One Angry Lady

The Office of the Parañaque City Mayor, circulated a Memorandum of City Administrator Noli R. Aldip entitled “Unauthorized Collection of Fees by Homeowners”, enjoining “homeowners and the public to report any collection of fees not authorized by law to the proper authorities in order that appropriate criminal charge could be filed.”

Atty. Veny Cruz writes in reaction to this Memo (slightly edited):

The Memo has driven me to disgust and near dispair. It shows not only the ignorance of the law, but total ignorance of legislative processes.

It relies on a Committee Report of the House of Representatives several Congresses ago. To the uninitiated, Congress’ only power is to legislate. Enact laws, that is. Committee hearings are only in aid of legislation. They can compel witnesses yes, but otherwise there is nothing to the hearings, only to find out if there is need of legislation.

That Committee Report was never reported out on the floor of that Congress and never went farther than that. The thing is when the term of that Congress expired, that report died with it. In practice, if somebody wanted it seriously to become a law, it should have been re-filed. It never was.

In any case, just so the public may know, that report was occasioned by the noisy complaint of a congressman whose commercial vehicle was charged entry fees. You know how these blathering Congressmen are. He has been quiet after that. I went to the hearings myself.

Finally, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which implements Presidential Decree 957 has put it in its Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Associations – that homeowners associations can indeed charge tolls, fees for the use of its roads for as long as the association is the one maintaining it and the same are not turned over to the local government concerned.

Which is exactly the case in BF Homes.

As to the matter of consent of all the homeowners, the fees we charge comply with that. Remember that BF Homes is all of 765 has; about 12,000 homeowners, over 64,000 actual residents. How in heaven’s name can you get a physical majority of that for every regulation we make? That is why, in our administrative structure, United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) is divided into 15 sectors, each sector composed of homeowners associations. The duly elected sectoral chairman automatically sits as directors of UBFHAI and it is they, the Board that passes the resolutions on the fees, etc. The local presidents/homeowners are accordingly informed of this. This system has been in place for all of 17 years and officially sanctioned by the HLURB. It is by the way, the only one of its kind in the country, but yes, officially recognized.

But I guess, all these are beyond the comprehension of the city administrator and the one he serves. His intelligent understanding is also beyond our concern. We cannot help him out of it except by the letters we send. Read my lips.

The question of fees raised by the city is actually the same question raised by the noisy group of businessmen who have the mayor's ear since time immemorial, including a certain attorney who by the way was the one assiduously following up his informer's fee in the garnishment of UBFHAI funds. They have filed cases in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, intervened in the Court of Appeals in our nullification case of the zoning ordinance and when the Parañaque case was dismissed, they went to the HLURB, which also dismissed it on grounds of forum shopping. Now that they have nowhere to go, they go to the mayor's office, but that is a dead end. Just so you see the inanity of all these. The mayor and his administrator are not aware of what they did in the past and are acting on their say so. Let them all stew in their own juices.

Homeowners Fight Back

BF Homes Parañaque homeowners are engaged in a courageous fight against the local government officials to keep the residential character of their neighborhood which is threatened urban greed. City officials, developers, and opportunists want to construct physical structures for the benefit of business. Homeowners oppose this move since this will mean more and more space will be devoted to working and making money and less space to living and nurturing life.

The conflict is of residents protecting their living spaces against the depredations of those who want to use the community and its resources mainly as instruments of profit. All of us are in the same sinking boat being steered by market forces led by our city officials, developers and opportunists into the sea of unbridled commercialism.

It bears repeating that BF Homes Parañaque is a private subdivision and the rights vested in homeowners under PD-957 such as the right to enjoy and the entitlement to the promises of the developer (BFHI), i.e., the right to live in a residential neighborhood, a condition written into and annotated in our titles as notice to the world devolve on and can be exercised by UBFHAI as the duly recognized representative of all homeowners. PD-957 has not been repealed by the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160); therefore, we can enforce our own guidelines which are not contrary to law over and above mayors or building permits.

When Parañaque Mayor Jun Bernabe forcibly opened the access roads of the subdivision, homeowners challenged the validity of Ordinance 00-15(672), asserting that homeowners are the beneficial owners of the roads and open spaces privately titled to the developer, having paid for them when they purchased their properties. As such, the local government cannot simply take over private property without due process.

It will be recalled that the 8th Division of the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated March 27, 2006, issued an injunctive relief, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:

“UBFHAI has continuously administered, regulated and maintained the use of the private roads inside the BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision even employing security guards to man their major gates, issuing passes and tickets for entry into the subdivision for certain purposes and charging fees set by the association. As owners or administrators of private roads, appellants are entitled to continue to enjoy exclusive access therein for their own protection and security and to regulate its use by non-residents within the limits prescribed by law and administrative rules. Appellants have sufficiently shown that the ordinance directing the opening of the subdivision gates has actually caused them injury due to the unmitigated flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrians, and proliferation of crimes that threatened the security of their private homes and properties. Precisely, the law has tasked the owner or developer to initiate the organization of a homeowners’ association for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development.”

By virtue of the March 27, 2006, Resolution, the appellate court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated March 30, 2006, restraining “the City Mayor of Parañaque, its Sanggunuiang Panglunsod and the Philippine National Police, and all other persons acting for and in your behalf… from enforcing the assailed Ordinance No. 00-15 (672), Series of 2000.”

In a letter to Parañaque Mayor Jun Bernabe dated April 17, 2006, the Association cited incidents in violation of the injunctive writ, i.e., the posting of civil security units or guards back at the gates on orders of the mayor, and the refusal to issue posting permits to any United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) security agency as a means of indirectly controlling the subdivision’s access gates. Having put “these acts of direct and indirect violations of a legal and lawful writ”, the Association is seeking “appropriate sanctions against you”, the letter continued.

The mayor is misinformed when he insists that the Writ is lifted with the filing of the motion for reconsideration in the appellate court. Any student of law knows that a Writ is in force from issuance and service thereof until lifted by the issuing or higher court. The mayor has thrown all caution to the wind and risks contempt of court by his personal presence at the gates, ordering the Association guards to allow full and untrammeled access by the general public to the subdivision’s roads and by posting civil security units at the gates in violation of the Writ.

UBFHAI is determined to strictly screen incoming and exiting vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the Integrated Security Program (ISP). The Association deployed volunteers to ensure that movements of vehicles, pedestrian and goods are legitimate and will not prejudice the homeowners.

The attempt of about 20 SWAT operatives to intimidate and “invite” the civilian guards to the police station for “investigation” is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There is no law that prohibits the Association from employing or availing of the services of volunteers to man its gates. Whether they are homeowners or not, therefore, is of no consequence.

Detractors are resorting to slogans and propaganda, demanding an investigation of the Association president, claiming that Association funds are being “illegally” collected and disbursed. Slogans persuade people without appealing to reason. It’s scary because we have to critically discriminate which slogans and emotional appeals are true and right and proper and which are not.

Undoubtedly, the legal expenditures are high since the Association’s Board of Directors resolved to engage the best legal councils the Association can afford in its defense. Illegal? Nonsense.

And, according to “praise” releases in the national and local media, the mayor is asking motorists to report “harassment” at the gates so that appropriate criminal charges could be filed. (Applause sound effect.) This is a good spin, but who’s going to fall for it? Homeowners are not prevented from entering the subdivision even if they do not have stickers. All they will be asked for is proof of residency and they will be waved through.

Access to the Elizalde and Tirona gates is limited to pre-screened vehicles, i.e., vehicles of residents with “Red stickers” and their guests with “Green stickers”. Security will screen vehicles without vehicular “stickers” at the other 6 gates, allowing vehicles of residents without vehicular “stickers” to pass after showing proof of residency or when the vehicle owners are residents of BF Homes. Vehicle and pedestrian screening will undoubtedly cause inconvenience but this is the price we all have to pay in exchange for our peace of mind.

The mayor is throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, so to speak, at the homeowners for a persistent minority of commercial owners, businessmen and opportunists in a futile attempt to open the privately titled subdivision roads of the subdivision. Indeed, BF Homes Parañaque residents are special. For they have the distinction of having been chosen by the mighty businessman-mayor of Parañaque to be fed to his constituents!

Making Moral Decision

Today, as parents, we know that it’s a moral jungle out there. We fear for our children’s safety, their survival, and their very souls. Body, soul, and spirit are all threatened; health, happiness, and holiness are very difficult to maintain.

“These days, no one really commits a crime, does someone wrong, or sins. Everyone who’s gone beyond the norm of acceptable and honorable behavior is not guilty but dysfunctional, with neuroses and childhood trauma used to explain sociopathic behavior and personal evil. This is in line with current thinking on “sin” and human frailty.”

In the current thinking, remorse is becoming obsolete and excuses just about cover all misdeeds. Almost every wrong action can be stripped of consequences, along with the need for feelings of remorse.

What is the cause of this deplorable state of affairs? It seems we have lost our sense of what’s “wrong” and what’s “right.” There are no more moral absolutes. Peter Kreeft explains:

We no longer like to talk about moral laws, values, and about moral absolutes. This may seem unimportant, but it is momentous. For laws are objectively real; they come from above us and command us. The formula for a moral law is “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not.” But values have no such strong bite, not absolute demand. They suggest something subjective, not objective: “my” values or “your” values or “society’s” values. Values come from us; laws come to us. We invent values, but we are under laws. Values are nice ideals to aspire to if we wish; laws tell us what we ought to do whether we like it or not. But we do like to talk about morality, a morality without absolutes. But a morality without absolutes is not morality at all. Morality means something different from doing what we please, or what we calculate will turn out all right or what works; morality means doing what we ought to do. Morality is not optional, like a “value,” but obligatory, like a law. A morality without laws and obligations is simply confusion, like a triangle without angles.

How do most of us decide what to do and what not to do, what to say and what not to say, most of the time? By three standards: (1) social fads and fashions, others’ expectations, peer pressure, “everybody’s don’t it”; (2) our feelings (“it can’t be wrong if it feels so right”)’ and (3) our desire for the easiest, most pleasant, least troublesome life. I think most of use these three standards far more often than the standard of good and evil, right and wrong, in deciding what to do. If we’re asked why we did something, how often do we answer, “Because it was right”?

Even our popular guides and teachers won’t use words like “right” and “wrong.” They use sociological gobbledygook and psychobabble like “appropriate behavior” or acceptable behavior” instead of plain moral common sense.

Very often we have to determine “black and white” in a world of “grays”: making choices for everyday moral decisions. Choosing is hard because it means discriminating, refusing, saying no to one path as we say yes to the other.

Moral choices are choices between what is really, objectively right and what is really objectively wrong. According to Thomas Aquinas, there are three parts to morality, and all three parts must be good for any act to be morally good. The three are [1] the objective act itself, [2] the subjective motive, and [3] the situation, or circumstances.

Moral laws can help us with the first part. They define which kinds of acts are good or bad, not because of our motive or intention, but because of the act itself.

The second factor in determining morality is the intention, or motive. The first factor, the nature of the act itself, is objective; the second factor, the intention, is subjective. We must always have good intentions, just as we must always do good things. Hate, greed, lust, envy, sloth, wrath, pride or despair are absolutely wrong motives, just as murder, theft, etc. are absolutely wrong deeds.

In addition to these two absolute factors, there is the third factor, which is relative: the situation, or circumstances. These are endlessly changing, and we have to make up our minds how best apply the moral absolutes to relative situations. For instance, charity to the poor may mean giving a tramp money for food, but in another situation it may mean refusing him money because he’d use it on alcohol. Or charity to the poor may mean contributing to a large charitable organization, or electing certain political candidate.

All three factors must be morally right for the act to be right. If you do the wrong thing, it is wrong, even if your motive is sincere. Perhaps Hitler was sincere in his desire to “improve” the world. But what he did was wrong. You can be sincere and insane.

If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, it is also wrong, just as wrong as doing the wrong thing for the right reason. Giving money away only to avoid paying taxes, for instance, is doing a morally good thing but not for a morally good reason.

Finally, the circumstances must also be right. If any one of these three factors is wrong, the act is wrong; if all three are right, the act is right.

There is a strong double standard in most of our society, especially the media. If any one dares to suggest that adultery is wrong, that person is labeled a fanatic of some sort. But if the same person were to denounce political corruption, he would be considered enlightened and responsible. If anyone dares to call promiscuity “promiscuity” instead of a “sexually active lifestyle,” he is immediately labeled narrow-minded.

We do not tolerate inside trading by stockbrokers but we tolerate extra-marital affairs. We do not tolerate graft and corruption but we tolerate adultery. Apparently, we are very serious about money and very loose about sex. Money is holy but sex is secular, money is worthy of respect but sex is a mere medium of exchange. In other words, we treat money like sex and sex like money. This explains why morally bankrupt individuals are voted into office.

We are too tolerant of injustice and oppression and greed and lust and other forms of selfishness. We have to learn to discriminate, to hate not the self but the selfishness, not the sinner but the sin.

Rejecting the "Da Vinci Code"

Why Does Sony Fear Free Publicity?

Source: http://www.tfp.org/davincicode/why_does_sony_fear_publicity.htm

“Don’t protest, you’re just giving them free publicity!”

That is the advice that the anti-blasphemy protester must often endure when organizing protests in front of theaters.

The conventional wisdom is that controversy generates interest. And interest will in turn only fuel ticket sales. The best thing a Catholic can do in face of a blasphemous movie is to ignore it. Don’t go. Do nothing.

Thus, the TFP massive protests in front of theaters and especially its current efforts to organize 1,000 protests against The Da Vinci Code movie are at best well-intentioned but counter-productive.

Indeed if the free publicity mantra were true, then film producers should be fanning the controversy, welcoming the protests and laughing all the way from the box office to the bank.

However, as the release date for The Da Vinci Code nears, no one seems to be laughing.

Reputation Management

The web site of Sitrick & Co. is crisp and professional. As one of the nation’s leading public relations firms, it is best known for its communications work in “sensitive situations” and for “reputation management.”

“The old saw of no publicity is bad publicity no longer applies,” warns Allan Mayer of Sitrick and Company, one of the leading Hollywood damage-control experts. He should know. As head of the firm’s entertainment division, he has seen plenty of cases where controversy has ruined the careers of many a star. [1]

Described by Variety as “Hollywood’s most prominent crisis specialists,” it is no coincidence that Sony pictures has hired Sitrick & Co. to handle the sensitive controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code movie. Films perceived as blasphemous are serious business.

As the Wall Street Journal article “Da Vinci Damage Control” notes, Sony is doing everything possible to avert backlash from religious groups. “Sony is particularly concerned about appearing insensitive to religious beliefs,” the Journal’s Hollywood Report observed.[2]

As the May 19 release date approaches, Sony is pulling out the stops in its public relations offensive, hoping to deflect critics who protest the film’s central premise that Christ married to Mary Magdalene, its rewriting of early Church history and its Machiavellian depiction of the Catholic Church. In this case, “free publicity” generated by potential protesters is a crisis, not an opportunity. Hired specialists are on the scene to avoid a false move that could jeopardize the filmmaker’s reputation.

Trying to Dialogue

Not only has Sony contracted Hollywood’s most able spinmeisters, but it has also hired a second firm, Grace Hill Media, a media firm which specializes in courting Christian audiences.

Grace Hill Media, a Hollywood firm headed by Jonathan Bock has been given the unenviable task of dealing with those Christians who oppose the book’s thesis. The firm will employ methods which some opponents believe will try to blunt protesters’ opposition.

Dialogue is the key word. In fact, Grace Hill has even gone to the point of having Sony set up its own opposition web site where protesters can vent their opinions. The site, thedavincidialogue.com, is hardly convincing, although its developers certainly spent a lot of time and resources to find a panel of religious “experts” to discuss The Da Vinci Code. However, with essay titles like “Why Christians Ought to See the Movie,” it is not difficult to perceive a not-so-hidden agenda — especially since none of the “experts” have been allowed to see the movie yet.

For a site that offers to “dialogue” with Christians, it curiously offers no mechanisms whereby offended Christians can send their concerns directly to Sony Pictures. Instead, there is a discussion forum that takes one to a distastefully named HollywoodJesus.com site where a few Christians have taken up the challenge to fence with non-believers.

In a patronizing tone, protesters are also invited to put down their signs and pray to gain new insights into the film. “Praying about The Da Vinci Code is less about the book’s brouhaha and the film’s frenzy,” the site’s “Hollywood Prayer Network” section claims, “and more about those doing the praying. It’s about us. Through prayer, we gain wisdom, grace, strength and insight.”[3]

Avoiding the B-word

Throughout the controversy, Sony has steered clear of the term “blasphemy,” preferring to turn the matter into a kind of cultural event, a fictional thriller or an historic commentary.

Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi believes Sony’s “discussion” of the film is actually steering the debate away from the content of the movie. She heads a company called Act One which trains Christian artists for film-industry work, because she believes that Christians are fair game in Hollywood.

“We’re all arguing now about what cultural engagement means,” she said, “and no one’s talking about the movie. That’s brilliant strategy from Sony’s perspective. They’ve got us off their tail, because now we’re all fighting each other. Genius — I wish I’d thought of it.”[4]

Indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what the film is all about. At the same time Sony downplays the movie as a fictional thriller, it has put up a web site to “educate people” about theological and historical issues connected to the film.

In a case of having your cake and eating it, film promoters proclaim it is all just fiction, while its author, Dan Brown, insists all the louder that the novel has historical sources. On an opening page of the bestseller, Mr. Brown unabashedly writes, “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

In a confusing atmosphere of “dialogue” and pseudo-scholarly opinions, the debate is being sidetracked. Promoters are staying away from the very serious charge of blasphemy and asking protesters to do likewise.

This is a strange dialogue where one side is being asked to give in on everything and the other gives up nothing at all.

Effective Protest

Blasphemy! That is the word that the filmmakers fear. It is the only word that sufficiently describes the offense given to Christians in what they perceive as a brutal “insensitivity to religious beliefs.” It is the only word that addresses the central issue of how the massive promotion of a work can be seen as both insulting and offending to God, Himself.

Blasphemy is by its nature the gravest sin that may be committed against religion. In the contempt expressed in blasphemy is the implication that God is contemptible. In publicly portraying God falsely there is the implication of attributing to God that which does not belong to Him or deny Him that which is His.

In a work that so blatantly denies to Christ His very Divinity, it is no wonder there are protests against The DaVinci Code.

And that is why anti-blasphemy protests are so effective. It returns the debate to where it belongs. It reveals before the public just how onerous the offense being committed is.

And that is why promoters must have recourse to “reputation management” and damage control specialists to shift the terms of the debate. Indeed, when art attaches itself to blasphemy, no amount of publicity, free or otherwise, can remove the stigma of the offense.

Making a Moral Decision

Those who claim protests are free publicity cannot point to any case where blasphemy protests have helped a film, play or exhibit. Such protests turn what would normally be for moviegoers a night of entertainment into a moral decision. More often than not, blasphemous works experience an initial notoriety and die ignominiously.

At the 96^th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Museums (AAM) in Dallas, museum professionals held a special workshop about dealing with protests.

Journalist and panel member Hollis Walker bluntly told the audience to consider blasphemy protests “no-win situations.” Their best policy is defense and damage control.

“At the very beginning, if you see something like this erupting, my best advice to you is to go hire the best public relations crisis consultant you can find,” she stressed, “because the internal public relations and marketing people at museums are not equipped to deal with this kind of issue.”[5]

It appears Sony is following such advice. It remains to be seen if they can brave the storm.

Meanwhile, anti-blasphemy protests will be held at theaters all over the country. Protesters will be proclaiming that blasphemy is not entertainment and they will be asking each moviegoer to make a moral decision.

If protesting is free publicity, Sony will certainly be paying for it.

Notes:

[1] Chris Jones, “When is bad publicity a bad career move?”Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8, 2004.

[2] John Lippman, “Da Vinci Damage Control,” The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2006.

[3] http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/pray.cfm

[4] Bill Fentum, “Christians Wrestle With The Da Vinci Code,” United Methodist Reporter, Mar. 27, 2006.

[5] Taken from tapes 02446-0901 and 02446-0902 of the talk “Our Lady of Controversy: The Cyber Arte Exhibition at the Museum of International Folk Art,” recorded at the Association of American Museum’s Annual Meeting & Museum Expo 2002. Tapes were produced by Chesapeake Audio/Video Communications, Inc. Elkridge, Maryland, 2002.

Battling "The Da Vinci Code"

The theme of the movie “The Da Vinci Code” is that Jesus Christ was not God, but only human, making an unabashed attack on the Catholic Church itself and its traditional beliefs. The movie depicts Jesus Christ as having married Mary Magdalene and that the Holy Grail—traditionally known as the chalice where the Host and the Wine were transformed into the Body and Blood of the Christ during the Last Supper—was actually Magdalene. This is outrightly blasphemous and it’s Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, being blasphemed, not a prophet.

But, Catholics and Christians are not reacting as violently as the Muslims do.

The MTRCB is doing nothing about it. Even the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines is not raising a whimper. As can be observed, they are tight-lipped on blasphemy but very vocal on political matters.

As a Catholic, I say: Boycott the “The Da Vinci Code.”

The Philippine Crusade for the Defense of Christian Civilization, Inc., has sent a letter to each of the Philippine Catholic bishops, asking them to publicly support a boycott of the upcoming film.

The following is the (unedited) general template used by the crusade to write to the Philippine bishops:

Your Excellency,

On behalf of The Philippine Crusade for the Defense of Christian Civilization, Inc., a civic and cultural organization of lay Catholics, I write this letter confident that you have heard or read about Dan Brown’s bestselling yet controversial book “The Da Vinci Code.” A movie based on the purported historical fiction is now set for worldwide release sometime in May of this year.

As faithful Catholics, we are concerned about the scandalous and sacrilegious manner in which Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church are portrayed in the book. We believe the movie wouldn’t be any different.

While apologists for the book or movie pass it off as mere fiction, we cannot remain naïve and complacent about the possible harmful effects it would have on the average Catholic reader or moviegoer. False conclusions based on shoddy fictional premises can and often do deceive many of those of weak faith to accept and believe as true what they would normally take for as ridiculous or nonsense.

To dispute those who claim protesting only generates publicity, we argue that the promoters of these productions fear the negative publicity generated by these protests since it translates to poor ticket sales at the box office.

In face of this scurrilous attack on the sacred person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is our privilege to present Your Excellency a copy of Rejecting the Da Vinci Code: How a Blasphemous Novel Brutally Attacks Our Lord and the Catholic Church, published by The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP - www.tfp.org). The book aims to increase public awareness and refutes the malicious lies and distortions being perpetrated by Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code.”

I have also enclosed copies of articles assailing the literary and historical merit or lack thereof of “The Da Vinci Code” which I hope would be of use to you. [These were copies of your article and an article on the statement of the US Catholic Bishops.]

Knowing Your Excellency’s compelling duty to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful as a successor of the Apostles, we respectfully entreaty Your Excellency to voice out firm opposition and condemnation of the “Da Vinci Code” movie. We count on you to support our initiative as well as encourage the movie’s boycott among the Catholic faithful.

With this formidable task of going against worldwide public opinion, we hope to show the rest of the world that Filipino Catholics would stand up to defend the honor of the God-Man, that most singular Personage in all of history, the holy founder of Christianity, whom we call Our Lord Jesus Christ.

In closing, we kneel and kiss Your Excellency’s pastoral ring as we ask for your prayers and blessing.

Faithfully yours,

Dr. Jose Maria P. Alcasid

President

The Philippine Crusade for the Defense of Christian Civilization, Inc.

The Holy Women at the Sepulchre

[This is an excerpt from “The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, whose mystical witness of Jesus’ final journey took place during the season of Lent, 1823.]

The holy women were very near the door of Nicodemus’ house at the moment of our Lord’s Resurrection; but they did not see anything of the prodigies that were taking place at the sepulchre. They were not aware that the guards had been placed around the tomb, for they had not visited it on the previous day, on account of its being the Sabbath. They questioned one another anxiously concerning what would have to be done about the large stone at the door, as to who would be the best person to ask about removing it, for they had been so engrossed by grief that they had not thought about it before. Their intention was to pour precious ointments upon the body of Jesus, and then to strew over it flowers of the most rare and aromatic kinds, thus rendering all the honor possible to their Divine Master in his sepulchre. Salome, who had brought more things than any one else, was a rich lady, who lived in Jerusalem, a relation of St. Joseph, but not the mother of John. The holy women came to the determination of putting down their spices on the stone which closed the door of the monument, and waiting until some one came to roll it back.

The guards were still lying on the ground, and the strong convulsions which even then shook them clearly demonstrated how great had been their terror, and the large stone was cast on side, so that the door could be opened without difficulty. I could see the linen cloth in which the body of Jesus had been wrapped scattered about in the tomb, and the large winding sheet lying in the same place as when they left it, but doubled together in such a manner that you saw at one that it no longer contained anything but the spices which had been placed round the body, and the bandages were on the outside of the tomb. The linen cloth in which Mary had enveloped the sacred head of her Son was still there.

I saw the holy women coming into the garden; but when they perceived the light given by the lamps of the sentinels, and the prostrate forms of the soldiers round the tomb, they for the most part became much alarmed, and retreated towards Golgotha. Mary Magdalen was, however, more courageous, and, followed by Salome, entered the garden, while the other women remained timidly on the outside.

Magdalen started, and appeared for a moment terrified when she drew near the sentinels. She retreated a few steps and rejoined Salome, but both quickly recovered their presence of mind, and walked on together through the midst of the prostrate guards, and entered into the cave which contained the sepulchre. They immediately perceived that the stone was removed, but the doors were closed, which had been done in all probability by Cassius. Magdalen opened them quickly, looked anxiously into the sepulchre, and was much surprised at seeing that the cloths in which they had enveloped our Lord were lying on one side, and that the place where they had deposited the sacred remains was empty. A celestial light filled the cave, and an angel was seated on the right side. Magdalen became almost beside herself from disappointment and alarm. I do not know whether she heard the words which the angel addressed to her, but she left the garden as quickly as possible, and ran to the town to inform the apostles who were assembled there of what had taken place. I do not know whether the angel spoke to Mary Salome, as she did not enter the sepulchre; but I saw her leaving the garden directly after Magdalen, in order to relate all that had happened to the rest of the holy women, who were both frightened and delighted at the news, but could not make up their minds as to whether they would go to the garden or not.

In the meantime, Cassius had remained near the sepulchre in hopes of seeing Jesus, as he thought he would be certain to appear to the holy women; but seeing nothing, he directed his steps towards Pilate’s palace to relate to him all that had happened, stopping, however, first at the place where the rest of the holy women were assembled, to tell them what he had seen, and to exhort them to go immediately to the garden. They followed his advice, and went there at once. No sooner had they reached the door of the sepulchre than they beheld two angels clothed in sacerdotal vestments of the most dazzling white. The women were much alarmed, covered their faces with their hands, and prostrated almost to the ground; but one of the angels addressed them, bade them not fear, and told them that they must not seek for their crucified Lord there, for that he was alive, had risen, and was no longer an inhabitant of the tomb. He pointed out to them at the same moment the empty sepulchre, and ordered them to go and relate to the disciples all that they had seen and heard. He likewise told them that Jesus would go before them into Galilee, and recalled to their minds the words which our Savior had addressed to them on a former occasion: “The son of Man will be delivered into the hands of sinners, he will be crucified and the third day rise again.” The angels then disappeared, and left the holy women filled with joy, although of course greatly agitated; they wept, looked at the empty tomb and linen clothes, and immediately started to return to the town. But there were so much overcome by the many astounding events that had taken place that they walked very slowly, and stopped and looked back often, in hopes of seeing our Lord, or at least Magdalen.

In the meantime Magdalen reached the Cenaculum. She was so excited as to appear like a person beside herself, and knocked hastily at the door. Some of the disciples were still sleeping, and those who were risen were conversing together. Peter and John opened the door, but she only exclaimed, without entering the house, “They have taken away the body of my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him,” and immediately returned to the garden. Peter and John went back into the house, and after saying a few words to the other disciples followed her as speedily as possible, but John far outstripped Peter. I then saw Magdalen re-enter the garden, and direct her steps towards the sepulchre; she appeared greatly agitated, partly from grief, and partly from having walked so fast. Her garments were quite moist with dew, and her veil hanging on one side, while the luxuriant hair in which she had formerly taken so much pride fell in disheveled masses over her shoulders, forming a species of mantle. Being alone, she was afraid of entering the cave, but stopped for a moment on the outside, and knelt down in order to see better into the tomb. She was endeavoring to push back her long hair, which fell over he face and obscured her vision, when she perceived the two angels who were seated in the tomb, and I heard one of them address her thus: “Woman, why weepest thou?” She replied, in a voice choked with tears (for she was perfectly overwhelmed with grief at finding that the body of Jesus was really gone), “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” She said no more, but seeing the empty winding sheet, went out of the sepulchre and began to look about in other parts. She felt a secret presentiment that not only should she find Jesus, but that he was even then near to her; and the presence of angels seemed not to disturb her in the least; she did not appear even to be aware that they were angels, every faculty was engrossed with one thought, “Jesus is not there! Where is Jesus?” I watched her wandering about like an insane person, with her hair floating loosely in the wind; her hair appeared to annoy her much, for she again endeavored to push it from off her face, and having divided it into two parts, threw it over her shoulders.

She then raised her head, looked around, and perceived a tall figure, clothed in white, standing at about ten paces from the sepulchre on the east side of the garden, where there was a slight rise in the direction of the town; the figure was partly hidden from her sight by a palm-tree, but she was somewhat startled when it addressed her in these words: “Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?” She thought it was the gardener; and in fact, he had a spade in his hand, and a large hat (apparently made of the bark of trees) on his head. His dress was similar to that worn by the gardener described in the parable which Jesus had related to the holy women at Bethany a short time before his Passion. His body was not luminous, his whole appearance was rather that of a man dressed in white and seen by twilight. At the words, “Whom seekest thou?” She looked at him, and answered quickly, “Sir, if thou has taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him; and I will take him away.” And she looked anxiously around. Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She then instantly recognized his beloved voice, and turning quickly, replied, “Rabboni (Master)!” She threw herself on her knees before him, and stretched out her hands to touch his feet, but he motioned her to be still and said, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; your Father, to my God and your God.” He then disappeared.

The reason of the words of Jesus, ‘Do not touch me,’ was afterwards explained to me, but I have only an indistinct remembrance of that explanation, I think he made use of those words because of the impetuosity of Magdalen’s feelings, which made her in a certain degree forget the stupendous mystery which had been accomplished, and feel as if what she then beheld was still mortal instead of a glorified body. As for the words of Jesus, ‘I am not yet ascended to my Father,’ I was told that their meaning was that he had not presented himself to his Father since his Resurrection, to return him thanks for his victory over death, and for the work of the redemption which he had accomplished. He wished her to infer from these words, that the first-fruits of joy belong to God, and that she ought to reflect and return thanks to him for the accomplishment of the glorious mystery of the redemption, and for the victory which he had gained over death; and if she had kissed his feet as she used to before the Passion, she would have thought of nothing but her Divine Master, and in her raptures of love have totally forgotten the wonderful events which were causing such astonishment and joy in Heaven. I saw Magdalen arise quickly, as soon as our Lord disappeared and run to look again in the sepulchre, as if she believed herself under the influence of a dream. She saw the two angels still seated there, and they spoke to her concerning the resurrection of our Lord in the same words as they had addressed the two other women. She likewise saw the empty winding sheet, and then, feeling certain that she was not in a state of delusion, but that the apparition of our Lord was real, she walked quickly back towards Golgotha to seek her companions, who were wandering about to and fro, anxiously looking out for her return, and indulging a kind of vague hope that they should see or hear something of Jesus.

The whole of this scene occupied a little more than two or three minutes. It was about half-past three when our Lord appeared to Magdalen, and John and Peter entered the garden just as she was leaving it. John, who was a little in advance of Peter, stopped at the entrance of the cave and looked in. He saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and waited until Peter came up, when they entered the sepulchre together, and saw the winding-sheet empty as has been before described. John instantly believed in the Resurrection, and they both understood clearly the words addressed to them by Jesus before his Passion, as well as the different passages in Scripture relating to that event, which had until then been incomprehensible to them. Peter put the linen clothes under his cloak, and they returned hastily into the town through the small entrance belonging to Nicodemus.

The appearance of the Holy Sepulchre was the same when the two apostles entered as when Magdalen first saw it. The two adoring angels were seated, one at the head, and the other at the extremity of the tomb, in precisely the same attitude as when his adorable body was lying there. I do not think Peter was conscious of their presence. I afterwards heard John tell the disciples of Emmaus, that when he looked into the sepulchre he saw an angel. Perhaps he was startled by this sight, and therefore drew back and let Peter enter the sepulchre first; but it is likewise very possible that the reason of his not mentioning the circumstance in his gospel was because humility made him anxious to conceal the fact of his having been more highly favored than Peter.

The guards at this moment began to revive, and rising, gathered up their lances, and took down the lamps, which were on the door, from whence they cast a glimmering weak light on surrounding objects. I then saw them walked hastily out of the garden in evident fear and trepidation, in the direction of the town.

In the meantime, Magdalen had rejoined the holy women, and given them the account of her seeing the Lord in the garden, and of the words of the angels afterwards, whereupon they immediately related what had been seen by themselves, and Magdalen wended her way quickly to Jerusalem, while the women returned to that side of the garden where they expected to find the two apostles. Just before they reached it, Jesus appeared to them, and said to them, “All hail!” They started with astonishment, and cast themselves at his feet; he spoke a few words, held forth his hand as if to point out something to them, and disappeared. The holy women went instantly to the Cenaculum, and told the disciples who were assembled there that they had seen the Lord; the disciples were incredulous, and would not give credence either to their account or to that of Magdalen. They treated both the one and the other as the effects of their excited imaginations; but when Peter and John entered the room and related what they likewise had seen, they knew not what to answer; and were filled with astonishment.

Peter and John soon left the Cenaculum, as the wonderful events which had taken place rendered them extremely silent and thoughtful, and before long they met James the Less and Thaddeus, who had wished to accompany them to the sepulchre. Both James and Thaddeus were greatly overcome, for the Lord had appeared to them a short time before they met Peter and John. I also saw Jesus pass quite close to Peter and John. I think the former recognized him, for he started suddenly, but I do not think the latter saw him.

The Night of Resurrection

[This is an excerpt from “The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, whose mystical witness of Jesus’ final journey took place during the season of Lent, 1823.]

I soon after beheld the tomb of our Lord. All was calm and silent around it. There were six soldiers on guard, who were either seated or standing before the door, and Caassius was among them. His appearance was that of a person immersed in meditation and in the expectation of some great event. The sacred body of our Blessed Redeemer was wrapped in winding sheet, and surrounded with light, while two angels sat in an attitude of adoration, the one at the head, and the other at the feet. I had seen them in the same posture ever since he was first put into the tomb. These angels were clothed as priests. Their position, and the manner in which they crossed their arms over their breasts, reminded me of the cherubim who surrounded the Ark of the Covenant, only they were without wings; at least I did not see any. The whole of the sepulchre reminded me of the Ark of the Covenant at different periods of its history. It is possible that Cassius was sensible of the presence of the angels, and of the bright light which filled the sepulchre, for his attitude was like that of a person in deep contemplation before the Blessed Sacrament.

I next saw the soul of our Lord accompanied by those among the patriarchs whom he had liberated enter into the tomb through the rock. He showed them the wounds with which his sacred body was covered; and it seemed to me that the winding sheet which previously enveloped it was removed, and that Jesus wished to show the souls the excess of suffering he had endured to redeem them. The body appeared to me to be quite transparent, so that the whole dept of the wounds could be seen; and this sight filled the holy souls with admiration, although deep feelings of compassion l8ikewise drew tears from their eyes.

My next vision was so mysterious that I cannot explain or even relate it in clear manner. It appeared to me that the soul and boy of Jesus were taken together out of the sepulchre, without, however, the former being completely reunited to the latter, which still remained inanimate. I thought I saw two angels who were kneeling and adoring at the head and feet of the sacred boy, raise it – keeping it in the exact position in which it was lying in the tomb – and carry it uncovered and disfigured with wounds across the rock, which trembled as they passed. It them appeared to me that Jesus presented his body, marked with the stigmas of the Passion, to his Heavenly Father, who, seated on a throne, was surrounded by innumerable choirs of angels, blissfully occupied in pouring forth hymns of adoration and jubilee. The case was probably the same when, at the death of our Lord, so many holy souls re-entered their bodies, and appeared in the Temple and in different parts of Jerusalem; for it is not likely that the bodies which they animated were really alive, as in the case they would have been obliged to die a second time, whereas they returned to their original state without apparent difficulty; but it is to be supposed that their appearance in human form was similar to that of our Lord, when he (if we may thus express it) accompanied his body to the throne of his Heavenly Father.

At this moment the rock was so violently shaken, from the very summit to the base that three of the guards fell down and became almost insensible. The other four were away at the time, being gone to town to fetch something. The guards who were thus thrown prostrate attributed the sudden shock to an earthquake; but Cassius, who, although uncertain as to what all this might portend, yet felt an inward presentiment that it was the prelude to some stupendous event, stood transfixed in anxious expectation, waiting to see what would follow next. The soldiers who were gone to Jerusalem soon returned.

I again beheld the holy women: they had finished preparing the spices, and were resting in their private cells; not stretched out on the couches, but leaning against the bedclothes, were rolled up. They wished to go to the sepulchre before the break of day, because they feared meeting the enemies of Jesus, but the Blessed Virgin, who was perfectly renovated and filled with fresh courage since she had seen her Son, consoled and recommended them to sleep for a time, and then go fearlessly to the tomb, as no harm would come to them; whereupon they immediately followed her advice, and endeavored to sleep.

It was towards eleven o’clock at night when the Blessed Virgin, incited by irrepressible feelings of love, wrapped a gray cloak around her, and left the house quite alone. I saw her go first to the house of Caiphas, and then to the palace of Pilate, which was a great distance off; I watched her through the whole of her solitary journey along that part which had been trodden by her Son, loaded with his Cross; she stopped at every place where our Savior had suffered particularly, or had received any fresh outrage from his barbarous enemies. Appearance, as she walked slowly along, was that of a person seeking something; she often bent down to the ground, touched the stones with her hands, and then inundated them with kisses, if the precious blood of her beloved Son was upon them. God raged her at this time particular lights and graces, and she was able without the lightest degree of difficulty to distinguish every place sanctified by his sufferings. I accompanied her through the whole of her pilgrimage, and I endeavored to imitate here to the best of my power, as far as my weakness would permit.

Mary then went to Calvary; but when she had almost reached it, she stopped suddenly, and I saw the sacred body and soul of our Savior standing before her. An angel walked in front; two angels whom I had seen in the tomb were by his side, and the souls whom he had redeemed followed him by hundreds. The body of Jesus was brilliant and beautiful, bit its appearance was not that of a living body, although a voice issued from it; and I heard him described to the Blessed Virgin all he had done in Limbo, and then assure that he should arise again with glorified body; that he would then show himself to her, and that she must wait near the rock of Mount Calvary, and that part where she saw him fall down, until he appeared. Our Savior then went towards Jerusalem, and the Blessed Virgin, having again wrapped her veil about her, prostrated on the spot which he had pointed out. It was then, I think, past midnight, for the pilgrimage of Mary over the way of the Cross had taken up at least an hour; and I saw next the holy so7uls who had been redeemed by our Savior traverse in their turn the sorrowful Way of the Cross, and contemplate the different places where he hand endured such fearful sufferings for their sakes. The angel who accompanied them gather up and preserved the smallest fragments of our Lord’s sacred flesh that been torn off by the frequent blows he received, as also the blood which the ground was sprinkled on those spots where had fallen.

I once more saw the sacred body of our Lord stretched out as I first beheld in the sepulchre; the angels were occupied in replacing the fragments they had gathered up of his flesh, and they received supernatural assistance in doing this. When next I contemplated him it was in his winding sheet, surrounded with a bright light and with two adoring angels by his side. I cannot explain how all these things came to pass, for they are far beyond our human comprehension; and even if I understand them perfectly myself when I see them, they appear dark and mysterious when I endeavor to explain them to others.

As soon as a faint glimmering of dawn appeared in the east, I saw Magdalen, Mary the daughter of Cleophas, Johanna Chusa, and Salome, leave the Cenaculum, closely wrapped up in their mantles. They carried bundles of spices; and one their member had a lighted candle in her hand, which she endeavored to conceal under her cloak. I saw them direct their trembling steps towards the small door at the house of Nicodemus.

The Eve of the Resurrection

[This is an excerpt from “The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, whose mystical witness of Jesus’ final journey took place during the season of Lent, 1823.]

Toward the close of the Sabbath day, John came to see the holy women. He endeavored to give some consolation, but could not restrain his own tears, and only remained a short time with them. They had likewise a short visit from Peter and James the Greater, after which they retired to their cells, and gave free vent to grief, sitting upon ashes, and veiling themselves even more closely.

The prayer of the Blessed Virgin was unceasing. She ever kept her eyes fixed interiorly on Jesus, and was perfectly consumed by her ardent desire of once more beholding him whom she loved with such inexpressible love. Suddenly an angel stood by her side, and bade her rise and go the door of the dwelling of Necodemus, for that the Lord was very near. The heart of the Blessed Virgin leaped for joy. She hastily wrapped her cloak about her, and left the holy women, without informing them where she was going. I saw her walk quickly to a small entrance that was in the town wall, the identical one through which she had entered when returning with her companions from the sepulcher.

It was about nine o’clock at night, and the Blessed Virgin had almost reached the entrance, when I saw her stop suddenly in a very solitary spot, and look upwards in an ecstasy of delight, for on the top of the town wall she beheld the soul of our Lord, resplendent with light, without the appearance of a wound, and surrounded by patriarchs. He descend towards her, turned to his companions, and presenting her to them, said, ‘Behold Mary, behold my Mother.’ He appeared to me to salute her with a kiss, and he then disappeared. The Blessed Virgin knelt down, and most reverently kissed the ground on which he had stood, and the impression of her hands and knees remained imprinted upon the stones. This sight filled her with inexpressible joy, and she immediately rejoined the holy women, who were busily employed in preparing the perfumes and spices. She did not tell them what she had seen, but her firmness and strength of mind were restored. She as perfectly renovated, and therefore comforted all the rest, and endeavored to strengthen their faith.

Freedom for TLM

April 10, 2006 – A Vatican source told The Catholic News Agency [http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/] that Benedict XVI may grant permission to use the Missal of St. Pius V, the liturgical rite used in the Church before Vatican II. The announcement could come “between Holy Thursday and Easter Sunday,” but the exact day has not yet been set. Nevertheless, the source said the decision has already been made by the Holy Father and that it’s “only a matter of time” before it is publicly announced.

“A minor official gesture by the Holy Father would be enough to allow the Mass according to the 1962 Missal to celebrated by whoever desires to do so, thus reiterating that this rite is still valid today simply because it was not abolished,” the source told CNA. At the same time, such a gesture by the Pope could contribute to ending the schism with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

This hype about universal permission by the Pope to use the Missal of St. Pius V, the liturgical rite used in the Church before Vatican II will disappoint a lot of people. We cannot expect the “modern” bishops and priests in the Philippines to make a “mad rush” to the discipline of the Traditional Latin Mass. The CBCP, particularly the maverick bishops, are more concerned about politics than their mission to evangelize the faithful in the wake of heretical attempts to shatter our faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ and our belief that Judas truly betrayed the Christ. No wonder recruits for religious life are dwindling.

Slamming the door on the way out

Talking about slamming the door on the way out. Following the Writ of Preliminary Injunction of the appellate court last March 27, 2006, returning control of the subdivision gates forcibly taken by the police at the direction of Mayor Jun Bernabe of Parañaque, Barangay BF Homes Captain “Beng” Amurao writes an interesting but unsigned “dear fellow B.F. homeowners” letter. We wish to comment as follows:

“We … shall comply with the provisions of this court…

Really? If the intention is to fully comply with the appellate court resolution, what then was the purpose of the Muntinlupa hearing on the “Hon. City Mayor Florencio Bernabe of Parañaque suggesting that the outpost erected by the United BF Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (UBFHAI) located at Tirona Street which links Alabang Hills and BF Parañaque be dismantled?”

Yesterday, a representative of Mayor Jun Bernabe verbally demanded and his boys momentarily took control of the main gates, contending that the appellate court has accepted the city’s appeal for reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction. Under threat of contempt of court, they quickly withdrew.

But, hey, don’t slam the door on the way out.

“Should you experience any form of threat, harassment or any other kind of intimidation from UBFHAI, its security guards or volunteers, seeking to prevent you from entering the B.F subdivision to return your homes, please feel free to visit me in my office, or drop by the local police substation, bringing details of your complaints for prompt action.”

UBFHAI is determined to strictly screen vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the Integrated Security Program (ISP). This will undoubtedly cause inconvenience but this is the price we all have to pay in exchange for our peace of mind.

Residents are reminded that access to the Elizalde & Tirona gates is limited to pre-screened vehicles, i.e., vehicles of residents with “Red stickers” and their guests with “Green stickers”. Security will screen entering vehicles without vehicular “stickers” at the other 6 gates, allowing vehicles of residents without vehicular “stickers” to pass after showing proof of residency or when the vehicle owners are residents of BF Homes.

Voluminous outsider traffic and on-street and on-sidewalk parking vehicles make for a daily dose of traffic jams, making going out and coming home difficult and hazardous. In response, the Association raised the cost of vehicular “Green stickers” at prohibitive level to discourage passing-through. This vehicular volume reduction strategy will please the homeowners but will undoubtedly infuriate the owners and outsider clients of commercial establishments intruding into the residential zone.

Some hard cases are deliberately resisting vehicle screening at the entrance gates by leaving their vehicles at the gates purposely to block traffic. Instead of citing these arrogant traffic violators, the authorities often scold, if not apprehend, the security guards for harassment and for preventing a resident from going home.

The implementation of ISP is not meant to threaten, harass or intimidate or prevent residents from going home. This is ensure that movements at the gates and the main roads of vehicles and pedestrians and goods and services are legitimate and will not prejudice the homeowners. Let us cooperate and avoid insulting the personnel. Except for the village manager and a few clerks, many are civic minded volunteers – homeowners like you. They need your support and encouragement.

As to “prompt action”, let me quote a typical refrain of residents: “Hi… we had another break-in last night a few houses away from mine. Valuables and electronics were taken by the burglars. It took more than 30 minutes for the police to arrive. Kailangan pang sunduin. Grabe na talaga dito sa atin.” [Rough translation: We have to fetch them. Our situation is grave.]

“For your protection, we have detailed uniformed policemen at the Aguirre Avenue gate to protect B.F. Homeowners…”

This statement cannot be taken at face value. Consider this. To frustrate the fielding of security guards for the subdivision, the local government refuses to issue posting permits for uniformed security guards hired by the Association. Without posting permits, uniformed private security guards are being apprehended by the police and charged accordingly.

Yesterday, April 5, 2006, for the first time, policemen from Camp Crame, came to inspect the licenses and posting permits of security guards in the subdivision. This is police power at work, not harassment. And, it’s not true that BF Homes Subdivision is being singled out for inspection. What’s more, hindi na kailangan sunduin! Who made them efficient all of a sudden?

The commercial area in Phase I has been converted into one big parking area with the now arrogant “pito” boys licensed by the Barangay to collect “parking fees.” Not far behind are the security guards of the commercial establishments collecting “tips” for illegal parking.

Aguirre and President’s Avenues and Elizalde Street in the commercial district in Phase I are no on-street parking areas. This is to keep traffic at the main roads moving. Yet, despite repeated written appeals for enforcement from some 200 residents located at the end of President’s Avenue, the local authorities remain deaf to the appeal. The commercial establishments continue to appropriate the roads and sidewalks at President’s corner Aguirre Avenues for parking, double parking and sometimes triple parking, making going and coming home difficult and hazardous for residents.

Sure enough, late in the afternoon of April 3, 2006, another illegally parked vehicle backed-up into a passing vehicle of a resident in the vicinity of corner President’s and Aguirre Avenues. This is not the first traffic incident of this nature nor will it be the last.

We need policemen and Barangay tanods to enforce traffic and keep it moving, prevent illegal parking, apprehend “parking fees” extortionists and clear the sidewalk of ambulant vendors. We don’t need policemen and tanods to baby sit the security guards at the gate.

“We may be entering a period of crisis or confusion, but rest assured that we in the B.F Barangay Council are solidly behind you and will do everything in our power to protect your constitutional and human rights.”

If we are in “a period of crisis or confusion”, it is because the government is taking legal shortcuts, running roughshod over the rule of law.

It bears repeating that BF homeowners are the beneficial owners of the roads and open spaces privately titled to the developer, having paid for them when they purchased their properties. This includes the area of Aguirre Park “appropriated” by the Police, Barangay and Fire Department. That’s the appellate court’s opinion, not mine. As such, the local government cannot simply take over private property without due process guaranteed by our Constitution, that is, by expropriation or compensation.

Now you know why the criminal elements are successful in BF Homes Subdivision. They work together - the homeowners and the local authorities don’t.

Liturgical Concerns

Needless to say I received very little support on my liturgical concerns. It seems people are apprehensive about speaking out when given the chance, though I believe it is our duty to do so. Perhaps they worry that by doing so they are attacking and therefore not supporting the Church.

My grave concern is with regards the new rites of the “celebration of Mass”. Why is the Mass no longer referred to as a sacrifice, Christ’s sacrifice?

The Mass now is more focused on community and hand-shaking and hand-holding and less on solemnity, meditation and what the Mass is all about. The Mass is basically the combination of the Last Supper and the sacrifice on the cross. That should be the focus, not so much on the priest.

There is an unrelenting promotion of personal exuberance by our parish priest, no less. As a result, religious ceremonies, including even the Mass itself, have been turned into a form of entertainment. The draw is no longer God, but is now “community” and “celebration.” The priest is no longer standing “in persona Christi” but a “presider.” The prevailing theme is that Christians are gloriously happy people. God is no longer the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Why are women treading the sanctuary and attending the Altar where even the Mother of my Christ would not venture?

There are other ways for a girl to serve God, but there are no better ways for a young boy to prepare for a possible vocation to the priesthood. The role of server was part of the process of becoming a priest. Allowing girls to serve has upset the natural progression of priestly ministries. There used to be a natural growth from youth to maturity beginning as an altar server and possibly becoming a priest. Now that serving at the altar has been cut off from this natural process, joining the priesthood has become more like choosing a job than discerning a call from God.

Why are lay men (and indeed women!) being made into “Eucharistic” ministers to give the Body and Blood of Christ where His priest and priest alone should give?

We learn from The Great Façade [by Christopher A. Ferrara & Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] that the Instruction called Immensae Caritatis, issued on January 29, 1973, by the Congregation for Divine Worship authorized the introduction of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to administer Communion in “cases of genuine necessity which are listed as follows: (a) when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, (b) when these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age, (c) when the number of the faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that the celebration of the Mass or distribution of the Eucharist outside Mass would be unduly prolonged.

The Instruction stipulates that “[s]ince these faculties are granted only for the spiritual good of the faithful and for cases of genuine necessity, priests are to remember that they are not excused from the tasked of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful who legitimately request it, and especially taking and giving it to the sick.”

Today’s “Eucharistic Ministers” actually operates in defiance of existing Vatican norms. The main ambiguity which gave rise to today’s proliferation of the “lay ministers” was the justification of their use if Mass would be “unduly prolonged”. Now, how long is “unduly prolonged”? It depends who interprets it. The lack of precision gives rise to wide interpretation, and wide interpretation gives rise to the establishment of an abuse under the appearance of fidelity to Church regulations. And once a fad like “Extraordinary Ministers” becomes widespread, and everybody’s doing it simply because everybody’s doing it, then who even pays attention to existing guidelines anyway?

JPII made at least a paper attempt to curb the abuse which was completely unsuccessful. In his letter Domincae Cenae of February 24, 1980, the Pope restated the Church’s teaching that “to touch the sacred species and to administer them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” Strangely enough, the document contained no threat of penalty to any layman, priest or bishop who ignored the Pope’s plea. A law without a penalty is not a law, it’s a suggestion. The clergy completely ignored the Pope’s plea.

It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult,” or concession, but the “indult” has now become the norm. Why are our pastors silent about the law of our universal Church on Communion?

Now we are at the point where Communion in the hand is viewed as a superior way of receiving the Eucharist and the vast majority of our little children are being misinstructed to receive First Communion in the hand. The faithful are told that is an optional practice, and if they don’t like it, they can receive it on the tongue.

The tragedy of it all is, if it is optional for the laity, in practice it is not optional for the clergy. Priests are instructed that they must administer Communion in the hand, whether they like it or not, to anyone who requests it, thereby throwing many good priests into an agonizing crisis of conscience.

It is obvious that no priest can be lawfully forced to administer Communion in the hand, and we must pray that more priests will have the courage to safeguard the reverence due to this Sacrament and not be trapped into a false obedience that causes them to cooperate in the degradation of Christ in the Eucharist.

Why is the Tabernacle not in the center position of the Sanctuary?

In our church, I find it odd that the tabernacle is situated to one side of the sanctuary while an open bible is situated on the other. This gives the impression that the tabernacle and the bible are of equal importance, which of course they are not. This arrangement probably came about because of the design of the sanctuary wherein the figure of the risen Christ occupies the central position. Since there is no more space for the tabernacle in the center, it has to be placed to one side. The open bible was probably placed opposite the tabernacle in the sanctuary to achieve some sort of “artistic balance.” The Institutio Generalis does not provide for the placing of an open bible in the sanctuary. On the other hand, Inæstimabile Donum has this to say:

“The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is kept can be located on an altar, or away from it, in a spot in the church which is very prominent, truly noble, and duly decorated, or in a chapel suitable for private prayer and for adoration by the faithful.”[ID 24]

Placing an open bible opposite that of the tabernacle in the sanctuary just to achieve some sort of “artistic balance” clearly goes against the teaching of Inæstimabile Donum. It not only gives the wrong impression of equal importance, it detracts from the proper worship and adoration of the Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle by drawing unnecessary attention to it.

Michael Davies saw the need to demonstrate that there was nothing in the Council documents and even in the postconciliar legislation that mandated or even recommended reordering the sanctuaries and de-centering the tabernacles (see his The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council [Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1997]). It is never required that the “president’s” chair be in front and center stage; it is never required that Mass be celebrated “towards the people”; and, for a time at least, it was taken for granted that the ordinary of the Mass would remain in Latin, as it had always been.

The Mass and our belief in the True Presence set us aside from the Protestantism that I feared attacking our Church from within. I apologize for speaking out but the laity has been invited to do just this, and for those who wanted to be as one with our separated brethren they should go out and invite them into our glorious Church and one true Faith, and not go out to join with theirs.