Are bishops for SOGIE law?

By Ermin Garcia Jr.

FAR from the misimpressions of some that the discussion on the proposed Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression (SOGIE) Equality Bill is unimportant, there were already serious moral implications that surfaced at the recent senate hearings. 

Notwithstanding the continuing emotional debates, SOGIE author Sen. Risa Hontiveros is set to present the bill and call for a vote after receiving a surprise support from members of  Catholic clergy.     

Foremost was the totally unexpected support from Sister Mary John Mananzan, a known close ally of Sen. Hontiveros. She says she finds nothing wrong with it, clearly pandering to Hontiveros’ supporters.

How can she not find nothing wrong with it when the SOGIE bill directly negates Catholic values? That men and women can already choose their legal gender not by their sex organs at birth but by preference totally negates the teaching of the Church. In fact, hidden under the cloak of anti-discrimination, the SOGIE bill if it becomes law will make it legal to teach LGBTQIA + in our public schools. Worse, no catholic institution or school can already quote Bible verses that speak against homosexuality. 

*                *                *                *                *

QUO VADIS CBCP? Outspoken CBCP vice president and Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David was quoted some three months ago, virtually encouraging lawmakers to listen more to those in favor and not those against it, not after underscoring that the CBCP is in support of anti-discrimination and therefore, for the recognition of those belonging to the LGBTQA+ community.

“So if you are representing people, listen. Listen to your constituents and what they have to say about the issue. So a debate I think is very, very important on the matter,” David said.

No one can quarrel with an anti-discrimination policy in terms of employment and job opportunities, health care, security, etc.  But when acts of anti-discrimination infringes already on rights of others to speak for or against an issue, a religious faith, it crosses the line for basic freedoms in favor of one sector – the LGBTQA+, which is essentially a matter of choice of lifestyle. Providing special privileges to one sector is, in fact, already violative of the constitution. 

For instance, Sister Mananzan is being hypocritical when she says it is the right of any man to choose to become transgender and be allowed to enjoy rights and privileges reserved for women but when asked if St. Scholastica College, an all-girl school, that she heads will allow the enrolment of transgenders, she suddenly  became evasive and unresponsive.

Will the school be open to being charged for violating SOGIE law by a transgender who is refused enrolment? 

In the case of Bishop David, will he openly support transgenders electing to become nuns, or lesbians who choose to be males be accepted to become priests?

And where is Archbishop Soc Villegas on this? He has been vocal invoking Christ’s teachings when lambasting the Duterte government but conveniently muted on the  moral issues of SOGIE bill.    

Is it because the proponents of the bill are their political allies, too? This is one moral issue where certainly a catholic vote can matter.

We are looking at supposedly basic issues that are clear cut for members of the Clergy, where they should stand on the issue of LGBTQA+.  But no, they are muddling the issues for political convenience which makes us wonder  –  Is the CBCP proceeding as a political party no longer a shepherd of Christ’s flock?   

*                *                *                *                *

MYSTERY OF THE ESPINO AMBUSH. Something is amiss in the handling of the high profile ambush and attempt on the life of former Cong. SpIne Espino Jr.

I strongly suspect that the police have already solved the case but are not telling it as it is. 

There are situations that should happen but are not happening involving a very high profile, unprecedented murder attempt in Pangasinan. Consider these:

1. Prosecutors were not quick to file the cases, meaning they are not convinced about the evidence to prove their guilt, four weeks after fact.
2. The high-powered weapons used and left behind could already point to their sources but not one has been named as suspected source, i.e., AFP? PNP? PDEA? NBI?  
3. The results of the ballistics tests on the recovered firearms used to blast the convoy still have not been made public 4 weeks after the weapons were discovered.      
4. The chief of police of San Carlos remains in his position in spite of the failure of the station to solve the high profile case. The One-strike rule is not being applied.  
5. Jewel Castro, identified by the police as the last owner of the Hyundai Elantra car allegedly used by the suspects, presented the LTO certification from central office that Castro never owned a Hyundai Elantra.
6. The SITG insists the motive has not been established but Cong. Spine is already certain the motive is political.
7. The almost weekly press conference called by PNP regional office suddenly stopped and would no longer comment on updates.   

What’s happening here, P/Brig. Gen. Joel Orduña? 

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments