yung political at religious functions ay parehong ginagawa ng simbahan sa Vatican” (LUGENA-Facebook comment)

Therefore, LUGENA is very stupid to ask for additional proof for “guardia sibil” celebrating mass because the mere fact that Manuel Rojo, an archbishop who can celebrate mass was also appointed as Governor-General of the Philippines of which he has direct control of all guardia sibil.

THIS SHOWS THE STUPIDITY OF CATHOLIC DEFENDERS WHO NEVER USE REASON NOR TEST THEIR REASONING IF VALID OR NOT.

CATHOLIC ABSURDITIES

True to its century-old scheme of desperately keeping their members, the Catholic Church has been known of corrupting education in order to hide the truth and deceive many people. Although Catholic failed once to stop the inclusion of the study on the writings of Rizal in the Philippine Basic Education, Catholic fanatics are still unstoppable with their evil trick of deceiving themselves as well as their ignorant followers with the belief that Rizal was never unfriendly to the Catholic Church.

Just recently, a Catholic defender of unknown educational background ridiculously attempted to show that Rizal considered the Catholic Church as TRUE RELIGION when the famous NOLI ME TANGERE was published. This Catholic defender, by the name FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA says

Ano ba patotoo ni Rizal patungkol sa Simbahang Katoliko? Sa sulat niya kay Blumentritt dated March 05, 1887 patungkol sa NoliMe Tangere, eto ang kanyang sabi:“Inalisan ko ng takip sa mukha ang pagbabanal-banalan, na sa pamamagitan ng relihiyong ginagawang kanlungan, ay nagpahirap at nagpalagay sa aming parang mga hayop. Sinikap kong ipakilala ang pagkakaiba ng tunay na relihiyon sa di-tunay. Itong huli – and di-tunay na relihiyon – ay nagpapausbong ng pamahiin at gumagamit ng mga banal na salita upang maakit ang aming salapi, UPANG MAPAPANIWALA KAMI SA MGA BAGAY NA DI-MAAARING MATANGGAP NG RELIHIYON KATOLIKA KAILANMA’T AABOT SA KANYANG KAALAMAN.” [Ref: Noli Me Tangere 5th Ed., Jose Rizal (isinalin ni Guzman-Laksamana-Guzman)]Textbook yan sa high school. Check it. Ani Rizal, yung di tunay na relihiyon ay nagtuturo ng mga bagay na DI-MAAARING MATANGGAP NG RELIHIYON KATOLIKA KAILANMA’T AABOT SA KANYANG KAALAMAN. Maliwanag na ang Simbahang Katoliko ay HINDI KABAHAGI ng di tunay na relihiyon na binabaka ni Rizal. Kung walang kinalaman ang Simbahan sa di tunay na relihiyon, ano siya? TUNAY NA RELIHIYON. (FACEBOOK COMMENT –Aug 12, 2011)

Obviously, the article does not explicitly says so. LUGENA just made an absurd interpretation out of poor academic scrutiny with invalid assumptions without considering pertinent circumstances.

On the contrary, the letter written by Rizal has a consistent tone of sarcasm that reflects the same sarcastic content of the novel, NOLI ME TANGERE. The letter directly and explicitly describes FALSE RELIGION. A very valid reasonable question: Was there any other religion during Rizal’s time that he described as FALSE RELIGION other than the CATHOLIC CHURCH?

This composition is to assert that LUGENA 1) failed to understand the text 2) failed to check and to validate his interpretation with the factual circumstances during the time when Rizal wrote the letter.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM TO LUGENA BONEHEAD ANALYSIS

None a single statement of a sane mind would say that absurdity is acceptable to anyone. Absurdities are NOT ACCEPTABLE to every sane person only until that person realizes that what he/she has been doing are absurd. In tagalog expression, “wala naman tanga na aamin na tanga siya hangga’t hindi niya napatunayan sa sarili niya na tanga nga talaga siya”. Likewise, “hindi matatanggap ng Katolisismo na may mga katawa-tawang silang pangangatwiran hangga’t hindi niya nalalaman”.

Through the novel, NOLI ME TANGERE, Rizal unmasked the hypocrisy, brutality and absurdities of Catholic Church. Being hypocrite, the Catholicsm would definitely NOT ACCEPT their absurdities IF IT (the Catholicsm) WOULD KNOW THEM (absurdities).

The statement of Rizal is no different from a disclosure of conclusion in a case of confrontation. One would say, “Tatapatin na kita. Alam kong di mo matatanggap na isa kang mangmang kung alam mo lang.” Similarly, those brutalities and absurdities of Catholicsm are not naturally NOT AMENABLE to Catholics IF THEY KNOW.

LUGENA failed to understand the adverbial clause, “IF IT WOULD KNOW THEM”. This clause reveals the problem of Catholic Church of NOT ACKNOWLEDGING things happening in their midst. Catholics are indeed hypocrites – believing in things yet doing otherwise.The very purpose of the novel was to tell the truth.

The letter of Rizal dated March 5, 1887 was officially published in 1992 by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines with the following English translation:

I have unmasked hypocrisy that under the cloak of religion has impoverished and brutalized us. I have distinguished the true religion from the false, from the superstitious, from that which capitalizes the holy word in order to extract money, IN ORDER TO MAKE US BELIEVE IN ABSURDITIES OF WHICH CATHOLICISM WOULD BLUSH IF IT WOULD KNOW THEM.

In this official document, it is clear that Rizal did not imply that the Catholic Church is the TRUE RELIGION. On the contrary, he sarcastically described FALSE RELIGION that matched with that of the CATHOLIC CHURCH- the only religion being highlighted in the novel.

It was indeed shameful for Catholic Church when Rizal disclosed their hypocrisy. Moreover, it is even more shameful for Catholics today like LUGENA to consider an insulting sarcasm as a complement.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

When Rizal wrote the novel NOLI ME TANGERE, he was already excommunicated by the Catholic Church because of association of Rizal to MASON. He even wrote other related anti-clerical letter like TO THE YOUNG WOMEN OF MALOLOS. When the novel reached the Philippine shore, the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines branded Rizal as heretic. Catholic emissaries were even sent to convince Rizal to return to the Catholic fold.
On what reasonable grounds then shall we believe that Rizal considered Catholic Church as the true religion?

It is rather best to check if Catholic Church is the false religion being described by Rizal. Rizal described false religion as brutalizing people under the cloak of religion, superstitious, and capitalizing absurdities in order to collect money.

A. Brutality under cloak of religion. One of the goals of the encomienda system was to Christianize the native people. Yet, under this seemingly holy purpose, abuses was committed by the colonizing Catholic country,Spain and the Catholic church as beneficiary of this crime.

B. Superstition. Rizal mentioned one superstition in the novel . i.e. pagsimba sa UBANDO para mabuntis. Superstition is an unreasonable causality- associating someone’s action to unrelated future events. Philippine customs and traditions are full of superstitions- from birth, to marriage and even to death. Superstitions are related closely to Catholic sacraments and practices.

C. Capitalizing Absurdities in order to extort money. Selling of indulgence and sacramental fees are all-time examples of Catholic extortion. This Catholic practice of selling indulgence is equivalent to payment to the church in order to be saved from purgatory.
Rizal’s strong condemnation of this Catholic practice is very vivid in his letter TO THE YOUNG WOMEN OF MALOLOS:

“Why, then, do the friars now refuse to stir a foot unless paid in advance? And, as if they were starving, they sell scapularies, rosaries, bits, and other things which are nothing but schemes for making money and detriment to the soul; because even if all the rags on earth were converted into scapularies and all the trees in the forest into rosaries, and if the skins of all the beasts were made into belts and if all the priests of the earth mumbled prayers over all this and sprinkled oceans of holy water over it, this would not purify a rogue or condone sin where there is no repentance. Thus, also, through cupidity and love of money, they will, for a price, revoke the numerous prohibitions such as those against eating meat, marrying close relatives, etc. you can do almost anything if you but grease their palms. Why that? Can God be bribed and bought off, and blinded by money, nothing more nor less than a friar? The brigand who has obtained a bull of compromise can live calmly on the proceeds of his robbery, because he will be forgiven. God, then, will at a table where theft provides the viands? Has the omnipotent become pauper that He must assume the role of the excise man or gendarme? If that is the God whom the friar adores, then I turn my back upon that God.” (RIZAL, TO YOUNG WOMEN OF MALOLOS)

LUGENA ALIBIS

When asked “to what False Religion was Rizal referring to?”, LUGENA replied that it was the FALSE CATHOLIC CHURCH headed by the band of PADRE DAMASO. He even said that the true Catholic Church was that of Padre Florentino.

RIZAL said about FALSE RELIGION and not FALSE FRIARS. Padre Damaso and Padre Florentino shared with the same Catholic Church. The novel microcosmically described the prevailing oppresive, brutal, and absurd Catholic leadership in the Philippines. If we accept the ridiculous argument of LUGENA then FALSE religions will just easily disown their erring priests and pastors and still say that they are all TRUE RELIGIONS.

LUGENA also made a diversionary technique of irrelevant communion issue just to get away with the fact that Rizal wrote the NOLI ME TANGERE when he was in MASON- as an excommunicated Catholic. Thus, it was highly unreasonable and unusual for Rizal to conclude that Catholic Church was the true religion.

When presented with the NHI document of the March 5, 1887 letter of Rizal, LUGENA said that “nakakahiya sa katoliko (bilang tunay na relihiyon) ang mga di katanggap-tanggap na aral”. He failed to realize that the word “HIYA” is not befitting to a true religion (if it is indeed true). If Catholic Church is true religion, then the proper word is “remorse” or saying sorry and NOT “blush”. There is a big difference between the following statements:

1. ...absurdities of which Catholicsm would blush if it would know them.

2. ...absurdities of which Catholicsm would feel remorse if it would know them.

LUGENA keeps on saying that the abuses such forced labor under encomienda system were committed by the Spanish government and NOT the Catholic Church. He never acknowledged the reason that being a direct beneficiary of the crime, the Catholic church was equally guilty of crime against humanity. Nowadays, descriptive articles about century-old catholic cathedrals built by POLO Y SERVICIOS never show any feeling of remorse on the human rights abuses. Catholics are even saying that these cathedrals were built out of fervent service to God.

Under CONCORDAT of 1851 agreement between the Spain and Pope, the Catholic Church being the state religion, had primary role in the morals of Spain. As state religion, the church determines the state of moral of the country. Hence, the failure of the Spanish government was the failure of the Catholic Church to instill Christian values.

CATHOLIC ABSURDITIES: THE CANCER OF THE SOCIETY

The letter of Rizal, TO THE YOUNG WOMEN OF MALOLOS was addressed to 20 women as support to their petition to study SPANISH language- the language of higher education. However, this ill-bred Catholic priest Felipe Garcia objected to the petition in order to monopolize education. This selfish catholic policy was also discussed in EL FILIBUSTERISMO Chapter 27 in the conversation between Isagani and Padre Fernandez.

It is not necessary to have similar SPANISH CIVIL WAR to curb this Catholic stupidity. In this age of information, EDUCATION is the best weapon against this social disease.