Manganak ta ug Daghan --- Archbishop Palma :)

[wenlove24]

---

@redemption

IMHO, I think Palma didn't clarify what he said because nobody brought it up. I doubt he's even aware of all the supposed misinformation (at least as far as this thread is concerned). At least as far as Sunday was concerned. But I found his email yesterday and sent him a message and attached a link on that Sun-star column and asked if it's possible for us to secure a transcript of that particular homily.

To quote on Sir Spring's words on "for humility's sake", let's at least be civil enough to attack the opinion of fellow istoryans and not the person.

Your "I could be wrong" statement made perfect sense. I implore everyone to refrain from using derogatory remarks and/or responding to them in order to elevate the discussion and not hinder our poor intelligences from accumulating sufficient accurate knowledge. After all, not one person who criticizes isn't in need of criticism themselves. Some might say, ah well even if we get the entire thing it wouldn't matter anyway 'coz not all people who heard it understood the good that he meant. Well it's one thing to speak for ourselves and another to speak for the rest. While we can broadcast the latter, we can always pray for the former. The fruit of silence is prayer. The fruit of prayer is faith. The fruit of faith is SERVICE. The fruit of service is PEACE. I doubt if anyone wouldn't want peace. The COMMON GOOD will then be determined by results. All we could do for now is predict the outcome.

For the record though, I wouldn't mind the chili. It's got good health benefits!
Might be punitive but it's also restorative.

In the meantime, let's not cross our elbows as we wait for word.

[seven_segment]

a child? did he say "A"
i believe he specifically said daghan
and if di lisod for you..
walk your talk

show me.

let me restate to your advantage:

having many children is a problem?


-------------------------

about walking the talk, wait till I got 5 more children...for now, i can't show you...

-------------------------

[seven_segment]

Pag sure palma oy... Kaw pakaon ug pa eskwela kay mangita dayun kog minyoan run, manganak me ug daghan! Wa na jud lami ang simbahan karun... Mao di naku ganahan manimba tungod sa mga tawo nga in.ani.. Huna huna on sad ta niya unsay epekto sa society if daghan ug anak ang usa ka pamilya.. May kung stable ug makapakaon! Hahaha!

basaha balik bai...

"katong gusto" raman bai...kung ikaw dili gusto, ngano gud tawn...

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Ok. I get your point. But if I were to attack the HOMILY of the ARTICLE, the ARTICLE also states that it was Palma who said that. So it would be just the same.

Hehehehe .... bai , you are SMARTER than that right ? Need I emphasized more on what you said ? Considering lang na kintahay sayop ang article , just because they are pointing and directing it to Archbishop Palma , is it still rightful to attack because the article said so ? mabaw kaayo ang rason nimo gyud because ni base ka sa article and established certainty , very IMMATURE on your part because I dont see you like that ever since .

Ok, ana nalang.. IF, Palma did say that and meant it that way, then what he said was IDIOTIC and I see him as a HYPOCRITE. But ONLY IF, he said that and meant it that way.

Is that necessary ? Just because you oppose RH BILL makes you IDIOTIC and a HYPOCRITE ?

Happy

Dont make it sound like you are here for ATTACKS and INSULTING the ARCHBISHOP of Cebu.

Unfair huh? But if the Bishop or the RCC speaks out against the RH Bill or any other issue, while the rest of the world gives them FACTUAL EVIDENCE, then they could do so because they are holding THE TRUTH! Can I shake my head even more or what??

Huh ? What makes it UNFAIR in that scenario ? Both PRO LIFE and PRO RH BILL holds ideals and knowledge that are based on FACTUAL EVIDENCES. What is there to be shaking your head off ? Ga tuo diay ka na SAYOP ang PRO LIFE and ang SAKTO ra kay ang PRO RH BILL ? Kahibalo ka ngano na push na into a law ? Its how the game was played , its not because what you thought , RH BILL ang sakto and the right thing to do.

Ok, I'll retract my statement of certainty. But then I'll throw the question instead.. Why the heck didn't they clarify what was said and interpreted by the media?? Did they really mean it that way? Or were they misunderstood? And if so, why didn't they clarify what was said.

I am not in the position to answer that question but I can explain what I think of it which I already did unless you did not care to read my previous statements.

For a group who wants to teach and preach, they sure make vague statements, don't they??

Dont twist it bai . Unless you were there again during the HOMILY in person , then that is the time you can label such description but then ikaw ra mismo ni clarify na wala ka didto to COFIRM the validity of the report. For the record , for the moment , ikaw ang VAGUE because ni ride on lang ka sa balita without even confirming the reality and substance of it by being certain on what you say pero gi tago lang nimo by excusing yourself through retraction which is really a weak alibi just to continue discussion. Deep in you , it is HATRED of the RCC. Ingna ko bakaon pod usab.

Then ipamugos pa gyud nimo na KINTAHAY . If you are happy about it , then go on . Nobody is stopping you as it is your right but it doesnt mean also that I dont have the right to excercise by letting you know na sayop ka. Mao usahay , we have to know that FREEDOM of EXPRESSION is actually not FREE at all .

[Xian120]

Fortunately, kanang gipang yaw2 ni Palma ug sa mga pari wa mo epekto sa huna2 sa kadaghanan, kay mostly mangutana ko sa mga manimbahay(akong mga kaila mostly) if pabor ba sila sa RH, pro man kasagaran,. nangutana pud ko if ok rba daghang anak, kasagaran di man ganahan,. naay daghan mogamit ug contraceptives, nagpa laygit, condom, withdrawal, ug uban pa, wa koy nadunggan nga mag natural planning uy, hahaha..

Their stand may exhibit moral, but that doesnt really make it favorable amongst the public, i mean let's face it, practical na rong panahuna..

[ghostie2472]

Sure ka ani ? Kay if di ka sure , bati baya paminawn ang accusations nimo. Ang mo tabang sa ginikanan ? Instea dna CONDOM ang ihatag sa GOBYERNO , LIBRO man unta di ba ? Maong nahimong cycle unya gi scapegoat ang OVERPOPULATION when in fact CORRUPTION ang issue.

Sure ba ko? Yes, I am sure. Ug asa man sa akong gi reply ang nag accuse ko? Kay dili diay tinuod nga wala mag bayad ang simbahan ug tax? Kay dili diay tinuod nga sa kadaghan sa mga libud suroy nga bata nga gi pasagdan sa ilang mga ginikanan, wala mo tabang ang simbahan? Sir, once in a while, palayo sa imong luho nga pinuy-anan ug puyo duol or sa squatters area jud and see what I am talking about. Have you ever heard of a trisikad driver nga 7 or more ka buok anak while ang asawa walay trabaho? Don't you realize nga kung kinsa tong pwerteng daghana ug anak mao toy mga "kabus"? Want another example? 3 ka cousins nako, amg mga anak, 6, 7, 9 unya walay trabaho ang mga asawa ug trisikad driver, pa extra extra sa jeep/taxi ug construction workers ang bana, you know pila ang income ana nila? Kahibalo ba ka nga mag lakaw-lakaw ang mga bata nga walay saplot nga tarong? Kahibalo ba ka nga wala mag eskwela ang mga bata kay "walay kwarta"?

Palihug ko ug point out sa mga dili tinuod sa akong mga gipanulti ug sa akong mga supposed "accusations". Ayaw pag likoy Manoy ha, Specialty baya na nimo.

Agree ko nimo nga instead of condoms libro ang i hatag pero unsaon man ang libro kung "walay kwarta" ang ginikanan para ipa iskwela sa mga bata? Kay totally free ba diay ang pag iskwela? Nag huna-huna ba ka, Manoy? Ayaw ibase tanan sa imong level nga may kaya kay wala pa man ka maka suway nga mag income ug 100 pesos or less a day.

[ghostie2472]

let me restate to your advantage:

having many children is a problem?


-------------------------

about walking the talk, wait till I got 5 more children...for now, i can't show you...

-------------------------

Personally, it's not a problem is you have enough resources to raise them. Pero majority sa mga pamilya sa pinas brad kay naa man sa "walay kaya".

[jonz]

choice na sa mga sa duha ka tao (bae ug laki) kung pila ka bata ilang buhaton.. ang importante naay gabay sa labawng makakagahom ug hinaot unta responsablysa pagbuhat.. dili nato malikayan nga naa dyd mga tao nga mgpatuyang lang sa gibati...
palami ug ubos ra sa napulo ka minuto ug kasakit sa hataas nga higayon.. kuwang sa edukasyun ang mga tao sa responsible parenthood, naay uban ginikanan mamoyboy sa ila anak,, sus intawn dili mana sala sa bata nga ipakatao, desicyun na sa ginikanan..

dili ta makabasol sa simbahan ug sa gobyerno, magsugod na sa tugkaran sa balay kung unsa ang pasabot anan word nga "resposible parenthood" dili unta mag puyo ang mga katawhan sa linya nga "Ginoo nlang ang bahala kung unysa naa i d mao kung wala i wala" sus kani dyd nga linya mao dyd ni sakit kau nga mo sud sa dungan ug mo gupok sa kasing2x labina makakita ko sa TV... unya ug mg lisud Ginoo basuloh.. inahak nlang sa panahon nga naa sa himaya dili ka sampit ug ginoo, ug sa dihang ng lisud Ginoo basulon, ug sa linya nga kung unsay naa mao na, hastang... unya na unta mo sulti ug ingun ani kung nabuhat na tanan nya wala dyd asinso....dili mnta pwde mahimo ng superman nga sulbaron tanan, unta mahigmata ang katawhan, dili unta mag sige ug reklamo unta saktong lihok buhaton...

[solderingiron]

oi kamahal sa gatas. hasol kung masakit. ok lang tingali kung wala maglisod sa pangwarta.

[Bears Grill]

Bisan pa ug giaprobahan ang RH Bill, kadtung gusting manganak dili lamang usa, dili lamang duha pero tulo o upat, musalig lang kita kay Lord (Even with the passage of the RH Law, those who want to have children, not just one, not two but three or four, should put their trust in the Lord).

I agree with two-thirds of that statement. How many kids a couple wants is a matter between the husband and the wife, not "trust in the Lord". That "Bahala na si Lord" mentality (same banana as "trust in the Lord") is an abdication of personal responsibility, leaving the consequences of one's actions to an un-seen/un-provable entity. It's fatalism and it's irresponsible.

To those who want lots of children and can afford to give them a quality life, I say kudos and more power. To those who clearly can't afford to give that extra child a quality life, have the decency to say NO and go get yourselves some contraceptives.

One cannot help but spot the hypocrisy when you compare the level of vehemence the church hierarchy displayed against the RH bill versus their muted voice on more serious issues. Where was the Catholic Church's vehemence against the abuse of maids in the Middle East or genocide in Rwanda or the Holocaust or the child sexual abuse committed by priests or the persecution of non-Muslims in the Middle East? RH Bill, if carried out without corruption, is a good thing for the millions of poor Filipinos. That the Catholic hierarchy should wage war against it seems to me an assault on the human rights of Filipinos.

Just my opinion.