The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation

Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example and by prayer labors for their conversion.

Source: Lumen Gentium 11 par 2; 1422 Catechism of the Catholic Church

Pagpili

Daghan ang rason sa pagpili sa kandidato. Ekonomiya, imigrasyon, kawad-on ug polisang panglangyaw. Apan adunay isyu nga midyo nataligam-an sa tawo tungod  sa sobrang paglantaw  sa  iyang kaugalingong interes. Kon atong siksikon ug subayon ang kutay sa interes sa isyu sa ekonomiya, imigrasyon, kawad-on ug polisang panglangyaw mouli ra gihapon kini sa kaugalingong interes ug mahulog sa usa ka kategoriya nga gitawag og materyalismo. Kini nga mga isyu nagpunting sa kaayohan sa kinabuhi sa mga nahimugso na, mga tawo nga maantigo na nga modepensa sa ilang kaugalingon, makatingog ug makareklamo sa kalisod.

Apan sa gikaingon ko na sa unahan adunay isyu nga nataligam-an. Ang isyu sa kinabuhi nga dili intawon pa makatingog ug makapanalipod sa iyang kaugalingon. Kinabuhi nga gapitik ug gasalig sa pusod nga midugtong kaniya sa iyang inahan. Inosente apan naangin sa pinakayawan-on nga buhat, ang aborsyon.

Unsa man gayoy labing importanti nga isyu? Nagdepende ba kini sa unsa nga rasa ikaw nahisakop? Nagdepende ba kini sa unsang ang-ang sa ekonomikanhong hut-ong ikaw nahisakop? Kini nga mga isyu dili gyod makalabaw sa isyu sa aborsyon tungod kay mipatay na kini sa minilyon ka kinabuhi sa walay pag-ila sa kapobrehon ug kaadunahan, sa walay pag-ila sa rasa, puti, itom, o tabunon man.

Basi sa taho sa National Right to Life, mokabat sa 48.5 milyones ka aborsyon ang nahitabo sukad sa tuig 1973. Walay gubat, walay katalagman, walay sakit nga makalabaw sa kadaghan sa nangamatay tungod niini.

Sa iyang sulat-pastoral, si Most Reverend  Joseph Martino sa Diyosis sa Scranton, PA mikutlo sa pamahayag sa gisundan niya nga Obispo si Most Reverend Timlin:

“Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.

My fellow bishops, writing ten years ago, explained why some evils – abortion and euthanasia in particular – take precedence over other forms of violence and abuse. The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation [ emphasis in the original]. These directly and  immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand.”

Philippines Court Rejects Claims of New York Based Pro-Abortion Group

By Samantha Singson
    
     (NEW YORK – C-FAM) The Philippine Court of Appeals recently rejected claims made by a radical pro-abortion group based in New York. The court dismissed an effort seeking to overturn an executive order promoting natural family planning.  The petition was filed earlier this year by a group of Manila residents who relied heavily on legal advice and material from the international pro-abortion litigation group, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).
    
     Executive Order No. 003 was instituted in February 2000 by then-mayor of Manila, Jose Atienza. The executive order “upholds natural family planning not just as a method but as a way of self-awareness in promoting the culture of life while discouraging the use of artificial methods of contraception.” 
   
     CRR admits that the executive order technically applies only to city health centers and hospitals and does not explicitly ban “artificial” contraception.  But CRR and the petitioners alleged that the executive order created “serious and lingering damage to residents” and that the executive order has in practice resulted in a “sweep” of contraceptive supplies and services from city health centers and hospitals. Further, they claim that the executive order “deprive(s) many women of their main source of affordable family planning supplies.”
    
     “Imposing Misery,” a CRR publication severely critical of the executive order, claims that the Philippines is in violation of international law and has a legal duty to “ensure right of citizens to a full range of family planning services and information.”  
    
     The document argues that the Philippine government is required to provide contraception under its international legal obligations.  The document specifically mentions the CEDAW Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the non-binding Beijing Platform for Action.  CRR’s international law argument relies almost exclusively on the non-binding interpretations of the treaty monitoring bodies, which have routinely overstepped their mandates by criticizing sovereign states on their abortion laws and reproductive health programs.
    
     “Imposing Misery” outlines a litigation strategy to challenge the executive order. CRR recommends that “lawyers and advocates should explore different legal avenues to bring a court case challenging the executive order. “At the national level, an administrative complaint can be filed. Citizens who feel their rights have been violated by the policy can also file a petition in the courts, including the Supreme Court. If options at the national level prove ineffective, individual complaints can be taken to international bodies under the CEDAW Optional Protocol and the ICCPR.” 
   
     CRR regards the challenge to the Manila executive order as an important test case. According to CRR’s 2007 annual report, a positive decision to rescind the ban “would establish constitutional protections for reproductive rights throughout the country. It could also be used to defend similar rights in neighboring countries, as well as in Catholic countries throughout the world.”
   
     Government officials have defended the focus on natural methods of family planning, as modern contraceptives have not been banned and are still available commercially throughout the country.
    
     Though the Philippine Court of Appeals has dismissed the petition, the petitioners have vowed “to take their case to the international courts,” and other domestic avenues to challenge the order remain open.