If the CBCP could earn from condoms, will it support the RH bill?

The average churchgoer may not be aware of it but The Vatican owns a very profitable bank called the Institute for Works of Religion or more popularly known as the Vatican Bank. It has been the subject of lawsuits — one accusing the bank of profiting from gold looted by Nazi puppets during World War II (Google “Emil Alperin et al. v. Vatican Bank et al”) and another demanding the release of intelligence reports gathered by a Vatican spy (Google “Levy v. CIA”). If you want a more entertaining jumpstart toward learning about the Vatican Bank, go and see The Godfather III then read about Roberto Calvi, nicknamed “God’s banker”, who was found hanging on a bridge in London in 1982. The most recent news about the Vatican Bank involves money laundering which the Italian authorities has been investigating.

In short, then and now, the Catholic Church has always been involved in banking for profit. It doesn’t go around announcing it but the church likes money. Lots of money.

The banking activities of the church has not been limited to The Vatican. In the Philippines, funds of the Archdiocese of Manila gave birth to the Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank in the 1800s. The bank operated for a hundred years with the Archbishop of Manila sitting as chairman of the board until investigations revealed that it had been lending money to ghost borrowers which led to its shutdown and eventual sale to the Keppel Group. Another sale followed and what used to be Monte de Piedad is now G.E. Bank.

In Germany, the Catholic Church owns Pax Bank.

Der Spiegel newspaper discovered the bank had invested 580,000 euros (£495,310, $826,674) in British arms company BAE Systems.

It also invested 160,000 euros in American birth control pill maker Wyeth and 870,000 euros in tobacco companies [BBC News].

Underscore mine.

Now you get the context in which I ask the question: “If the CBCP could earn on condoms, will it support the RH bill?” In fact, let’s ask the more general question. If the Catholic Church could earn from the manufacture and sales of all forms of contraceptives, including birth control pills and condoms, will it change its stand on birth control and safe sex?

Is that a rhetorical question? Not really. The church likes money. So, I’m thinking in terms of give and take. The church does not want to “lose” by changing its stand but if it could “win” in some other way, perhaps, the loss would be easier to accept.

If the Reproductive Health Bill were passed, the implementing rules will naturally include provisions on how the government will acquire contraceptive accessories for distribution. As government projects go, it’s usually a case of bidding and the lowest bidder gets the contract. We all know that products manufactured by multinational pharmaceutical companies are terribly overpriced (that’s what led to the Generic Drugs Law). If the church, through the CBCP or directly, were to invest and hold majority stocks in a company that manufactures contraceptives and that company can offer the lowest bid to the government, well, that would be a win-win situation. Why… the government and the church could be working as partners under a revitalized Reproductive Health Law! Isn’t that wonderful?

But how could the church-owned company ensure that it would be the lowest bidder? Should it bribe the officials involved in the bidding process? Not necessarily. Prices of medicines soar because of advertising and marketing expenses. If the church-owned company stayed away from them (the objective is just to be the lowest bidder with no intention to sell to the public, anyway) and made no-frills products (never mind the fruit-flavored colored condoms in fancy packaging), it could keep the prices low.

Now, transform that scenario into a global one. The church could be earning billions and billions without much work.

So, dear CBCP, don’t you think that’s a win-win situation? Bishops are not kings but they can live like kings if they were smart.

140 thoughts on “If the CBCP could earn from condoms, will it support the RH bill?

  • October 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    Permalink

    Oh no Ms Connie! You’re poking at a hornet’s nest. Hahahaha.

    I’m sure there will be people out there with a perfect picture of the Church, who REFUSE to admit that it’s essentially a business (read comments from your last article).

    But at least you provided facts, and that’s what matters. Now, if only lemmings stop denying the real
    proclivities of the Church…

    Reply
    • October 4, 2010 at 5:05 pm
      Permalink

      Facts are facts. Any comment denying the existence and activities of the Vatican Bank will get a beating hahahaha

      Reply
      • October 4, 2010 at 5:09 pm
        Permalink

        I really hope the church could read this nice post of yours and learn from it, or better , they should just let the state do its job, and they should should just prepare the us, 80 million and still growing Filipinos, for our place in heaven. It’s going to be a tough job praying for every Filipino soul being born by the minute since they seem to be more busy in politics than in anything else.

        Reply
      • October 4, 2010 at 9:38 pm
        Permalink

        Did somebody mention lynching fundies?

        I’ll bring the gasoline :)

        Reply
          • October 5, 2010 at 9:12 am
            Permalink

            Tsk, tsk, Tita Connie. Remember your chemistry.

            Gasoline won’t light up from a casually tossed lit cigarette. Its ignition point is much higher than that. May I recommend a blowtorch?

          • October 5, 2010 at 9:45 am
            Permalink

            It does. IT DOES. Try it under controlled circumstances so you don’t start a wild fire.

  • October 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    Permalink

    I became interested in the Vatican Bank during my European history classes. The subject alone could spawn many novels and movies that could rival those of Dan Brown’s work, new conspiracy and mystery tales involving more realistic scenarios like money laundering, economic sabotage ala Wall Street 1 and 2.

    Reply
    • October 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm
      Permalink

      Okay, that is a brilliant idea!!! It is really win-win as it allows the church to save face. Gives them an “excuse” to back away.

      Reply
  • October 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    wow, thank you so much for sharing this information. i like these kind of stories.
    by the way, for those bloggers who wants to increase readership, i am sharing a formula for free…visit my blog and read on it.

    Reply
    • October 4, 2010 at 10:42 pm
      Permalink

      “these kind of stories”?

      Ang kapal mo naman to plug your blog after making a nonsensical comment to the entry. Your URL was duly deleted.

      Reply
  • October 4, 2010 at 11:34 pm
    Permalink

    “If the CBCP could earn on condoms, will it support the RH bill?” – Ms. Connie
    Very intriguing question Ms. Connie.
    I definitely won’t buy a CBCP-sponsored condom…
    I have a suspicious mind…

    I can only imagine a tiny, teeny weeny hole at the tip of every condom. :-)

    Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 7:54 am
        Permalink

        Or… another way of looking at it is… they earn while the population continues to multiply! ;)

        Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
      Permalink

      Sa title pa lang Connie natawa ako but reading further on about church in the Philippines being owners of banks and that the Catholic Church in Germany invests in Wyeth is appalling to me. For the latter not because I am against contraceptives but the hypocrisy of it. I know a priest in our hometown who runs a business of herbal medicine on the side and owns all these hi-tech stuff which makes me question where his vows of poverty went. But reading about the church’s love affair with money I can only say, no wonder. The church doesn’t set a good example to their disciples.

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm
        Permalink

        Speedy mentioned vow of poverty too and I said I think that the church has answered that before — that only certain orders practice the vow of poverty but not all. Not really an answer but what the heck. In Manila, the Archbishop lives in the Archbishop’s Palace and it is palatial. Then, looking at the grandeur of the Vatican itself, I really don’t know how poverty factors in.

        Reply
        • October 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm
          Permalink

          Imagine how many mouths they can feed in Africa and India if the Vatican sold half its art pieces…

          Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 12:28 am
    Permalink

    Just playing the role of devil’s advocate.

    As for the Vatican Bank, a snippet from http://tinyurl.com/5j4xj8

    The Institute for Works of Religion or commonly known as the Vatican Bank, is a privately held institute located inside Vatican City run by a professional bank CEO who reports directly to a committee of cardinals, and ultimately to the Pope (or the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church during a sede vacante). Since its assets are not considered property of the Holy See, it is not overseen by the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and it is listed in the Annuario Pontificio together with foundations such as the John Paul II Foundation for the Sahel, which provides funds for training people to fight drought and desertification in nine African countries. The current President is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi…

    …According to the norms of its present statutes, which came into effect in 1990, the IOR is directed by a supervisory council and by an oversight commission of cardinals.

    As for the lawsuits of Emil Alperin et al. v. Vatican Ban, one can reads the issue of justiciability and where each claims is scrutinize – http://tinyurl.com/3yp9wvc

    Bottomline – nothing is conclusive yet notwithstanding that the US court overturned its previous decision of dismissing the case on the ground of sovereign immunity because of a strong probable cause to pursue the case.

    You’ve commented “If you want a more entertaining jumpstart toward learning about the Vatican Bank, go and see The Godfather III then read about Roberto Calvi, nicknamed “God’s banker”, who was found hanging on a bridge in London in 1982”

    I can only deduce that you want Godfather III as a preface to familiarize the readers with the murder of Roerto Calvi. Yes, just like the Godfather III, it was conclusively determined that the Mafia was involved with his murder.

    The involvement of Vatican – the controversy surrounding Calvi’s dealings at Banco Ambrosiano was the echo of a previous scandal in 1974, when the Holy See lost an estimated $30 million as a result of the collapse of the Franklin National Bank, which was owned by the Sicilian-born financier Michele Sindona Read it more here – http://tinyurl.com/3y7jlq

    As for Monte de Piedad, it was audited and was found out to be lending money (their lending program is lending to the poorest of the poor, targeting tricycle drivers and teachers) to fictitious individuals that were coursed or endorsed by the privately owned Strategic Lending Investor or LSI. The bank had failed to maintain individual ledgers for the 2.5 million pesos loan programs as per BSP audit and they have to be shutdown.

    As you’ve commented, “In short, then and now, the Catholic Church has always been involved in banking for profit. It doesn’t go around announcing it but the church likes money. Lots of money.”

    It seems to me that from those items that I’ve cited, about the involvement of church with banking business or industry, they keep on losing a lot of money.

    BTW, Wyeth main products are (OTC) drugs Robitussin and the analgesic Advil (ibuprofen), as well as the prescription drugs Premarin and Effexor, which both boast over US$3 billion in their sales annually according to http://tinyurl.com/38yrtol. Maybe I’m talking of a different Wyeth here. Anyway, the Vatican has apologized with their mistake which I’m just curious you didn’t mention.

    Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 9:43 am
      Permalink

      The first link is from Wikipedia and it says right there on top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

      Re “they keep on losing a lot of money”

      Lots of banks, including rural banks, declare “losses” and some even declare bankruptcy. But the losses are not real. Rather, the top officials abscond with the money. I’d love to cite specific examples but I’m bound by attorney-client privilege.

      Re Wyeth: It is the same multinational Wyeth.

      “the Vatican has apologized with their mistake which I’m just curious you didn’t mention.”

      That’s entirely irrelevant. Investments aren’t made as though they were afterthoughts. Bank investments are thoroughly studied before money is poured in. And the apology is just geared to deflect from that reality.

      Reply
      • October 5, 2010 at 11:23 pm
        Permalink

        Sass, ass you’ve commented –

        “The first link is from Wikipedia and it says right there on top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed.”:

        Kung matyaga lang magbasa, these are the disputes – http://tinyurl.com/32rlemo (Wiki pa rin)

        Reply
        • October 5, 2010 at 11:24 pm
          Permalink

          Sass, my apology. I think I have to buy a new keyboard.

          He…he…he…

          Reply
        • October 6, 2010 at 9:28 am
          Permalink

          Yah, I’ve read all that before. Which translates to — until issues are threshed out, better cite other sources.

          Reply
          • October 6, 2010 at 11:23 pm
            Permalink

            These are some of the discussions on the neutrality of the article in Wiki for the Vatican bank:

            “Uncited Claims

            Almost the whole article is uncited, but I removed the paragraph I thought was the harshest and most clearly demanding proof. Do not replace it until the claims are cited, but feel free to remove other uncited claims.

            The Vatican Bank was a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. Part of what made the Bank so profitable was that it offered certain illegal services; for 5%, the Bank would launder industrialists’ money, or money of those well-connected with the Catholic Church. The money laundering scandal leaked out in 1968 due to a change in Italian financial regulations, which would have mandated more transparency. To prevent the scandal that would occur when the public learned that the Vatican Bank (which was supposed to funnel all profits directly and immediately to charity) had in fact retained most of its profits and expanded its operations, Pope Paul VI enlisted Michele Sindona as papal finance advisor to sell off assets and move money overseas to hide the full extent of Vatican wealth. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family’s heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation “Mabusi”. This laundering was accomplished with the help of another dirty banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Interestingly, both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge.

            When Pope John Paul I became Pope, he learned of the Bank’s doing, and instructed Cardinal Jean Villot (papal secretary of state and head of the papal Curia) to investigate the matter thoroughly. Curiously, a month later, after informing Villot that he was going public with the scandal (and firing Villot among others), John Paul I died. John Paul II ignored the matter, and allowed Sindona free play for a number of years after.

            –Superm401 – Talk 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

            Done. –maru (talk) contribs 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

            So now it is “sourced”. Does that mean that the source has any credibility? Run a google search on “The Moneychangers: How the Vatican Bank Enabled Roberto Calvi to Steal 250 Million Dollars for the Heads of the P2 Masonic Lodge”. There are TWO unique hits. One hit is the wikipedia article on the Vatican Bank, and the other is Amazon.com (not surprisingly, this book is “not in stock” and has “no comments”). Translation: this book is about as worthy of citation as a Jack Chick pamplet aimed at the Catholic Church.

            If Wikipedia allowed citations of any and every conspiracy theory, it would be full of junk. If you cite a questionable source, you should at LEAST make that clear to the casual reader (who will typically not bother to confirm source accuracy in “Wikipedia”, which some people view as a serious source in its own right). –Jos231 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

            That’s not the only source there, and it does make it clear that it is alleged. — Gwern (contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)”

    • October 5, 2010 at 11:24 pm
      Permalink

      I have gone through investment portfolio and the actions are deliberate. The investment section of the Vatican is overseen by a cardinal. They knew if they picked up companies who have policy issues with the Church teachings especially with Wyeth.

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 12:03 am
        Permalink

        d0d0ng, you did not elaborate any further with your comment. Nevertheless, in a nutshell, if what I suspect the thing you want to comment is what I’m thinking of, the Vatican is thinking people outside them are stupid.

        The people will not see through it specially the progressive secular fringe?

        Reply
      • October 7, 2010 at 6:41 am
        Permalink

        It is more of its nature. There is cloak of secrecy and power in Vatican as a sovereign state. There were already several investigations by the US Feds in the past and just recently the Italian authorities on money laundering. In the end, Vatican will always invoke its sovereign power. The most thing that any country can do is to freeze or seize the illegal assets but zero on convictions of any church officials.

        The other interesting part is the church accomodation of its arch enemy Freemasons in its hierarchy. It has become a revolving door after its absolute power was diminished by the political revolution in Italy instigated by the freemasons. The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican.

        Reply
        • October 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm
          Permalink

          d0d0ng,

          He he he, I’m sure the readers could have their oohs and aahs more or maybe less pronounced (or shall we say more cringe-inducing, either way, on how they will react on the facts) if they can read it directly from the disinterested sources which maybe you can provide. I hope they’re not from those secular progressive or even from those environment/animals’ rights/climate change sites.

          Your claims/insinuations:

          o There were already several investigations by the US Feds in the past and just recently the Italian authorities on money laundering. In the end, Vatican will always invoke its sovereign power.

          (This one always remind me of how the Mainland China, North Korea, Iran on how they deal with their intrusion on the sovereignty of other countries. Bully them more and the UN is very quiet about them. And the Vatican is just invoking it’s sovereignty from those allegations.)

          o The most thing that any country can do is to freeze or seize the illegal assets but zero on convictions of any church officials.

          (Has it been proven that the Vatican own those “illegal” assets that you’re insinuating? Or just assets that have to be tied for a litigation?)

          o The other interesting part is the church accommodation of its arch enemy Freemasons in its hierarchy. It has become a revolving door after its absolute power was diminished by the political revolution in Italy instigated by the freemasons.

          (Why not?)

          o The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican.

          (Effectively reduced…duh… Last time I’ve checked, the Vatican City State is different from the Holy See.)

          Reply
        • October 8, 2010 at 1:16 am
          Permalink

          “Last time I’ve checked, the Vatican City State is different from the Holy See.”

          That did not change. Holy See represents the spiritual power of 1.2 billion Catholics all over the world through the Roman Curia (Papal Court) which is the adminitrative apparatus. One of the most important part of the papal court is the congregations where each congregation is headed by a cardinal. The cardinal being in their own respective countries illustrate the difference between the Vatican City State and the Holy See. Vatican issues normal passport but Holy See (not a country) can issue diplomatic passport. That is complex enough to shield its members from any crime.

          Reply
          • October 8, 2010 at 1:27 am
            Permalink

            What I want to highlight is your comment:

            “The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican.”

            How its territorial power was cut short which I can’t find any substantiated source in the web.

          • October 8, 2010 at 2:34 am
            Permalink

            Check Papal States by Wikipedia.

            “During the Renaissance, the papal territory expanded greatly, notably under Popes Alexander VI and Julius II. The Pope became one of Italy’s most important secular rulers as well as the head of the Church, signing treaties with other sovereigns and fighting wars. In practice, though, most of the Papal States was still only nominally controlled by the Pope, and much of the territory was ruled by minor princes. ”

            “The French Revolution proved as disastrous for the temporal territories of the Papacy as it was for the Roman Church in general. In 1791 the Comtat Venaissin and Avignon were annexed by France. Later, with the French invasion of Italy in 1796, the Legations were seized and became part of the revolutionary Cisalpine Republic.”

            You can also read “Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States” to the conclusion of Lateran Treaty which created the state of Vatican (for the loss of territory).

          • October 9, 2010 at 6:14 pm
            Permalink

            Perhaps, I was wrong in interpreting your comment – “The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created…” as different from the below:

            From the Wiki:

            “Vatican City was established in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty, signed by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri, on behalf of the Holy See and by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini on behalf of the Kingdom of Italy. Vatican City State IS DISTINCT FROM THE Holy See, which dates back to early Christianity and is the main episcopal see of 1.166 billion Latin and Eastern Catholic adherents around the globe. Ordinances of Vatican City are published in Italian; official documents of the Holy See are issued mainly in Latin.”

  • October 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
    Permalink

    Oh no Ms Connie! You're poking at a hornet's nest. Hahahaha.

    I'm sure there will be people out there with a perfect picture of the Church, who REFUSE to admit that it's essentially a business (read comments from your last article).

    But at least you provided facts, and that's what matters. Now, if only lemmings stop denying the real
    proclivities of the Church…

    Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 1:05 am
      Permalink

      Facts are facts. Any comment denying the existence and activities of the Vatican Bank will get a beating hahahaha

      Reply
      • October 5, 2010 at 5:38 am
        Permalink

        Did somebody mention lynching fundies?

        I'll bring the gasoline :)

        Reply
          • October 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm
            Permalink

            Tsk, tsk, Tita Connie. Remember your chemistry.

            Gasoline won't light up from a casually tossed lit cigarette. Its ignition point is much higher than that. May I recommend a blowtorch?

          • October 5, 2010 at 5:45 pm
            Permalink

            It does. IT DOES. Try it under controlled circumstances so you don't start a wild fire.

  • October 5, 2010 at 1:09 am
    Permalink

    I really hope the church could read this nice post of yours and learn from it, or better , they should just let the state do its job, and they should should just prepare the us, 80 million and still growing Filipinos, for our place in heaven. It's going to be a tough job praying for every Filipino soul being born by the minute since they seem to be more busy in politics than in anything else.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 2:17 am
    Permalink

    This is actually the best illustration of Wall Street lingo of “hedging”.

    The Mother Church is heavily invested in the increase of its faithful members that provides money through church collections. Even the poor is willing to give up its most treasured pesos for a prayer. Realistically, not so much different from the local JUETENG (its competitor, another front where it is waging a fierce battle). There is so much stake in reproductive health bill which will stop the population growth in a tiny country like Philippines. Europe which is wealthy is zero growth in population. But a similar size territory in Europe has lesser number of bishops compared to the bishops in the Philippines. A bishop commands a significant receipts to the Vatican.

    But with the encroachment of progressive policies like contraception in wealthy countries and so the decline in numbers and remittances. So this is where HEDGE is set-up to invest in companies that manufacture contraceptions to offset the remittance losses.

    Reply
    • October 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm
      Permalink

      Yep, just like multinational companies who can no longer sell unhealthy food and so-so drugs in rich countries — they dump it all in the Third World.

      Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 3:35 am
    Permalink

    I became interested in the Vatican Bank during my European history classes. The subject alone could spawn many novels and movies that could rival those of Dan Brown's work, new conspiracy and mystery tales involving more realistic scenarios like money laundering, economic sabotage ala Wall Street 1 and 2.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 4:39 am
    Permalink

    Okay, that is a brilliant idea!!! It is really win-win as it allows the church to save face. Gives them an "excuse" to back away.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 4:39 am
    Permalink

    wow, thank you so much for sharing this information. i like these kind of stories.
    by the way, for those bloggers who wants to increase readership, i am sharing a formula for free…visit my blog and read on it.

    Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 6:42 am
      Permalink

      "these kind of stories"?

      Ang kapal mo naman to plug your blog after making a nonsensical comment to the entry. Your URL was duly deleted.

      Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 7:34 am
    Permalink

    "“If the CBCP could earn on condoms, will it support the RH bill?” – Ms. Connie
    Very intriguing question Ms. Connie.
    I definitely won't buy a CBCP-sponsored condom…
    I have a suspicious mind…

    I can only imagine a tiny, teeny weeny hole at the tip of every condom. :-)

    Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm
        Permalink

        Or… another way of looking at it is… they earn while the population continues to multiply! ;)

        Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
    Permalink

    Just playing the role of devil’s advocate.

    As for the Vatican Bank, a snippet from http://tinyurl.com/5j4xj8

    The Institute for Works of Religion or commonly known as the Vatican Bank, is a privately held institute located inside Vatican City run by a professional bank CEO who reports directly to a committee of cardinals, and ultimately to the Pope (or the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church during a sede vacante). Since its assets are not considered property of the Holy See, it is not overseen by the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and it is listed in the Annuario Pontificio together with foundations such as the John Paul II Foundation for the Sahel, which provides funds for training people to fight drought and desertification in nine African countries. The current President is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi…

    …According to the norms of its present statutes, which came into effect in 1990, the IOR is directed by a supervisory council and by an oversight commission of cardinals.

    As for the lawsuits of Emil Alperin et al. v. Vatican Ban, one can reads the issue of justiciability and where each claims is scrutinize – http://tinyurl.com/3yp9wvc

    Bottomline – nothing is conclusive yet notwithstanding that the US court overturned its previous decision of dismissing the case on the ground of sovereign immunity because of a strong probable cause to pursue the case.

    You’ve commented “If you want a more entertaining jumpstart toward learning about the Vatican Bank, go and see The Godfather III then read about Roberto Calvi, nicknamed “God’s banker”, who was found hanging on a bridge in London in 1982”

    I can only deduce that you want Godfather III as a preface to familiarize the readers with the murder of Roerto Calvi. Yes, just like the Godfather III, it was conclusively determined that the Mafia was involved with his murder.

    The involvement of Vatican – the controversy surrounding Calvi's dealings at Banco Ambrosiano was the echo of a previous scandal in 1974, when the Holy See lost an estimated $30 million as a result of the collapse of the Franklin National Bank, which was owned by the Sicilian-born financier Michele Sindona Read it more here – http://tinyurl.com/3y7jlq

    As for Monte de Piedad, it was audited and was found out to be lending money (their lending program is lending to the poorest of the poor, targeting tricycle drivers and teachers) to fictitious individuals that were coursed or endorsed by the privately owned Strategic Lending Investor or LSI. The bank had failed to maintain individual ledgers for the 2.5 million pesos loan programs as per BSP audit and they have to be shutdown.

    As you’ve commented, “In short, then and now, the Catholic Church has always been involved in banking for profit. It doesn’t go around announcing it but the church likes money. Lots of money.”

    It seems to me that from those items that I’ve cited, about the involvement of church with banking business or industry, they keep on losing a lot of money.

    BTW, Wyeth main products are (OTC) drugs Robitussin and the analgesic Advil (ibuprofen), as well as the prescription drugs Premarin and Effexor, which both boast over US$3 billion in their sales annually according to http://tinyurl.com/38yrtol. Maybe I’m talking of a different Wyeth here. Anyway, the Vatican has apologized with their mistake which I’m just curious you didn’t mention.

    Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm
      Permalink

      my vision of a perfect Church were shattered years ago. Although, honestly, I don't believe they are saints, anyway (priests).
      I studied in a Catholic University. When I was about to graduate, we had a photo session for the yearbook photos. After getting the prints, I showed these to a photography friend- and he asked "kanino na-award ung project?" (to photograph the whole graduating batch) I told him. He said, "Nag-bid kami dyan eh, ang mahal nga lng para ma-award syo. Humihingi si Father ng kotse." WTF

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 8:04 pm
        Permalink

        A friend wanting to put up a stall in a Catholic school canteen had a similar experience with the nuns. hehehe

        Reply
      • October 8, 2010 at 8:21 am
        Permalink

        If we're going to calculate what it will cost the project you're referring to.

        The normal 20% cut, say anything above Kia (or Cherry) is more than P300K. At 20% cut, then the project will cost around P1.5 million. (If we lower it to 10% cut, it ill be P3.0 million).

        Those photos for that yearbook perhaps are gold plated kuno.

        Either you are lying or the students or parents of that Catholic University are blind to see an irregularities.

        Of course it could be a second hand repossessed taxi cab for the humble priest that cost aronud P40K and it is still a P200 K project..

        Reply
    • October 5, 2010 at 5:43 pm
      Permalink

      The first link is from Wikipedia and it says right there on top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

      Re "they keep on losing a lot of money"

      Lots of banks, including rural banks, declare "losses" and some even declare bankruptcy. But the losses are not real. Rather, the top officials abscond with the money. I'd love to cite specific examples but I'm bound by attorney-client privilege.

      Re Wyeth: It is the same multinational Wyeth.

      "the Vatican has apologized with their mistake which I’m just curious you didn’t mention."

      That's entirely irrelevant. Investments aren't made as though they were afterthoughts. Bank investments are thoroughly studied before money is poured in. And the apology is just geared to deflect from that reality.

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 7:23 am
        Permalink

        Sass, ass you've commented –

        "The first link is from Wikipedia and it says right there on top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed.":

        Kung matyaga lang magbasa, these are the disputes – http://tinyurl.com/32rlemo (Wiki pa rin)

        Reply
        • October 6, 2010 at 7:24 am
          Permalink

          Sass, my apology. I think I have to buy a new keyboard.

          He…he…he…

          Reply
        • October 6, 2010 at 5:28 pm
          Permalink

          Yah, I've read all that before. Which translates to — until issues are threshed out, better cite other sources.

          Reply
          • October 7, 2010 at 7:23 am
            Permalink

            These are some of the discussions on the neutrality of the article in Wiki for the Vatican bank:

            "Uncited Claims

            Almost the whole article is uncited, but I removed the paragraph I thought was the harshest and most clearly demanding proof. Do not replace it until the claims are cited, but feel free to remove other uncited claims.

            The Vatican Bank was a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. Part of what made the Bank so profitable was that it offered certain illegal services; for 5%, the Bank would launder industrialists' money, or money of those well-connected with the Catholic Church. The money laundering scandal leaked out in 1968 due to a change in Italian financial regulations, which would have mandated more transparency. To prevent the scandal that would occur when the public learned that the Vatican Bank (which was supposed to funnel all profits directly and immediately to charity) had in fact retained most of its profits and expanded its operations, Pope Paul VI enlisted Michele Sindona as papal finance advisor to sell off assets and move money overseas to hide the full extent of Vatican wealth. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another dirty banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Interestingly, both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge.

            When Pope John Paul I became Pope, he learned of the Bank's doing, and instructed Cardinal Jean Villot (papal secretary of state and head of the papal Curia) to investigate the matter thoroughly. Curiously, a month later, after informing Villot that he was going public with the scandal (and firing Villot among others), John Paul I died. John Paul II ignored the matter, and allowed Sindona free play for a number of years after.

            –Superm401 – Talk 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

            Done. –maru (talk) contribs 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

            So now it is "sourced". Does that mean that the source has any credibility? Run a google search on "The Moneychangers: How the Vatican Bank Enabled Roberto Calvi to Steal 250 Million Dollars for the Heads of the P2 Masonic Lodge". There are TWO unique hits. One hit is the wikipedia article on the Vatican Bank, and the other is Amazon.com (not surprisingly, this book is "not in stock" and has "no comments"). Translation: this book is about as worthy of citation as a Jack Chick pamplet aimed at the Catholic Church.

            If Wikipedia allowed citations of any and every conspiracy theory, it would be full of junk. If you cite a questionable source, you should at LEAST make that clear to the casual reader (who will typically not bother to confirm source accuracy in "Wikipedia", which some people view as a serious source in its own right). –Jos231 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

            That's not the only source there, and it does make it clear that it is alleged. — Gwern (contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

    • October 6, 2010 at 7:24 am
      Permalink

      I have gone through investment portfolio and the actions are deliberate. The investment section of the Vatican is overseen by a cardinal. They knew if they picked up companies who have policy issues with the Church teachings especially with Wyeth.

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 8:03 am
        Permalink

        d0d0ng, you did not elaborate any further with your comment. Nevertheless, in a nutshell, if what I suspect the thing you want to comment is what I'm thinking of, the Vatican is thinking people outside them are stupid.

        The people will not see through it specially the progressive secular fringe?

        Reply
      • October 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm
        Permalink

        It is more of its nature. There is cloak of secrecy and power in Vatican as a sovereign state. There were already several investigations by the US Feds in the past and just recently the Italian authorities on money laundering. In the end, Vatican will always invoke its sovereign power. The most thing that any country can do is to freeze or seize the illegal assets but zero on convictions of any church officials.

        The other interesting part is the church accomodation of its arch enemy Freemasons in its hierarchy. It has become a revolving door after its absolute power was diminished by the political revolution in Italy instigated by the freemasons. The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican.

        Reply
        • October 8, 2010 at 7:58 am
          Permalink

          d0d0ng,

          He he he, I'm sure the readers could have their oohs and aahs more or maybe less pronounced (or shall we say more cringe-inducing, either way, on how they will react on the facts) if they can read it directly from the disinterested sources which maybe you can provide. I hope they're not from those secular progressive or even from those environment/animals' rights/climate change sites.

          Your claims/insinuations:

          o There were already several investigations by the US Feds in the past and just recently the Italian authorities on money laundering. In the end, Vatican will always invoke its sovereign power.

          (This one always remind me of how the Mainland China, North Korea, Iran on how they deal with their intrusion on the sovereignty of other countries. Bully them more and the UN is very quiet about them. And the Vatican is just invoking it's sovereignty from those allegations.)

          o The most thing that any country can do is to freeze or seize the illegal assets but zero on convictions of any church officials.

          (Has it been proven that the Vatican own those "illegal" assets that you're insinuating? Or just assets that have to be tied for a litigation?)

          o The other interesting part is the church accommodation of its arch enemy Freemasons in its hierarchy. It has become a revolving door after its absolute power was diminished by the political revolution in Italy instigated by the freemasons.

          (Why not?)

          o The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican.

          (Effectively reduced…duh… Last time I've checked, the Vatican City State is different from the Holy See.)

          Reply
        • October 8, 2010 at 9:16 am
          Permalink

          "Last time I’ve checked, the Vatican City State is different from the Holy See."

          That did not change. Holy See represents the spiritual power of 1.2 billion Catholics all over the world through the Roman Curia (Papal Court) which is the adminitrative apparatus. One of the most important part of the papal court is the congregations where each congregation is headed by a cardinal. The cardinal being in their own respective countries illustrate the difference between the Vatican City State and the Holy See. Vatican issues normal passport but Holy See (not a country) can issue diplomatic passport. That is complex enough to shield its members from any crime.

          Reply
          • October 8, 2010 at 9:27 am
            Permalink

            What I want to highlight is your comment:

            "The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created. On paper, the Church is doctrinally against the masonry but there is history how the Church territory was reduced to become the Vatican."

            How its territorial power was cut short which I can't find any substantiated source in the web.

          • October 8, 2010 at 10:34 am
            Permalink

            Check Papal States by Wikipedia.

            "During the Renaissance, the papal territory expanded greatly, notably under Popes Alexander VI and Julius II. The Pope became one of Italy's most important secular rulers as well as the head of the Church, signing treaties with other sovereigns and fighting wars. In practice, though, most of the Papal States was still only nominally controlled by the Pope, and much of the territory was ruled by minor princes. "

            "The French Revolution proved as disastrous for the temporal territories of the Papacy as it was for the Roman Church in general. In 1791 the Comtat Venaissin and Avignon were annexed by France. Later, with the French invasion of Italy in 1796, the Legations were seized and became part of the revolutionary Cisalpine Republic."

            You can also read "Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States" to the conclusion of Lateran Treaty which created the state of Vatican (for the loss of territory).

          • October 10, 2010 at 2:14 am
            Permalink

            Perhaps, I was wrong in interpreting your comment – "The papacy was effectively reduced to 109 acres around St Peter. Its territorial power was cut short, and thus Vatican City was created…" as different from the below:

            From the Wiki:

            "Vatican City was established in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty, signed by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri, on behalf of the Holy See and by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini on behalf of the Kingdom of Italy. Vatican City State IS DISTINCT FROM THE Holy See, which dates back to early Christianity and is the main episcopal see of 1.166 billion Latin and Eastern Catholic adherents around the globe. Ordinances of Vatican City are published in Italian; official documents of the Holy See are issued mainly in Latin."

  • October 5, 2010 at 9:03 am
    Permalink

    my vision of a perfect Church were shattered years ago. Although, honestly, I don’t believe they are saints, anyway (priests).
    I studied in a Catholic University. When I was about to graduate, we had a photo session for the yearbook photos. After getting the prints, I showed these to a photography friend- and he asked “kanino na-award ung project?” (to photograph the whole graduating batch) I told him. He said, “Nag-bid kami dyan eh, ang mahal nga lng para ma-award syo. Humihingi si Father ng kotse.” WTF

    Reply
    • October 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm
      Permalink

      A friend wanting to put up a stall in a Catholic school canteen had a similar experience with the nuns. hehehe

      Reply
    • October 8, 2010 at 12:21 am
      Permalink

      If we’re going to calculate what it will cost the project you’re referring to.

      The normal 20% cut, say anything above Kia (or Cherry) is more than P300K. At 20% cut, then the project will cost around P1.5 million. (If we lower it to 10% cut, it ill be P3.0 million).

      Those photos for that yearbook perhaps are gold plated kuno.

      Either you are lying or the students or parents of that Catholic University are blind to see an irregularities.

      Of course it could be a second hand repossessed taxi cab for the humble priest that cost aronud P40K and it is still a P200 K project..

      Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 10:12 am
    Permalink

    Sa title pa lang Connie natawa ako but reading further on about church in the Philippines being owners of banks and that the Catholic Church in Germany invests in Wyeth is appalling to me. For the latter not because I am against contraceptives but the hypocrisy of it. I know a priest in our hometown who runs a business of herbal medicine on the side and owns all these hi-tech stuff which makes me question where his vows of poverty went. But reading about the church's love affair with money I can only say, no wonder. The church doesn't set a good example to their disciples.

    Reply
    • October 6, 2010 at 8:01 pm
      Permalink

      Speedy mentioned vow of poverty too and I said I think that the church has answered that before — that only certain orders practice the vow of poverty but not all. Not really an answer but what the heck. In Manila, the Archbishop lives in the Archbishop's Palace and it is palatial. Then, looking at the grandeur of the Vatican itself, I really don't know how poverty factors in.

      Reply
      • October 6, 2010 at 11:53 pm
        Permalink

        Imagine how many mouths they can feed in Africa and India if the Vatican sold half its art pieces…

        Reply
  • October 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Permalink

    This is actually the best illustration of Wall Street lingo of "hedging".

    The Mother Church is heavily invested in the increase of its faithful members that provides money through church collections. Even the poor is willing to give up its most treasured pesos for a prayer. Realistically, not so much different from the local JUETENG (its competitor, another front where it is waging a fierce battle). There is so much stake in reproductive health bill which will stop the population growth in a tiny country like Philippines. Europe which is wealthy is zero growth in population. But a similar size territory in Europe has lesser number of bishops compared to the bishops in the Philippines. A bishop commands a significant receipts to the Vatican.

    But with the encroachment of progressive policies like contraception in wealthy countries and so the decline in numbers and remittances. So this is where HEDGE is set-up to invest in companies that manufacture contraceptions to offset the remittance losses.

    Reply
    • October 6, 2010 at 8:06 pm
      Permalink

      Yep, just like multinational companies who can no longer sell unhealthy food and so-so drugs in rich countries — they dump it all in the Third World.

      Reply
  • October 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    Permalink

    nah. i think the cbcp / church would make more money off of the future sheep who will be born because of unprotected sex.

    Reply
    • October 8, 2010 at 12:36 am
      Permalink

      How sure are you that those unborn children will be Christians. Most likely, they will not be. Why? Because a true Christian will not practice birth control which are not prescribed by the religion.

      On the financial side of the Catholic religion, the contributors are decreasing every year.

      Financial contribution to Catholic religion are optional.

      Where did I read that the increase of Catholic believers are dismal every year and so with Protestants and others except for the Muslim religion which everything is mandatory?

      Reply
      • October 8, 2010 at 3:37 am
        Permalink

        Haha “true” Christians. What does that mean anyway? These days, I don’t think there are a lot of ‘true’ Christian. But a lot are “conditional” and “case to case basis” Christians.

        Reply
        • October 9, 2010 at 6:19 pm
          Permalink

          Then you agree with me that true Christians are dwindling and your assumption that cbcp / church would make more money off of the future sheep who will be born because of unprotected sex is flat-out wrong.

          Reply
    • October 8, 2010 at 2:13 am
      Permalink

      Actually this is one of the biggest issue -decline of Catholics and the fate of Catholic Europe.

      Understandably, the greater population is on the side of the Church. To illustrate, there are more immigrant priests from the third world to cover the shortage of priests in the west.

      Birth controls and contraceptions are deadly enemies of the church. In the west, lesser headcount means lesser contributions. In addition, economic downturn depress further the amount of contributions.

      In the third world country like Philippines, there is population explosion. Since most members are poor, their contributions do not vary significantly. They can either spent the amount on jueteng (hope of greater money) or on prayer (hope of better life, etc) or both. The amount is very small per person but the number of people is very large if you look at why lotto sweepstakes can afford big prizes. Unlike in the west where mass is limited, masses in the Philippines runs by the hour on Sunday.

      While the decline of Catholics in the West is bad enough, the introduction of birth controls in the Philippines would be disastrous for the Church in the long run. This is the only Catholic country where poor people do not have access to contraceptions.

      Reply
      • October 8, 2010 at 4:01 am
        Permalink

        Why is there even a need to increase the number of Cathollics? Is this contest?

        The thing with religion is that, Filipinos don’t belong in one single religion. Catholics being a majority does not and will not make them any better or more important than the other religions with a significantly fewer followers. The government, on the other hand, covers every single Filipino. The government is responsible for the welfare of all Filipinos and that includes the health and living conditions of the people.

        Wether you live in the west or here or anywhere else, it’s a simple fact that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.

        It’s increasingly difficult to become a self-disciplined, law-abiding Filipino-Catholic or Filipino-Muslim or whatever when you don’t have a decent paying job because we lack a national economic plan, a reliable access to basic and decent services because resources are spread so thinly.

        Faith and beliefs are things you opt into. Good health and sustainable living environment are things you must have in the first place to be fully alive.

        Reply
        • October 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm
          Permalink

          “Whether you live in the west or here or anywhere else, it’s a simple fact that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.”

          Where did you get that simple fact logic?

          How about this sourced one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

          A snippet –

          “Former Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia’s population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children. Australia currently offers a $5,000 bonus for every baby plus additional fortnightly payments, a free immunization scheme and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work. Many European countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Poland, have offered some combination of bonuses and monthly payments to families. Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years. The Republic of Singapore has a particularly lavish plan: $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.[17] The effectiveness of these policies is currently the subject of debate.

          Paid maternity and paternity leave policies can also be used as an incentive. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave where parents are entitled to share 16 months paid leave per child, the cost divided between both employer and State”.

          If I’llgo to extremity, Bangladesh, Rwanda, are underpopulated. US of America and Mainland China consider themselves overpopulated.

          Reply
          • October 11, 2010 at 10:02 am
            Permalink

            I got that simple fact from looking at where Metro Manila is now, and not some statistics of a foreign country I would never get the chance to visit. Here’s a fairly clear analogy. The vehicles and commuters have increased dramatically over the decades (over-population) but how much roads (resources) have been added within and around Metro Manila? Roads have been widened, fly-overs have been constructed but were they enough to accomodate and keep up with the ever increasing number of road users? The prevalent traffic problem says otherwise.

          • October 11, 2010 at 11:06 pm
            Permalink

            @unsentpostcard

            Your comment:

            “I got that SIMPLE FACT from looking at where Metro Manila is now, AND NOT SOME STATISTICS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY I WOULD NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO VISIT.”

            The way I see it. facts always confused you. From the way I read your comment, you’ll try to find a way to avoid discussions with numbers being laid down.

            See, this is a part of your previous comment –

            ““WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE WEST OR HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, it’s a SIMPLE FACT that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.””

            Those people with that kind of confusion with their facts (or twisting facts to suit his/her agenda) are called fact-challenged.

          • October 14, 2010 at 6:25 pm
            Permalink

            Yeah, I avoid discussion with numbers dahil mahina ako sa math. hehe. So I stick with observational and qualitative. I’m not denouncing your numerical facts about other countries. It’s just that imo, we can’t simply impose whatever conclusions you get from their statistics on our situation. We have to study our own situation, get our own statistics and data, and derive conclusions and policies based on those findings.

          • October 15, 2010 at 2:07 am
            Permalink

            Then why you’ve commented this one (as if you have all the facts at your fingertips) –

            “““WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE WEST OR HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, it’s a SIMPLE FACT that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.””

            Then contradicting it later to suit your agenda.

            All of your assumptions are confusing. They don’t have numbers. All of them are anecdotal and everybody can make that claim. You don’t have to be yourself. Even an elementary student can make that claim.

            Observations for the sake of discussion should have a quantifiable characteristics.

            Observation qualitative without numbers??? Tell it to Penoy and you’re going to be buddy-buddy with him.

            I could even say that they are all your “qualitative” observations are wrong without bothering to explain to you why they’re wrong. They’re wrong. Period.

            You want me to explain myself – I’ve more qualitative observation than yours.

          • October 15, 2010 at 5:02 am
            Permalink

            Unsentpostcards’ premise of “an uncontrolled population growth is a problem”, is supported by data.

            http://www.photius.com/rankings/spreadsheets_2010/

            In the 2010 population table, you can see the population explosion in the Philippines compared to other countries in terms of “population growth” and “fertility rate” (avg births per woman) as follows:

            Philippines – 1.96 & 3.27
            Singapore – 1.00 & 1.09
            Thailand – 0.63 & 1.65
            US – 0.98 & 2.05
            Vietnam – 1.14 & 1.98

            Then the 2010 economy table shows the percentage of population below poverty line (based on individual government measure of poverty which means the rich nations will report high number while the poor nations report low number).

            Philippines – 30%
            Singapore – NA
            Thailand – 10%
            US – 12%
            Vietnam – 15%

            In the Philippine Urban Forum of HUDCC, it stated the urban poverty in the NCR:

            “In Metro Manila, more than 50% of its 11 million population live in slums or depressed areas.”

          • October 16, 2010 at 5:36 pm
            Permalink

            That is what you call – there is an increase of population which is perfectly natural.

            As you’ve commented –

            “In Metro Manila, more than 50% of its 11 million population live in slums or depressed areas.”

            And where is your data prior to that. Just for the sake of benchmarking and at least to have a control data. That data would say that 49.99% of Metro Manila’s population are living in plush townhomes.

            Could it be prior to that, it’s more than 50% and they’re not called slums and depressed area is not a popular terminology then. Just like squatters being called as informal settlers at this present time.

            The site from where you’ve got the data has a caveat –

            “This page of ranking of countries is based on figures from the 2010 CIA world factbook and other sources. As a rule the data used to rank the countries is as of January 2010.”

            From the CIA who has the data prior to Iran takeover of American Embassy etc.

            Even though I’m always skeptic with Wiki info, nevertheless, you can read on how the data stands.

          • October 18, 2010 at 1:18 am
            Permalink

            The bottom line –

            Hindi ako makulit but Ijust want to put in a discussion the issues that have to be clarified.

            How I wish every commenters have to check their facts first. Most of the time, it;s just a tick of a mouse away from verifying them.

          • October 19, 2010 at 12:45 am
            Permalink

            Every year the data are aggregated mostly coming from individual governments public record like census, statistics, reports, etc., and CIA put them together. The numbers and indexes are consistent year to year where each country is heading.

            In 1965, Philippines was predicted to become the tiger of Asia and will join the 1st world economy. Instead the CIA numbers are accurate on where the country is heading with unsustainable population growth and increasing poverty level. It lags behind its neighbors in asia. Today, 29 million Filipinos (30% of 97.98 million) is below poverty line compared to 13 million Vietnamese (14.8% of 88.6 million). Now Philippines is dubbed as the sick man of asia (the tag used to be China).

            The Word Economic Forum showed the same sad reality of Philippines in its global competitiveness ranking:

            Singapore rank 3
            US rank 4
            Thailand rank 38
            Vietnam rank 59
            Philippines rank 85 (kulelat talaga even if you just compare with Vietnam)

            Trosp, the factsheets are useless to a person like you because you can always pretend they don’t apply to your perceptions.

          • October 19, 2010 at 10:32 pm
            Permalink

            @d0d0ng, as you’ve commented

            “Trosp, the factsheets are useless to a person like you because you can always pretend they don’t apply to your perceptions.”

            Have I said it is useless?

            My previous comment as regard factsheet is-

            “From the CIA who has the data prior to Iran takeover of American Embassy etc.

            Even though I’m always skeptic with Wiki info, nevertheless, you can read on how the data stands.”

            For the sake of discussion, the reason why I’m more in skeptic with factsheet than Wiki, and perhaps, to agree with you, that I can’t perceived to use them as a primary data source.

            A snippet from a discussion board on Wiki –

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook

            “… I agree with ya on the WFB Factbook and reliability. While a good primer, I would not trust it as my only source for info, like I wouldn’t trust any encyclopedia as my source. As for errors, there are many. For example, the Factbook has the Queen’s Representative in the Cook Islands as the “UK Representative” [1]; this has not been corrected – even though I have told them of it. Besides errors, there are also some POV areas. For example, users on Albanian message boards have complained about the Kosovo entry: [2], [3] and this guy has complained about the British Indian Ocean Territory entry: [4]. In short, we should use lots of care and discretion with the Factbook as we do with the 1911EB. – Thanks, Hoshie 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)”

          • October 20, 2010 at 1:42 am
            Permalink

            The factbook is still reasonably accurate. The skeptics pointed to an alleged error which is not intrinsically an error but an opinion. On the example has the Queen’s Representative in the Cook Islands as the “UK Representative”. This is still true with Sir Frederick Tutu Goodwin as the Queen’s representative to the Cook Islands in 2001. He was knighted in 2004 and reappointed as Queen’s representative for another 3 year term in February 2010.

            The Queen’s representative in Commonwealth Realms like New Zealand is called Governor General (currently Sir Anand Satyanand). Since Cook Island is constitutionally part of New Zealand, he is also the Governor General of Cook Islands. So you have two Queen’s representatives (1) one by territorial extension and (2) by direct appointment. The governor general did not forward the new warrant of 2010 appointment to the Cook Islands government, so Sir Frederick Tutu Goodwin cannot function.

          • October 21, 2010 at 1:21 am
            Permalink

            Birth rate is not the primary factor of population growth.

            I would admit that I don’t posses the expertness to explain the intricacies of this subject except in using my judgment in appreciating the facts based on the methodologies that were used to make a conclusion. Short of saying to take into consideration both the pros and cons.

            Just like the below one data –

            There is a decline of birth rate worldwide comparing the the data from 1950 and up to 2010 (37.2% and down to 20.3%).

            There is also the decline on the mortality rate from 1950 and up to 2010 (19.5% down to 8.5%). Check it from Wiki.

            You may also include the interpretation of the data from over-population alarmist –
            http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-myths4.html

            We could have a different definition of data and facts. I define it based on the definition of the online thefreedictionary –

            da·ta (dt, dt, dät)
            pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
            1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
            2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
            3. Values derived from scientific experiments.

            fact (fkt)
            n.
            1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
            2.
            a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
            b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
            c. Something believed to be true or real.

          • October 21, 2010 at 6:04 am
            Permalink

            It is rather how the country take seriously its population growth (1.96) compounding more problems to the current population (98 million) and the widening failure to meet the basic services (symptomatic as in the rise of squatters and low skilled labor migration as domestic helper).

            Aside that our growth rate is understated (since it is reduced by migrants leaving the country), it is one of the highest and closer to the failed states in Africa.

            Church proponents deny overpopulation and quick to point to Singapore with 6,780 people per sq.km (4.7 million/ 687 sq.km ) compared to Philippines 329 people per sq.km (97.98 million/ 198,170 sq.km). Only that China which has lower population density with 140 people per sq.km (1.3 billion/ 9,569,901 sq.km) has long adopted one child policy in 1978 when its population was only 963 million or 101 people per sq.km. The dark reality here is that both Singapore with higher density and China with lower density than Philippines, undercut religious freedom. In Singapore, religious practice is subordinate to public order and public health.

            Just maybe, the church is waiting until such time our population cause more chaotic problems on public order or public health than today and will have to wake up that someone take the reign of government and drastically change the role of the Church. It would be self-fulfilling prophecy for church persecution.

          • October 20, 2010 at 12:47 am
            Permalink

            d0d0ng, It is admirable that you’ve googled them at least – getting the correct data. What you’ve presented are the data.

            And what I’ve presented in my previous comment in these thread are the facts –

            “Former Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia’s population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children. Australia currently offers a $5,000 bonus for every baby plus additional fortnightly payments, a free immunization scheme and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work. Many European countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Poland, have offered some combination of bonuses and monthly payments to families. Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years. The Republic of Singapore has a particularly lavish plan: $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.[17] The effectiveness of these policies is currently the subject of debate.

            Paid maternity and paternity leave policies can also be used as an incentive. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave where parents are entitled to share 16 months paid leave per child, the cost divided between both employer and State”.

            Are my facts false?

            This is the example of your facts as you’ve commented –

            “Trosp – you skewed it backwards. In fact, a Catholic Carlos Celdran disrupted the concelebrated mass and spelled it out for you telling the bishops “STOPPED GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS’. Please check your statements before you ask others to check theirs. You are sounding like a broken record on fact challenge without checking yours.”

            I agree with you that they’re all facts. It has occurred.

            Did I challenge it?.

          • October 20, 2010 at 3:13 am
            Permalink

            Facts and data can be quoted to support an assertion.

            The quotes on Russia, Australia, European countries (France, Italy, Germany and Poland), Japan, Singapore and Sweden were primarily to state a reverse position on Unsentpostcard’s “an uncontrolled population growth (anywhere else) is a problem”.

            Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland and Russia have negative population growth. The rest did not exceed 1% growth rate to have adverse effects on basic services.

            Aside that the quotes are not comparable to uncontrolled population growth, it is the way you used them to arrive later at:

            1.Those people with that kind of confusion with their facts (or twisting facts to suit his/her agenda) are called fact-challenged.
            2. Then contradicting it later to suit your agenda.
            3. All of your assumptions are confusing. They don’t have numbers. All of them are anecdotal and everybody can make that claim. You don’t have to be yourself. Even an elementary student can make that claim.

            It does not help in a spirited discussion on our country’s problems.

      • October 8, 2010 at 4:19 am
        Permalink

        Just imagine if you are a Diocese priest and your pulpit collections have dramatically dwindled. Your only resource is your parishioner and nothing else. Subsidy is generally only for the new missions and hard to come by.

        Reply
  • October 6, 2010 at 3:42 pm
    Permalink

    just wondering…do they (priests) use condom kaya? omg.. i hope i don’t get excommunicated with this comment!

    Reply
    • October 7, 2010 at 6:54 am
      Permalink

      My understanding the deviant priests still practice procreate, thus they father children and only leave the priesthood after being discovered.

      Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 1:21 am
      Permalink

      You won’t get excommunicated. Malamang hindi ka patulan.

      Do you think you’re cute with that kind of comment?

      Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm
      Permalink

      Actually, the comment is cutesy apart that it may have relevance.

      Here is a unique perspective below from a Catholic parist priest, doctor of sociology, a Fullbright scholar -Joseph Palacios.

      MW(journalist): I was going to ask you about condom use, in that Hispanic Heritage Month ends on Oct. 15 with National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, though you’ve already spoken somewhat about contraception.

      PALACIOS: It’s an interesting dilemma – or oddity – for gays, given that the church teaches that gays should not have sex, period. So putting on a condom doesn’t make that much difference anyway. It’s like a two-strike thing. [Laughs.]

      Let me answer that in a very emphatic way: So much of the natural-law teaching that the church uses for sexual ethics is material that is scientifically unfounded. People know this. So they just bypass natural-law teaching regarding contraceptive use because it’s not the lived experience of people, and science knows that most of this has no reality to it.

      Reply
      • October 18, 2010 at 4:01 pm
        Permalink

        So what is your point?

        You just commented Joseph Palacios has a a unique perspective.

        Reply
      • October 18, 2010 at 11:13 pm
        Permalink

        So, d0d0ng, can you tell us what is your point?

        Reply
  • October 6, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    Permalink

    So much money indeed! If the church wants to meddle in politics and in the government’s programs, then they should be paying taxes. Render unto Caesar and all that… Imagine how many condoms those taxes could buy.

    Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 1:31 am
      Permalink

      So what has the Church meddled in government program?

      If you want to review it, it’s always the government who is meddling with the church position. It’s just that there are other religions with whom the government has to deal with.

      Funny, how our government is very accommodating with Muslim men to have four wives and nobody is making any issue out of it.

      It’s because it is inherent with their religion even though our law is against it.

      This Muslim, Iglesia Ni Kisto and other religion including El Shaddai do not pay tax. I’m just curious why the Catholic religion has to bear all the brunt.

      Reply
  • October 6, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    nah. i think the cbcp / church would make more money off of the future sheep who will be born because of unprotected sex.

    Reply
    • October 8, 2010 at 8:36 am
      Permalink

      How sure are you that those unborn children will be Christians. Most likely, they will not be. Why? Because a true Christian will not practice birth control which are not prescribed by the religion.

      On the financial side of the Catholic religion, the contributors are decreasing every year.

      Financial contribution to Catholic religion are optional.

      Where did I read that the increase of Catholic believers are dismal every year and so with Protestants and others except for the Muslim religion which everything is mandatory?

      Reply
      • October 8, 2010 at 11:37 am
        Permalink

        Haha "true" Christians. What does that mean anyway? These days, I don't think there are a lot of 'true' Christian. But a lot are "conditional" and "case to case basis" Christians.

        Reply
        • October 10, 2010 at 2:19 am
          Permalink

          Then you agree with me that true Christians are dwindling and your assumption that cbcp / church would make more money off of the future sheep who will be born because of unprotected sex is flat-out wrong.

          Reply
    • October 8, 2010 at 10:13 am
      Permalink

      Actually this is one of the biggest issue -decline of Catholics and the fate of Catholic Europe.

      Understandably, the greater population is on the side of the Church. To illustrate, there are more immigrant priests from the third world to cover the shortage of priests in the west.

      Birth controls and contraceptions are deadly enemies of the church. In the west, lesser headcount means lesser contributions. In addition, economic downturn depress further the amount of contributions.

      In the third world country like Philippines, there is population explosion. Since most members are poor, their contributions do not vary significantly. They can either spent the amount on jueteng (hope of greater money) or on prayer (hope of better life, etc) or both. The amount is very small per person but the number of people is very large if you look at why lotto sweepstakes can afford big prizes. Unlike in the west where mass is limited, masses in the Philippines runs by the hour on Sunday.

      While the decline of Catholics in the West is bad enough, the introduction of birth controls in the Philippines would be disastrous for the Church in the long run. This is the only Catholic country where poor people do not have access to contraceptions.

      Reply
      • October 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm
        Permalink

        Why is there even a need to increase the number of Cathollics? Is this contest?

        The thing with religion is that, Filipinos don't belong in one single religion. Catholics being a majority does not and will not make them any better or more important than the other religions with a significantly fewer followers. The government, on the other hand, covers every single Filipino. The government is responsible for the welfare of all Filipinos and that includes the health and living conditions of the people.

        Wether you live in the west or here or anywhere else, it's a simple fact that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.

        It's increasingly difficult to become a self-disciplined, law-abiding Filipino-Catholic or Filipino-Muslim or whatever when you don't have a decent paying job because we lack a national economic plan, a reliable access to basic and decent services because resources are spread so thinly.

        Faith and beliefs are things you opt into. Good health and sustainable living environment are things you must have in the first place to be fully alive.

        Reply
        • October 10, 2010 at 6:58 am
          Permalink

          "Whether you live in the west or here or anywhere else, it’s a simple fact that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources."

          Where did you get that simple fact logic?

          How about this sourced one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

          A snippet –

          "Former Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children. Australia currently offers a $5,000 bonus for every baby plus additional fortnightly payments, a free immunization scheme and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work. Many European countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Poland, have offered some combination of bonuses and monthly payments to families. Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years. The Republic of Singapore has a particularly lavish plan: $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.[17] The effectiveness of these policies is currently the subject of debate.

          Paid maternity and paternity leave policies can also be used as an incentive. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave where parents are entitled to share 16 months paid leave per child, the cost divided between both employer and State".

          If I'llgo to extremity, Bangladesh, Rwanda, are underpopulated. US of America and Mainland China consider themselves overpopulated.

          Reply
          • October 11, 2010 at 6:02 pm
            Permalink

            I got that simple fact from looking at where Metro Manila is now, and not some statistics of a foreign country I would never get the chance to visit. Here's a fairly clear analogy. The vehicles and commuters have increased dramatically over the decades (over-population) but how much roads (resources) have been added within and around Metro Manila? Roads have been widened, fly-overs have been constructed but were they enough to accomodate and keep up with the ever increasing number of road users? The prevalent traffic problem says otherwise.

          • October 12, 2010 at 7:06 am
            Permalink

            @unsentpostcard

            Your comment:

            "I got that SIMPLE FACT from looking at where Metro Manila is now, AND NOT SOME STATISTICS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY I WOULD NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO VISIT."

            The way I see it. facts always confused you. From the way I read your comment, you'll try to find a way to avoid discussions with numbers being laid down.

            See, this is a part of your previous comment –

            "“WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE WEST OR HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, it’s a SIMPLE FACT that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.”"

            Those people with that kind of confusion with their facts (or twisting facts to suit his/her agenda) are called fact-challenged.

          • October 15, 2010 at 2:25 am
            Permalink

            Yeah, I avoid discussion with numbers dahil mahina ako sa math. hehe. So I stick with observational and qualitative. I'm not denouncing your numerical facts about other countries. It's just that imo, we can't simply impose whatever conclusions you get from their statistics on our situation. We have to study our own situation, get our own statistics and data, and derive conclusions and policies based on those findings.

          • October 15, 2010 at 10:07 am
            Permalink

            Then why you've commented this one (as if you have all the facts at your fingertips) –

            "““WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE WEST OR HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, it’s a SIMPLE FACT that an uncontrolled population growth is problem in a nation that has a very very limited resources and an inefficient distribution of those resources.””

            Then contradicting it later to suit your agenda.

            All of your assumptions are confusing. They don't have numbers. All of them are anecdotal and everybody can make that claim. You don't have to be yourself. Even an elementary student can make that claim.

            Observations for the sake of discussion should have a quantifiable characteristics.

            Observation qualitative without numbers??? Tell it to Penoy and you're going to be buddy-buddy with him.

            I could even say that they are all your "qualitative" observations are wrong without bothering to explain to you why they're wrong. They're wrong. Period.

            You want me to explain myself – I've more qualitative observation than yours.

          • October 15, 2010 at 1:02 pm
            Permalink

            Unsentpostcards' premise of "an uncontrolled population growth is a problem", is supported by data.
            http://www.photius.com/rankings/spreadsheets_2010

            In the 2010 population table, you can see the population explosion in the Philippines compared to other countries in terms of "population growth" and "fertility rate" (avg births per woman) as follows:

            Philippines – 1.96 & 3.27
            Singapore – 1.00 & 1.09
            Thailand – 0.63 & 1.65
            US – 0.98 & 2.05
            Vietnam – 1.14 & 1.98

            Then the 2010 economy table shows the percentage of population below poverty line (based on individual government measure of poverty which means the rich nations will report high number while the poor nations report low number).

            Philippines – 30%
            Singapore – NA
            Thailand – 10%
            US – 12%
            Vietnam – 15%

            In the Philippine Urban Forum of HUDCC, it stated the urban poverty in the NCR:

            "In Metro Manila, more than 50% of its 11 million population live in slums or depressed areas."

          • October 17, 2010 at 1:36 am
            Permalink

            That is what you call – there is an increase of population which is perfectly natural.

            As you've commented –

            “In Metro Manila, more than 50% of its 11 million population live in slums or depressed areas.”

            And where is your data prior to that. Just for the sake of benchmarking and at least to have a control data. That data would say that 49.99% of Metro Manila's population are living in plush townhomes.

            Could it be prior to that, it's more than 50% and they're not called slums and depressed area is not a popular terminology then. Just like squatters being called as informal settlers at this present time.

            The site from where you've got the data has a caveat –

            "This page of ranking of countries is based on figures from the 2010 CIA world factbook and other sources. As a rule the data used to rank the countries is as of January 2010."

            From the CIA who has the data prior to Iran takeover of American Embassy etc.

            Even though I'm always skeptic with Wiki info, nevertheless, you can read on how the data stands.

          • October 18, 2010 at 9:18 am
            Permalink

            The bottom line –

            Hindi ako makulit but Ijust want to put in a discussion the issues that have to be clarified.

            How I wish every commenters have to check their facts first. Most of the time, it;s just a tick of a mouse away from verifying them.

          • October 19, 2010 at 8:45 am
            Permalink

            Every year the data are aggregated mostly coming from individual governments public record like census, statistics, reports, etc., and CIA put them together. The numbers and indexes are consistent year to year where each country is heading.

            In 1965, Philippines was predicted to become the tiger of Asia and will join the 1st world economy. Instead the CIA numbers are accurate on where the country is heading with unsustainable population growth and increasing poverty level. It lags behind its neighbors in asia. Today, 29 million Filipinos (30% of 97.98 million) is below poverty line compared to 13 million Vietnamese (14.8% of 88.6 million). Now Philippines is dubbed as the sick man of asia (the tag used to be China).

            The Word Economic Forum showed the same sad reality of Philippines in its global competitiveness ranking:

            Singapore rank 3
            US rank 4
            Thailand rank 38
            Vietnam rank 59
            Philippines rank 85 (kulelat talaga even if you just compare with Vietnam)

            Trosp, the factsheets are useless to a person like you because you can always pretend they don't apply to your perceptions.

          • October 20, 2010 at 6:32 am
            Permalink

            @d0d0ng, as you've commented

            "Trosp, the factsheets are useless to a person like you because you can always pretend they don’t apply to your perceptions."

            Have I said it is useless?

            My previous comment as regard factsheet is-

            "From the CIA who has the data prior to Iran takeover of American Embassy etc.

            Even though I’m always skeptic with Wiki info, nevertheless, you can read on how the data stands."

            For the sake of discussion, the reason why I'm more in skeptic with factsheet than Wiki, and perhaps, to agree with you, that I can't perceived to use them as a primary data source.

            A snippet from a discussion board on Wiki –
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook

            "… I agree with ya on the WFB Factbook and reliability. While a good primer, I would not trust it as my only source for info, like I wouldn't trust any encyclopedia as my source. As for errors, there are many. For example, the Factbook has the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands as the "UK Representative" [1]; this has not been corrected – even though I have told them of it. Besides errors, there are also some POV areas. For example, users on Albanian message boards have complained about the Kosovo entry: [2], [3] and this guy has complained about the British Indian Ocean Territory entry: [4]. In short, we should use lots of care and discretion with the Factbook as we do with the 1911EB. – Thanks, Hoshie 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)"

          • October 20, 2010 at 9:42 am
            Permalink

            The factbook is still reasonably accurate. The skeptics pointed to an alleged error which is not intrinsically an error but an opinion. On the example has the Queen’s Representative in the Cook Islands as the “UK Representative”. This is still true with Sir Frederick Tutu Goodwin as the Queen's representative to the Cook Islands in 2001. He was knighted in 2004 and reappointed as Queen's representative for another 3 year term in February 2010.

            The Queen's representative in Commonwealth Realms like New Zealand is called Governor General (currently Sir Anand Satyanand). Since Cook Island is constitutionally part of New Zealand, he is also the Governor General of Cook Islands. So you have two Queen's representatives (1) one by territorial extension and (2) by direct appointment. The governor general did not forward the new warrant of 2010 appointment to the Cook Islands government, so Sir Frederick Tutu Goodwin cannot function.

          • October 21, 2010 at 9:21 am
            Permalink

            Birth rate is not the primary factor of population growth.

            I would admit that I don't posses the expertness to explain the intricacies of this subject except in using my judgment in appreciating the facts based on the methodologies that were used to make a conclusion. Short of saying to take into consideration both the pros and cons.

            Just like the below one data –

            There is a decline of birth rate worldwide comparing the the data from 1950 and up to 2010 (37.2% and down to 20.3%).

            There is also the decline on the mortality rate from 1950 and up to 2010 (19.5% down to 8.5%). Check it from Wiki.

            You may also include the interpretation of the data from over-population alarmist – http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-myths

            We could have a different definition of data and facts. I define it based on the definition of the online thefreedictionary –

            da·ta (dt, dt, dät)
            pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
            1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
            2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
            3. Values derived from scientific experiments.

            fact (fkt)
            n.
            1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
            2.
            a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
            b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
            c. Something believed to be true or real.

          • October 21, 2010 at 2:04 pm
            Permalink

            It is rather how the country take seriously its population growth (1.96) compounding more problems to the current population (98 million) and the widening failure to meet the basic services (symptomatic as in the rise of squatters and low skilled labor migration as domestic helper).

            Aside that our growth rate is understated (since it is reduced by migrants leaving the country), it is one of the highest and closer to the failed states in Africa.

            Church proponents deny overpopulation and quick to point to Singapore with 6,780 people per sq.km (4.7 million/ 687 sq.km ) compared to Philippines 329 people per sq.km (97.98 million/ 198,170 sq.km). Only that China which has lower population density with 140 people per sq.km (1.3 billion/ 9,569,901 sq.km) has long adopted one child policy in 1978 when its population was only 963 million or 101 people per sq.km. The dark reality here is that both Singapore with higher density and China with lower density than Philippines, undercut religious freedom. In Singapore, religious practice is subordinate to public order and public health.

            Just maybe, the church is waiting until such time our population cause more chaotic problems on public order or public health than today and will have to wake up that someone take the reign of government and drastically change the role of the Church. It would be self-fulfilling prophecy for church persecution.

          • October 20, 2010 at 8:47 am
            Permalink

            d0d0ng, It is admirable that you've googled them at least – getting the correct data. What you've presented are the data.

            And what I've presented in my previous comment in these thread are the facts –

            “Former Russian President Vladimir Putin directed Parliament to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia’s population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children. Australia currently offers a $5,000 bonus for every baby plus additional fortnightly payments, a free immunization scheme and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work. Many European countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Poland, have offered some combination of bonuses and monthly payments to families. Some Japanese localities, facing significant population loss, are offering economic incentives. Yamatsuri, a town of 7,000 just north of Tokyo, offers parents $4,600 for the birth of a child and $460 a year for 10 years. The Republic of Singapore has a particularly lavish plan: $3,000 for the first child, $9,000 in cash and savings for the second; and up to $18,000 each for the third and fourth.[17] The effectiveness of these policies is currently the subject of debate.

            Paid maternity and paternity leave policies can also be used as an incentive. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave where parents are entitled to share 16 months paid leave per child, the cost divided between both employer and State”.

            Are my facts false?

            This is the example of your facts as you've commented –

            "Trosp – you skewed it backwards. In fact, a Catholic Carlos Celdran disrupted the concelebrated mass and spelled it out for you telling the bishops “STOPPED GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS’. Please check your statements before you ask others to check theirs. You are sounding like a broken record on fact challenge without checking yours."

            I agree with you that they're all facts. It has occurred.

            Did I challenge it?.

          • October 20, 2010 at 11:13 am
            Permalink

            Facts and data can be quoted to support an assertion.

            The quotes on Russia, Australia, European countries (France, Italy, Germany and Poland), Japan, Singapore and Sweden were primarily to state a reverse position on Unsentpostcard's “an uncontrolled population growth (anywhere else) is a problem”.

            Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland and Russia have negative population growth. The rest did not exceed 1% growth rate to have adverse effects on basic services.

            Aside that the quotes are not comparable to uncontrolled population growth, it is the way you used them to arrive later at:

            1.Those people with that kind of confusion with their facts (or twisting facts to suit his/her agenda) are called fact-challenged.
            2. Then contradicting it later to suit your agenda.
            3. All of your assumptions are confusing. They don’t have numbers. All of them are anecdotal and everybody can make that claim. You don’t have to be yourself. Even an elementary student can make that claim.

            It does not help in a spirited discussion on our country's problems.

      • October 8, 2010 at 12:19 pm
        Permalink

        Just imagine if you are a Diocese priest and your pulpit collections have dramatically dwindled. Your only resource is your parishioner and nothing else. Subsidy is generally only for the new missions and hard to come by.

        Reply
  • October 6, 2010 at 11:42 pm
    Permalink

    just wondering…do they (priests) use condom kaya? omg.. i hope i don't get excommunicated with this comment!

    Reply
    • October 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm
      Permalink

      My understanding the deviant priests still practice procreate, thus they father children and only leave the priesthood after being discovered.

      Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 9:21 am
      Permalink

      You won't get excommunicated. Malamang hindi ka patulan.

      Do you think you're cute with that kind of comment?

      Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 9:02 pm
      Permalink

      Actually, the comment is cutesy apart that it may have relevance.

      Here is a unique perspective below from a Catholic parist priest, doctor of sociology, a Fullbright scholar -Joseph Palacios.

      MW(journalist): I was going to ask you about condom use, in that Hispanic Heritage Month ends on Oct. 15 with National Latino AIDS Awareness Day, though you've already spoken somewhat about contraception.

      PALACIOS: It's an interesting dilemma – or oddity – for gays, given that the church teaches that gays should not have sex, period. So putting on a condom doesn't make that much difference anyway. It's like a two-strike thing. [Laughs.]

      Let me answer that in a very emphatic way: So much of the natural-law teaching that the church uses for sexual ethics is material that is scientifically unfounded. People know this. So they just bypass natural-law teaching regarding contraceptive use because it's not the lived experience of people, and science knows that most of this has no reality to it.

      Reply
      • October 19, 2010 at 12:01 am
        Permalink

        So what is your point?

        You just commented Joseph Palacios has a a unique perspective.

        Reply
      • October 19, 2010 at 7:13 am
        Permalink

        So, d0d0ng, can you tell us what is your point?

        Reply
        • October 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
          Permalink

          "it’s always the government who is meddling with the church position" – Trosp.

          Trosp – you skewed it backwards. In fact, a Catholic Carlos Celdran disrupted the concelebrated mass and spelled it out for you telling the bishops "STOPPED GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS'. Please check your statements before you ask others to check theirs. You are sounding like a broken record on fact challenge without checking yours.

          Carlos Celdran was not the only one. Senators who would not dare speak against the church finally found the courage to do so after the threat of excommunications (meddling with the state policy) on President Aquino.

          Sen. Edgardo Angara said the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines should start rethinking its role in modern society or else its members will abandon it "Before, there was even a papal bull on witchcraft,” Angara said. “If the church is instrumental in the number of the poor, of malnourished and uneducated children, then it is not the church of the poor,” Angara said. He said that if the Catholic Church confines itself to pulpit preaching and does not back this up with social action, then it will lose moral authority.

          “Threats and intimidation will not bring us to a rational conclusion on this controversy nor will they help solve the problems of the country,” Senator Frank Drilon said.

          Senator Cayetano reminded the church that the state has the burden to provide basic services to the poor including reproductive health.

          Senator Francis Pangilinan said the threat to excommunicate Aquino was reminiscent of medieval times.

          Reply
  • October 7, 2010 at 2:34 am
    Permalink

    So much money indeed! If the church wants to meddle in politics and in the government's programs, then they should be paying taxes. Render unto Caesar and all that… Imagine how many condoms those taxes could buy.

    Reply
    • October 18, 2010 at 9:31 am
      Permalink

      So what has the Church meddled in government program?

      If you want to review it, it's always the government who is meddling with the church position. It's just that there are other religions with whom the government has to deal with.

      Funny, how our government is very accommodating with Muslim men to have four wives and nobody is making any issue out of it.

      It's because it is inherent with their religion even though our law is against it.

      This Muslim, Iglesia Ni Kisto and other religion including El Shaddai do not pay tax. I'm just curious why the Catholic religion has to bear all the brunt.

      Reply
  • October 19, 2010 at 1:54 am
    Permalink

    “it’s always the government who is meddling with the church position” – Trosp.

    Trosp – you skewed it backwards. In fact, a Catholic Carlos Celdran disrupted the concelebrated mass and spelled it out for you telling the bishops “STOPPED GETTING INVOLVED IN POLITICS’. Please check your statements before you ask others to check theirs. You are sounding like a broken record on fact challenge without checking yours.

    Carlos Celdran was not the only one. Senators who would not dare speak against the church finally found the courage to do so after the threat of excommunications (meddling with the state policy) on President Aquino.

    Sen. Edgardo Angara said the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines should start rethinking its role in modern society or else its members will abandon it “Before, there was even a papal bull on witchcraft,” Angara said. “If the church is instrumental in the number of the poor, of malnourished and uneducated children, then it is not the church of the poor,” Angara said. He said that if the Catholic Church confines itself to pulpit preaching and does not back this up with social action, then it will lose moral authority.

    “Threats and intimidation will not bring us to a rational conclusion on this controversy nor will they help solve the problems of the country,” Senator Frank Drilon said.

    Senator Cayetano reminded the church that the state has the burden to provide basic services to the poor including reproductive health.

    Senator Francis Pangilinan said the threat to excommunicate Aquino was reminiscent of medieval times.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *