Conscience and “Vote Conscience”

Bishops and priests have the right to free speech. Even in a political context, as citizens, they can publicly explain and advocate their political positions as they will. Their reasons may be inspired, or ridiculous. They may be rational, or arbitrary. They can say: Vote for Rita because she is pretty. Don’t vote for Jaypee because he is fat. They can say: Vote for Mario because he is Muslim. Don’t vote for Edgar, because he is a man.

When the reason for urging a person to vote for Rita is unfounded or inaccurate or uninformed, because a bishop or priest has said it, doesn’t make it right. If a bishop has said, “Don’t vote for Martin because he is dumb,” when Mario in fact is intelligent, because the bishop said he is dumb doesn’t make him dumb. In the assessments of persons, even bishops are subject to error. If the bishop says, “Don’t vote for Sandra because she helped the squatters on Church property,” he may be missing how Sandra helped the orphans and the widows, the poor and the oppressed, and so truly advanced the common good in a difficult world. But if the Bishop insists that the squatter issue is the most essential issue, informed citizens may respectfully disagree. Informed citizens may see more than an uninformed bishop can.

Normally bishops and priests don’t participate in a partisan political process in this manner. They are leaders of the community of the disciples of Jesus Christ. The disciples of Jesus join different political parties. Supporting members of one party against members of another may give the impression that their support is based on the Gospel entrusted to them and infallible, when it is really based on personal political conviction, opinion, discretion, and judgment, which is quite fallible. No matter how strong a bishop’s will is that a particular candidate be elected, his will is not necessarily the will of God, even if he has covered his cathedral with manifestations of his will. His opinion is not the omniscience of God. His conviction is not necessarily the power of God.

Normally, bishops and priests try to help the disciples of Jesus make their choices according to conscience. They help to choose, not choose. They inform, they urge, they motivate, they articulate and explain criteria truthfully. But they do not disrespect the consciences of candidates who may have chosen to run because of the urgings of the Church to participate as lay Christians in the political arena. They do not disrespect the dignity of the voting citizen and make the conscience choice for them. Referencing conscience, they do not reduce the human citizen to a voting robot. While this may be done in other religious communities, it is repugnant in the communion of the disciples of Jesus Christ.

The joy and hope, the authority and power of the Catholic Church is not established or repudiated in particular secular election contests, and for bishops to act now as if it were pushes the Church down a perilously slippery slope. Why? Because the authority and power of the Church based on the Gospel is not to be confused with the argument and polemics of partisan politics based on opinion. It is too easy to think that should the Bishop say, “Don’t vote for Rita because she limps” that this is a Gospel imperative and not mere opinion. The Catholic Church would not be alive because Team Patay lost, nor would it be dead if Team Patay won. The Catholic Church is diminished if it its bishops reduce it to a political party. The over-identification of the Church with particular political parties is historically inimical to the mission of the Church.

The poster says, “Conscience Vote.” The open reference to conscience even by a bishop in urging votes for some and not for others raises some truly serious questions.

Are the bishops really willing to judge that the legislators who voted in conscience for the RH bill in fact acted against their conscience when judgments relative to the common good in a plural society are necessarily tentative and contestable? Crafting and enacting laws in a difficult world is a secular matter, that is left to the political and moral judgment of the legislator in conscience before God. When a Christian lay legislator who is entrusted by the Church with care for secular affairs says, “I have considered the concerns of the Church, I have considered Humanae Vitae and its reception within the Church since 1968, I have brought the matter to prayer, I have considered the concerns of other groups in society whose views differ from the Church, I have considered the state of reproductive health care and the plight of women in situations of distress, and so I make my decision and cast my vote in conscience which as far as I can judge advances the common good,” is the bishop really making the judgment that this legislator is lying, or is ignorant of Catholic moral norms, or disobeys his or her conscience?

In Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, “Gaudium et Spes” (GS), the Council says:
“Often enough the Christian view of things will itself suggest some specific solution in certain circumstances. Yet it happens rather frequently, and legitimately so, that with equal sincerity some of the faithful will disagree with others on a given matter. Even against the intentions of their proponents, however, solutions proposed on one side or another may be easily confused by many people with the Gospel message. Hence it is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed in the aforementioned situations to appropriate the Church’s authority for his opinion. They should always try to enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and caring above all for the common good” [43].

In our context, to the problem of lack of care for reproductive health in the Philippines, there were different “specific solutions,” about which there was disagreement. GS warns against one or the other side being confused with the Gospel message, and proscribes appropriation of Church authority when all that is involved is opinion. Instead, there should be an effort towards ongoing enlightened discussion towards the common good. Even as issues remain contentious, mutual charity is to be preserved.

Crafting laws in a secular world is the burden of our lay sisters and brothers. GS may again be enlightening here.
“Secular duties and activities belong properly although not exclusively to laymen. Therefore acting as citizens in the world, whether individually or socially, they will keep the laws proper to each discipline, and labor to equip themselves with a genuine expertise in their various fields. They will gladly work with men seeking the same goals. Acknowledging the demands of faith and endowed with its force, they will unhesitatingly devise new enterprises, where they are appropriate, and put them into action. Laymen should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city; from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment. Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role” [43].

Laypersons crafting laws necessarily work within the secular constraints of lawmaking, where they must be informed through disciplines with their own laws. They must consider all groups in society, not just the Catholic Church: “Every social group must take into account the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family” (GS, 26). Through a well-formed conscience, it is theirs to work for a society that knows the goodness and wisdom of a loving God – even in its laws. In their legislation, in the end, it is their conscience that comes into play, not the conscience of the bishop and priests. In conscience, lay legislators make decisions about what is required for the common good. When it comes to conscience:

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS, 16)

“God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone”[GS, 28].

Advertisements

About Joel Tabora, S.J.

Jesuit. Educator
This entry was posted in Personal Views and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to Conscience and “Vote Conscience”

  1. andrew lim says:

    The tap dance of those who support the Bacolod diocese’s tarpaulins actually damages further the already fragile state of the Church. By engaging in partisanship, they are now forced to justify the political histories of their supported candidates and engage in their own version of “palusot.”

    Concretely, I am referring to Binay. et al’s palusot that since the tarps did not contain the word “vote for”, it should not be considered electoral campaigning. But the tarps have the words “conscience vote” right on top! They put check marks on those they like, and x marks on those they dont. All the names there are candidates. Who are they trying to fool? Fr Melvin Castro even talks of distributing sample ballots of Team Patay/Buhay!

    Will they take this to the local level, where the local archbishop will now take on the role of kingmaker? Will candidates now sport quality seals like pieces of beef? See how this diminishes the Church even more?

    If I were a Leyte voter, and the choice is between Imelda Marcos (who voted no to RH) and another one who supports RH, should my vote automatically be for Marcos? Is the slogan of the Church now “Di Baleng Corrupt, Basta Kakampi ng Bishop?”

    • dboncan says:

      Andrew, you (as with Fr. Tabora) attribute too much to the campaign. The church cannot force a Catholic voter to vote as such it can only inform the voter, in more appealing cliches, what the positons of these candidates are in an issue that the Church considers as a non-compromisable. Some dioceses have refused to carry this campaign and in fact offer a more sober way of informing voters so it is utterly false that this is a concerted effort. Remember that the Church is only partisan to it’s moral teachings not to any person or party. THe list is a mixed bag. Fr. Tabora is extremely naive (I’m being kind since I know that he is not) in forcing the issue that the congressmen voted “in conscience” when everyone else (but Fr. Tabora??) knew the money dangling and iron-fist approach (greatly disrespecting of the separation of powers that the President did) in having that bill passed.
      While I don’t agree with this approach at least I know that most of our Bishops and clergy still know what non-compromisable teachings are and are not afraid to fight for it unlike some who are ideologically pluralistic.

      • Cedric says:

        Even then, the highlight of names for conscience vote and the exclusion of candidates to be voted is truly disgusting, even cheap for bishops to specify such names. Does that mean that such names were “divinely scanned” and “rid” of any moral viruses that certain bishops willingly gamble their name, authority and the Catholic church?

        Dboncan, i am one with fr. Joel and andrew lim in pointing out the greater damage that such tarps and action will bring to the already divided church.

        After all, is that the only way to make the Church’s moral position known?

        We are better than that.

      • dboncan says:

        Well at the level of the grassroots, far removed from the urbanite intelligentsia that is nurtured by Fr. Tabora, a certain segment of Catholics are at the level of “just tell us whom.” These are the same people who had absolutely no idea of the goings-on of the RH bill and the railroading and blackmailing that went on. These are the same people who have “faith like little children”, not very educated, common laborers… who is to say that the church is actually doing wrong? During the debates, we offered very intelligent arguments to no avail, perhaps they feel it’s time to try a slightly different approach, one that may not appeal to people like you and me and Fr. Tabora but may nonetheless seep thru the simple mind of the common Catholic that moral integrity, the non-negotiables are the first things.

    • Cedric says:

      Fairness dictates that the sides of the coin must be known to the public, especially to those who are ignorant and unaware.

      ..not that they will simply be told to vote “names dropped from the heavens”.

    • snabur says:

      The Church is partisan only when it takes side on purely political issues. The RH law is NEVER a purely political issue: it is firstly a moral one as it directly involves the promotion of contraception which is intrinsically evil. When this premise is not admitted, one could easily see in the move of Bacolod bishop as partisan.

      But when this premise is admitted, the move can easily be viewed as a shepherd’s act of defending its flock from incoming danger: the danger of more anti-life thinking people making anti-life and anti-family laws in the land. Will a bishop be accused of partisan politics when all he does is informing people and urging them to vote according to what their faith dictates?

      What is more important than the question of life and death, and the family? If Imelda is corrupt as Mr. Andrew Lim has prejudged already, I am sure the bishop will not side with her as corruption is not purely political but a moral issue as well. Hence, the issue here is not merely that the bishops are on one side or the other. The issue is whether one side or the other is a threat to the moral fiber of the society. This is the bishop’s concern!

      But is anyone not concerned that a Catholic priest is doing partisan politics by siding with the RH law, not on its moral grounds but merely on political one? Why would a Catholic priest try to make the RH law Catholic when the Catholic faith clearly pronounces against the promotion of contraception? Isn’t that a partisan move?

      • andrew lim says:

        @snabur

        The partisanship being opposed here is the Church’s participation in the electoral process by advocating who to vote/not vote. Not its stand on the RH law. When you have specific names being given out, that is unmistakably partisan politics.

        If corruption is indeed a moral and political issue as you say, then I’d like to see the Leyte Archbishop come out with tarps identifying “Team Corrupt” and “Team Not Corrupt”. See how the entanglement of the Church becomes excessive?

      • snabur says:

        Why focus only on the move of the Bishop and call it partisan? Why not call partisan Fr. Tabora’s stand on RH law? Who decides which is partisan or not? YOU, Mr. Andrew Lim? Or Fr. Tabora? Can’t the bishop act according to his ministry as a bishop by giving warning to the faithful? Because if you ask me this question about Fr. Tabora, I would say: Fr. Tabora, by being a priest, is not expected to talk against the bishops.

        About the corrupt officials, just give us clear proof of who are the corrupt ones — as clear as those of who voted for the RH law — AND EXPECT TARPAULINS EVEN AT THE GATES OF ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY.

      • andrew lim says:

        @snabur
        This is a response to your comment which starts with “Why focus only…” The reply button on that comment doesnt appear, and Im not sure where this reply of mine will end up in the thread.

        If you have noticed, and I have made this clear to Dicky Boncan on his blog, I get involved only in this discussion as it pertains to the impact of the naming of names on the Bacolod tarpaulins. My participation and interest here is limited to its impact on the political life of this nation. Which is larger than any single issue, even RH. (I dont expect you to agree on this, as RH seems to be the only issue that matters to you facing the voters)

        I do not get involved in theological matters, in this fight of Jesuit vs Jesuit alumni (Tabora vs Boncan) priest vs priest (you vs Tabora) or laity vs priest (others vs you).

        You cannot dictate to me what discussion I should get involved or interested in.

        PS What parish do you serve in, Father?

      • Cedric says:

        @snabur:
        “Will a bishop be accused of partisan politics when all he does is informing people and urging them to vote according to what their faith dictates?”

        “To what their faith dictates?” Really?

        Come on. You simply misread fr. Joel and andrew lim here.

        Why can’t you see that the endorsement of specific names on a big tarpaulin not be understood as a partisan politics? Is it not simple to comprehend?

        I don’t mind if the church will endlessly argue over a clear moral issue on the rh law but vindicating mortal politicians for the entire catholic population is like taking away my freedom. and it feels like as if i commit a gross disobedience, or mortal sin if those names do not appear in my ballot on the day of the election.

        How can that be, fr. Snabur?

      • snabur says:

        @Andrew Lim

        We always see reality according to our prism. There’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is when we start thinking that our prism is the only legitimate means of looking at reality.

        As a Catholic priest, I always believe that the salvation of souls is more important than any other concerns in this world. (I don’t expect you to agree with me on this, too). But even political concerns would merely pass and in the end, we will all face the same Judge at the end of time… And we will all be judged accordingly…according to our actions and to what we deem as more important in this life. (I won’t expect you to share with me this faith, either).

        As you see, as a priest, the RH law does not affect me directly as I don’t have to use contraceptives. Neither do I get paid or any benefit whatsoever in trying to clarify and to defend the Catholic position in this issue. You can prove my intention to be right: “salus animarum” and “Ad maiorem gloriam Dei”.

        The RH issue, which you may think is a very small one, directly involves a moral question and this moral question in turn involves directly the biggest issue: salvation of souls. You can just imagine why I get involve in this with the same passion as you have in your concern about “the impact of those tarpaulins in the political life of this nation”.

        You may say that your political perspective is as important as mine. That may be true. But even in my “salus animarum” concern, believe it or not, you are also included.

      • Cedric says:

        @snabur: re “salus animarum”

        So, are you saying that those who voted for the RH bill will be condemned to hell – categorically? Really?

      • andrew lim says:

        @snabur

        “What’s wrong is when we start thinking that our prism is the only legitimate means of looking at reality.” -snabur

        Absolutely. Which is why in a secular and plural society, multiple views ought to be accommodated. Which is why your group’s decision to name names and label Team so and so is being criticized- you are applying your own prism only, forgetting that the country is called Republic of the Philippines, and not Catholic Republic of the Phils. Our citizens are called Filipinos, not Catholic Filipinos.

        When you label candidates as pro-death, you are applying your prism, disregarding their beliefs which are contrary to yours. For example, I dont think Alan Cayetano is even Catholic, but you are applying your prism on him.

        I’ve noticed that you changed your gravatar. Your previous picture shows some resemblance to Fr. Gregory Gaston, rector of the Filipino Catholic College in Rome. Which parish in Davao City do you serve in?

      • Cedric says:

        @andrew lim:

        I agree with you, andrew lim. Of course, we take a stand based on our conviction and principle; hence, we choose our own prism in our search for the truth.

        Without it, we simply make ourselves arguing without grounds!

      • Cedric says:

        Its funny that snabur changed his profile pic – from his personal photo into a bird? Haha!

  2. Cynthia Alfonso says:

    Just to be clear, since it is going around… is it is true that you received One Million Dollars from the RH advocates… whether for Ateneo or for personal use???

    • Cedric says:

      Ms. Cynthia,

      I think you know what “INSULT” means?

      Please refrain.

      • Cynthia Alfonso says:

        Cedric, is seeking truth “insulting”? This is a chance for Mr. Tabora to clear himself publicly rather than have everyone talk about it behind his back….

      • snabur says:

        That’s right!

      • snabur says:

        Ms Cynthia Alfonso, if you wish I can give you a copy of a document that says Ateneo is no. 42 of the Top 50 Recipients of Foundation Grants for Reproductive Health Care, circa 2004. $800,000 dollars.

      • druid says:

        try to illuminate us regarding this accusation… may pera pala… kaya pala dakdak ng dakdak itong si Tabora! Pag pera na… WALA NG KONSENSYA.. WLANG HIYANG PARI KA TABORA! MUKHANG PERA!

    • snabur says:

      I think it is only 800,000 dollars.

      • You are a priest? says:

        mao diay na na sila bag.ong building…dato na diay kayo sila..mao na ibaligya iya pagkapari para sa kwarta..You can’t serve both God and mammon…

      • Cedric says:

        Snabur,

        Can you show to the world the acknowledgment receipt with fr. Joel’s name and signature on it?

      • snabur says:

        Cedric, not everything one receives is given a receipt. don’t be so naive. but give me your email and i will send it to you.

      • Cedric says:

        I won’t believe you unless you put your allegation fr. Snabur UNDER OATH…because its too easy to cast a mire on other person even without evidence…beyond reasonable doubt.

        ..only then that your allegation is worth considering.

  3. dboncan says:

    I find it appalling that Fr. Tabora seems to defend the difficulty that congressmen have that goes into crafting laws and the delicate balance that they weigh to satisfy the common good… Fr. Tabora, really? These fellows have 200 million at their disposal and 50,000 per LP meeting that they attended during the height of the debates… the Church on the other hand merely relies on priests to teach and stir up people’s consciences. The power is with them not the Church.

    “Every social group must take into account the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family” (GS, 26).”

    …but you forget that it is also the same Church that says “A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.[12,EV] As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,[13,GS]”

    • Verna M. Alih says:

      dhoncan, just to clarify. do you have concrete proof that the congressmen actually received “200 million and 50 million per LP meeting”?
      I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church is already campaigning as against the Church’s mandate to educate the voters. And when you say that “a certain segment of Catholics are at the level of “just tell us whom” you are somewhat insulting the intellect of the voters.
      I maintain that a christian way of voters’ education does not tell the voters whom to vote for or whom not to vote for.

      • Cedric says:

        I agree, verna!

      • snabur says:

        True. But it is also a Christian way of voters’ education to tell the voters who among these candidates are for and against the Christian doctrine on life.

      • snabur says:

        To inform is never the same as to dictate. To think that Catholic faithful are being “dictated” by the bishops giving them information on Team Buhay, Team Patay and urging (still not dictating) them to “Vote according to their conscience”, SIMPLY IMPLIES THAT CATHOLICS CAN BE DICTATED, which is clearly an insult to the intellect of the Catholic voters. The bishops do not dictate simply because they believe faithful Catholics CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be dictated. What moves them to vote is their Catholic faith. A good and true Catholic WILL NEVER VOTE for a candidate who has violated the Catholic doctrine on life by supporting a law that promotes CONTRACEPTION. If you think we don’t have a Catholic vote, it is because you think there are very few true Catholics…starting with those who think that RH law is compatible with Catholic doctrines. “If you say “I am Catholic but…”, it is just that you are not really Catholic”.

      • dboncan says:

        Yes: 1. it’s documented that Mitos Magsaysay went to Butch Abad demanding that they release her PDAF.The same congresswoman outlined how the “blackmailing” approach I mentioned above was used. 2. 2 congressmen I know personally have had to vote “Yes” because of the withholding of their PDAF (one of them already had an outstanding promissory loan with the local govt hospital amounting to 1M and had started to turn away charity recipients because of this) and they specifically mentioned a barrage of text messages reminding them to attend, what was at that time, weekly meetings at a per dim of P50,000/meeting! 3. During the heated 2nd reading votation, the three administration secretaries went to congressional offices of those who voted “NO” in the viva voce first reading, one by one they “reminded” them to tow the party line with re/election package incentives, knowing that during the first reading viva voce, they did not have the majority! … if anyone here cries “proof” “proof” pleeease… don’t be so naive or pretend to be so.

      • dboncan says:

        “I maintain that a christian way of voters’ education does not tell the voters whom to vote for or whom not to vote for.”
        True but when the church says vote for those who uphold moral truth, at the end of the day, the voter still has full use of his intellectual faculty. How different is that from a candidate saying “vote for me.” There is no monitoring of votes that the Catholic Church conducts to see how the voter voted. You for example won’t accede to that, fine. KNow this though, integrity means upholding moral principles and in morals there is what we call a hierarchy of values. I hold that if a politician can compromise on a moral principle and violate natural moral law on this, anything else would be easy for them to violate.

    • snabur says:

      GREAT! This quotation perfectly answers Fr. Tabora’s stand!

  4. Cynthia Alfonso says:

    Perhaps Mr. Tabora (forgive me but I can’t call you Father since, to many of us, you have forfeited that title) has forgotten that we share in the priestly, kingly and prophetic tasks as disciples of Jesus… specially, in this instant, we are all called to be watchmen/women for our brothers/sisters… To quote the Bible:

    “16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[a] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.

    20 “Again, when a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before them, they will die. Since you did not warn them, they will die for their sin. The righteous things that person did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:16-21 New International Version (NIV)…

    There’s just too much play of words.., arguments here and there… Again, let’s go back to the word of God… To quote the Bible:

    Dealing With False Teachers

    “14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.” (2 Timothy 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)

    Rather, let’s listen to God’s word …

    “4 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:1-5
    New International Version (NIV))…

    And that is what we laity, including our faithful hierarchical shepherds are doing…

    • Cedric says:

      Again, ms. Cynthia:

      Please do a little research between EXEGESIS and EISEGESIS.

      Your take on the biblical verse above is a good example of eisegesis – regrettable and devoid of scholarly integrity and plausibility.

      • Cedric says:

        By the way, i am also a lay but i find fr. Joel’s insights helpful.

      • snabur says:

        Yes. Fr. Tabora’s thoughts are very helpful in spreading confusion among the faithful especially on the issue of obedience to the Magisterium.

      • Cynthia Alfonso says:

        Cedric, sorry but you have just affirmed God’s word (not mine), to wit: “14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.” (2 Timothy 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)

    • Cynthia Alfonso says:

      Cedric, thank you again for proving God’s word (not mine) to be true… “3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.(2 Timothy 4:3-4 New International Version (NIV))…

      Clearly, one does not need “scholarly integrity and plausibility” from false teachers to know the truth… God’s word is sufficient… God’s word is wisdom and truth…
      Someone said (paraphrasing) : “To those who believe, no explanation is needed; to those who do not believe, no explanation is enough.”

  5. tatofaust says:

    Reblogged this on tatofaust and commented:
    very good and something to think about

  6. You are a Priest... says:

    Hey, we have moral law that would guide our conscience..Conscience is subjective while moral law is objective . From the fact that God, who doesn’t change, is the basis of morality,Therefore, Morality will not change. Because it will not change, it will become our standard…

    I can’t understand why a priest uses all his knowledge just to make his own subjective law…I might be accused of ad hominem…But it is true..You are a priest, you must not misled other people because of your hypocrisy…You are Martin Luther II………”Taborans Church”..I am just a youth who can’t understand a priest like you…

  7. Pray tell when does the good Father Tabora plan to leave the priesthood, or the Roman Catholic Church herself? So I may send him a despedida gift with a big THANK YOU, FINALLY!

  8. And wow, a moderated blog! Oh the irony of it!

  9. Pingback: In Case You Forgot Fr. Tabora, There are Souls that are at Stake | TheStrugglingDad

  10. Cedric says:

    This is one of the best articles I have ever read on the fallibility of the bishops – not in an insulting way but through an honest, humble reflection on the persons of bishops and similarly reflecting each of us, both in our fragility and limitation on discernment.

    Hence, the need to dialogue and discuss like this.

    Congratulations fr. Joel!

  11. Fr Joel Tabora SJ admonishes us NOT to be judgmental of others as “… God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone” [GS, 28]. And I do agree that we, as Disciples of Christ, must have that Charity-of-Heart to grant goodwill even to those who oppose us vigorously in the determination of our Country’s “Common Good”.

    In the divisive debates (which weakened Family Bonds & alienated close friendships) in many fora in & out the Halls-of-Congress, it is common knowledge that the Final Votes on the RH Bill by both Houses of the 15th Congress was far from independent – which should have been. It is an undeniable fact that P-Noy & Co was complicit in the passage of the “RH Law of 2012” (alongside the support given to the RH Bill Proponents by Mainstream Media; by the left-leaning Party-Lists; by Big Business Money Lobby; by Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood USA; by the USAid-dispensing Obama Presidency) – all in the context of the Philippines being a Signatory to the “UN Agenda 21” espousing Population Control with the end goal of Economic Progress.

    As an Alumnus of the ADMU (GS’56 & Coll’64), the Jesuit Fathers taught me (among others): in Theology – “God’s Providence”; and in Philosophy – “The End does not justify the Means”. Hence, I have become an avid advocate for “Pro-Life/Anti-RH” because I have come to believe that, with God’s Providence & with State’s Support, MAN should be the producer of the “Added-Value” as he becomes more an Asset than a Liability. To me, allocating scarce Taxpayers’ Money (P7 billion – Yr 1 alone) to provide FREE Condoms/Pills (et al) for “safe & satisfying sex” to the targeted Filipino Poor (instead of adding the same to Healthcare, Education, & Livelihood) is not only Bad Governance but an insult to the Filipino Dignity.

    In the case of the so-called electioneering by the Bishop-of-Bacolod, with his “Team Buhay / Team Patay” Tarpaulin (with list of Candidates) hanging in the frontage of his Cathedral, why should you (Fr Tabora – a Jesuit Catholic Priest) be on the side of those who cry foul? Isn’t is obvious enough that the RH Law went through a Legislative Mill process far from fair? May God enlighten us all – for love of country and for a truly Pro-God “Common Good” of Man.

  12. snabur says:

    He who teaches a truth that is against the Magisterium that he professes does not deserve to be given credit of the truth he is teaching. His incoherence — between his person and his teaching — renders him incredible!

    • Cedric says:

      Sounds pharisaical to me!

      • snabur says:

        He who cannot obey does not have the credibility to make others obey. That is what it means. Does it still sound pharisaical to you? If it still does, maybe there is so much of a pharisee in you. Oooops sorry.

      • Cedric says:

        Preaching obedience and credibility….i think we know who is acting here…ooppsss!

    • Tony says:

      the magisterium does not teach EVERYTHING; it does teach, but it cannot impose. if this is your position, then you are ipso facto excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Study your theology well, read church history, and stop being such a robotic imbecile who gives the impression the Church as people of God, Body of Christ and Temple of the HOly Spirit does not have God-created and Spirit-inspired brains!!! Saan ka nag-aral ng theology???

      • Fr.Nori says:

        In matters of faith and morals the Magisterium is infallible. The praxis only confirms the veracity of the truth contained in the “deposit of faith” pronounce solemnly by the Magisterium. Theology varies according to time and social context but can never modify,rectify and amplify whatever is already revealed and contained in the Revelation. It is eternal truths Tony! I think you are confusing theology as a field of study and Divine Revelation as “Absolute Truth” with what your personal understanding about religion and Scriptures.Don’t be to harsh in throwing stones to your brothers ans sisters. Theology is an evolving process…today is here and tommorow it might be gone already. I hope that you respect also others opinion and point of views without mortifying anyone because you feel you know more than them in Theology. Your not a “Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church if I may remind you! Thanks and Happy Easter!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        or maybe not a mystic at all!

  13. You are a priest? says:

    Sacred Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition and Magisterium are equal of importance. If he would not follow the Magisterium, it simply implies that he don’t really believe in his faith..

    Fr Tabora, Think about what you are doing..Are you helping the Church or destroying it?

  14. You are a priest? says:

    I can’t understand a religious priest who made a vow of obedience to his superior especially the Bishop who ordained him…Hopefully, you will also repent like us a poor sinner..It is not too late..The Church conferred to you the dignity of priesthood..Hopefully you will use it for the good of the Church..

  15. snabur says:

    THE RELATIVISM OF FR. TABORA

    “When a Christian lay legislator who is entrusted by the Church with care for secular affairs says, “I have considered the concerns of the Church, I have considered Humanae Vitae and its reception within the Church since 1968, I have brought the matter to prayer, I have considered the concerns of other groups in society whose views differ from the Church, I have considered the state of reproductive health care and the plight of women in situations of distress, and so I make my decision and cast my vote in conscience which as far as I can judge advances the common good,” is the bishop really making the judgment that this legislator is lying, or is ignorant of Catholic moral norms, or disobeys his or her conscience?”

    While it is true that we must act according to what our conscience dictates, it must be said that we must act according to the right, well-formed conscience. And a morally well-formed conscience is one that is in conformity with the objective truth – the truth about the human person and about the human life. Following only one’s conscience without carefully discerning whether such conscience is morally right is merely relativism. “As far as I can judge” is not a wise basis for acting according to one’s conscience: the judge is still the “I”, not the objective truth. It must be “as far as the truth is concerned”.

    But how can the objective, absolute truth concern the good Fr. Tabora if he himself wrote in other article: “People are tired of obstinate claims to absolute truth when the thinking world is still searching for (the) truth”? Once you set aside faith’s (and the Church’s) claims to Absolute Truth, you will surely fall into the hands of Absolute Reason as your guide towards the truth. And the truth that this Reason can give you is mostly a relative truth. We all know that relativism is self-contradictory.

    • Joseph says:

      Thanks for this you clarified the issues best 🙂

    • Cedric says:

      Snabur:

      You twisted the phrase “as far as i can judge” into cheap relativism. The original intention of fr. Tabora (please reread the text) is for each person to exhaust as much as possible in prayer, study and discernment the truth and wisdom in every issue that a discerning person may encounter….because only then that people can truly become responsible and accountable to their faith and action.

      • snabur says:

        @Cedric

        It is not enough to act according to our conscience. It is precise to act according to the RIGHT CONSCIENCE. And the right conscience is one that conforms itself to the norms of natural law — the objective truth. If the pro-RH legislators have really examined their conscience (in prayer, study, truth, wisdom, before God, etc.), then they would certainly know that the RH law promotes contraception which is directly contradictory to the natural law, to the truth of the human person created in God’s image and likeness. If they really have seen this, then, why did they vote for it?

  16. snabur says:

    A NECESSARY CLARIFICATION:

    As far as the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Davao is concerned, we are one in mind and heart in teaching the faithful of the intrinsic evil of the RH law, that is, its promotion of contraceptives and contraceptive mentality. Hence, it can never be compatible with the Catholic doctrine (cfr. http://snabur.wordpress.com/). If Fr. Tabora is teaching otherwise, then he clearly is not one in mind and heart with the archdiocesan clergy. “Who is not with us is against us”, Jesus tells his disciples. I can only say similar words.

    I don’t think there is something wrong with informing your faithful parishioners who are the Team Buhay and the Team Patay. IT IS NOT DICTATING THEM. After all, Catholics CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be dictated. What should dictate them in voting is their Catholic faith. If Catholics are really true to their faith, they would not vote for those who have done something against it — the Team Patay — even if other issues are still at stake. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ANYWAY THAN THE ISSUE ON LIFE AND DEATH?

    Now, what is seriously wrong to perceive is WHEN A CATHOLIC PRIEST WOULD FAVOR THOSE WHO HAVE VOTED FOR A LAW THAT SUPPORTS A CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY — which is clearly against the Catholic faith. Worse is when A CATHOLIC PRIEST WOULD GO AGAINST BISHOPS JUST TO FAVOR THOSE WHO WILLINGLY WOULD GO AGAINST THE CATHOLIC FAITH THAT HE PROFESSES. Worst is when A CATHOLIC PRIEST WOULD GO AGAINST THAT FAITH by setting aside its “obstinate claims to absolute truth” and by clinging only to the “thinking world that is still searching for the truth”!

    IT IS ONE THING IS TO EXPRESS OUR PERSONAL OPINION AND TO ARGUE FOR OUR CHOSEN PHILOSOPHY (even just to manifest our erudition. In philosophy, one cannot be accused of heresy). BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING TO CONFUSE THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE, BOTH THE PRO- AND THE ANTI-RH LAW (Heresy is the best word for it): (1) the pro-RH, into thinking that their stand has the backing of the Catholic Church — that RH law is compatible with Catholic doctrine, and (2) the anti-RH, into the scandal that a Catholic priest is teaching something contrary to the Catholic doctrine!

    LET THIS CONFUSION AND SCANDAL BE GONE!

    • Cedric says:

      “BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING TO CONFUSE THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE, BOTH THE PRO- AND THE ANTI-RH LAW (Heresy is the best word for it”.

      Heresy is for dogma.

      Is the catholic teaching pertaining to the rh law a dogma?

      The matter on the rh law is a non-definitive fallible teaching.

      • C Dino says:

        The catechism and the writings of the popes are clear on the issue of artificial contraception. It is simply immoral. Theologians like Tabora just can not accept the stand of the church on this RH issue. The epidemic of dissension and confusion in the Catholic Church is a result of the battle between some theologians who have a skewed understanding of the Vatican II docs, and the bishops. Priests like Tabora seem to have forgotten their vow of obedience.
        I may be wrong but the way I see it, Tabora, is questioning the wisdom of our Bishops by siding with pro RH legislators using conscience as his basis for his arguments. But conscience though speaks to us with the authority of God, it must be well-formed and informed. As Catholics, we form our conscience based on papal teachings. A person can always change their conscience to conform with truth. The problem with putting more weight to ones own conscience is that there will be no moral absolutes. The Ten Commandments will just be ten recommendations.

      • snabur says:

        @Cedric

        Just a little info so you could comprehend what I mean.

        The Catholic teaching pertaining to the RH law is this: That contraception is intrinsically evil. This is an Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (Cfr. CCC, 2370, 2399). The RH law promotes contraception. Hence, it goes directly in contra to this Catholic teaching. To favor the RH law is to favor a law that contradicts the Catholic teaching. What do you call this? Heresy, right? For it is like saying that contraception is compatible to the Catholic teaching.

        To claim therefore that the RH law is compatible to Catholic doctrine is heretical!

    • Tony says:

      obviously, you think that every sentence you wrote above is NOT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION!!! so now the magisterium and snabur ARE ONE AND THE SAME. what a moronic stance, from a CAtholic point of view… and a fascistic take on what it means for the Church to teach!!!

  17. Cedric says:

    More than the papal teaching is Jesus’ commandment of love.

    Fr. Tabora offers us a point to reconsider our position and even our own attitude on HOW we deal with those persons who claim a different stand on the rh law, particularly to fellow catholics. Should we just simply condemn them by repeating over and over again that they have erred in their discernment and conscience because they are againts the papal teaching of the Church and brag about how we have faithful and real as Catholics because we side with the Magisterium of the Church?

    C Dino, i think something is wrong with that. The greater calling of the church is to be the church of all. The greater task is to make the church more relevant and more compassionate in dealing with persons who even disagree with it, not threatening people with the fires of hell from the pulpit or the exclusion of the so-called catholic vote of the team buhay, team patay political campaign.

    The church must act not in the way of pressuring or imposing on people its views and much more, its opinions on names for ‘senatorial candidates’. Can we just go back to the original mandate of the PPCRV?

    Definitely, fr. Joel’s stand is more than the issue on ‘putting more weight on one’s conscience’. He simply sees the bigger picture of our catholic faithful.

    • C Dino says:

      The catechism and the writings of the popes are clear on the issue of artificial contraception. It is simply immoral. Theologians like Tabora just can not accept the stand of the church on this RH issue. The epidemic of dissension and confusion in the Catholic Church is a result of the battle between some theologians who have a skewed understanding of the Vatican II docs, and the bishops. Priests like Tabora seem to have forgotten their vow of obedience.
      I may be wrong but the way I see it, Tabora, is questioning the wisdom of our Bishops by siding with pro RH legislators using conscience as his basis for his arguments. But conscience though speaks to us with the authority of God, it must be well-formed and informed. As Catholics, we form our conscience based on papal teachings. A person can always change their conscience to conform with truth. The problem with putting more weight to ones own conscience is that there will be no moral absolutes. The Ten Commandments will just be ten recommendations.

  18. Druid says:

    Kaya pala dakdak ng dakdak itong c Tabora… Kasi pala may pera… Hindi na nahiya… WALANG HIYA… Tabora you are so adamant in your stand… Tell us once and for all.. May pera bang involved ditto o wala? 800,000USD pa.. Ipamigay mo yan sa mga sinasabing mo na mga poor.. WALANG HIYA…

  19. druid says:

    walang konsensya.. ayusin mo ang paratang na yan, may 800000 USD ba o wala?

  20. Fr.Nori says:

    Viewpoints MOST REV. OSCAR V. CRUZ, D.D., JUDICIAL VICAR • National Tribunal of Appeals (former CBCP-NAMT Office) • CBCP Bldg. 470 Gen. Luna Street, Intramuros, Manila 1002
    personal views and commentaries

    Monday, March 11, 2013

    “Team Buhay.” “Team Patay.”
    All of a sudden, life or death has become but a political issue, nothing more than a partisan political matter. To speak openly about this reality is no taboo for the citizens of the Philippines. To choose publicly between the two alternatives is even forbidden by the laws of the Philippines. To be expressly pro-life or pro-death is taboo for the present government and agencies under its patronage – if not it its mercy. Formerly, it was the contest but between “pro-choice” or pro-right. Now, under the present regime, people are even asked to be pro-non-life or pro-extinction of life – courtesy of the national leadership and its well favored and rewarded allies.

    There is definitely something very relevant as well as very serious about the on-going bout of “Life VS Death” that has gone viral, that has even gone before the Supreme Court. The fight is not simply about a poster separating personalities defending life or promoting death. It is about the law itself masquerading as some kind of a socio-economic developmental project generously funded certainly not by a single peso from the pockets of the said leadership and its faithful allies but by people’s taxes – as usual.

    To claim that formal, official, and licensed population control favors life is not only too gross to proclaim but also too preposterous to believe. It is easy to know and to learn that to control population is precisely to stop births, to lessen life. This is the standing truth and bare fact openly experienced by countries that formerly subscribed to and strictly practiced population control. Now, they are basically singing a different song. They are urging and rewarding their citizens to have children who – they now know – eventually become the producers and consumers, the propellers of business and industry as the composite work force of a country.

    Malacañang is both the author and the promoter of population control – irrespective of the costs and the means. Malacañang even went to extent of officially certifying it as an urgent legislation for the country. Malacañang is dead sure that the Filipinos are the enemies of the Philippines, that their poverty and misery are their own making – not the continuing odious graft and corrupt practices in government, not the detestable smuggling unlimited in the country, not the dubious and interminable practice of the “Pork Barrel” system, not the conversion of politics into lucrative business – specially when favored by dynastic features.

    “Team Buhay.” “Team Patay.” So have some people in a given place said, wrote, and displayed their work openly. So began the persecutory moves of a government entity – under the unsaid approval and delight of Malacañang. And so are other people in other places preparing to do the same according to their own ways and means. So is the battle joined!

  21. C Dino says:

    Looks like my post yesterday got duplicated. Apologies. We are not condemning anyone to hell. We are just simply stating that Tabora’s conclusions are contrary to what the chuch teaches especially on conscience. We Catholics believe that Jesus was not lying when He said that the powers of hell will not prevail against His church. This presupposes that the church especially the seat of Peter will never contradict the teachings of Jesus. The teaching office of the church which we call the magisterium are just guardians and preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine. Christian doctrine was present in full from the beginning and has only organically developed since.
    My take on the RH issue is that contraceptives are bad for women’s health. There are medical findings that it cause cancer. Since this new law is anti-life and anti-women then it must removed from our laws. Our justice system allows ways to correct oppressive laws like this. As such, the team Buhay and team patay list is just mere information to identify candidates who can change the oppressive law. Aside from being immoral , it is also oppressive.

  22. druid says:

    TABORA WILL YOU EXPLAIN THE ACCUSATION OF THE 800000 USD?!!!
    PAG TOTOO ITO
    KAYA PALA GANYAN ANG MGA POST MO
    KASI
    WALA KANG KONSENSYA!
    WALANG HIYANG PARI KA
    MUKHANG PERA
    WALANG HIYA

  23. Cedric says:

    Druid,

    You are mad without an evidence!

    Respect please to fr. Joel and to your Self!

    • druid says:

      bULLSHIT!
      EH MAGPARESPETO DIN ANG PARING ITO..
      MAGSALITA SYA..
      YES OR NO? TUMANGGAP BA NG PERA ANG WALANG HIYANG PARING ITO?

    • druid says:

      SAMBAHIN MO NA ANG PARING ITO CEDRIC..
      CLA LANG NAMAN ANG MARURUNONG D BA?
      CGE.. ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN THE ACCUSATION THAT IS CIRCULATING IN THIS BLOG…
      WE WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN!
      WALANG HIYA

      • Cedric says:

        Druid,

        If you and others are serious pursuing this inquiry, FILE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST FR. JOEL. Snabur should be the main complainant and you should be snabur’s companion in court.

        A man of right reason, education and respect would never care to answer such allegation in this forum. Our trial court is the proper venue.

        Now, are you man enough to face Fr. Tabora eye-to-eye, ask such question in person and be prepared for his answer?

        Snabur is from davao city. Fr. Tabora is in davao.

        Snabur, why don’t you go to ateneo de davao and file a case against fr. Joel in court in order to settle this issue once and for all?

        Nb.

        I don’t worship the man, fr. Joel. I simply see his point, i mean THE POINT of his argument.

      • Cedric says:

        Druid and snabur,

        Have your statements and allegations ALL UNDER OATH against fr. Joel.

        If not, baka mahilig lang pala kayo sa TSISMIS? (-:

      • Cedric says:

        Druid and snabur,

        If the two of you are really serious on this inquiry. Have it in the proper forum, in court!
        HAVE ALL YOUR STATEMENTS AND ALLEGATIONS UNDER OATH.

        Snabur claimed that he is from davao. Fr. Joel is also in davao…

        So, there is no reason that snabur cannot reach fr. Joel.

        My challenge then goes first to snabur:

        Snabur, if you are a priest and true to your prophetic witness. Confront fr. Tabora in person, in court with all the mire of accusation you throw against him. Let us see who is man enough between the two of you.

        If not, baka mahilig lang pala kayo sa TSISMIS? (-:

        By the way snabur, with all your accusations, you are vulnerable to potential lawsuit.
        A little bit of prudence may help.

      • Tony says:

        moronic, stupid, imbecilic comments! ad hominem ang bagsak, proving that when all is said and done, walang laman between the ears!!! Catolico ba ito? kaawaan ka ng Diyos!!!

      • druid says:

        MORONIC!
        You want us to file a case against Tabora on the alleged donation USD800K.. gagawin mo pa pala kaming bobo!

        How can we file a case for a donation granted by a foreign government?
        It is neither a civil nor a criminal case…. the point here is that the acceptance of the donation simply proved that his sentiments and opinions in clearly biased for the donor… that Tabora or the institution who received such a large amount must be in agreement with the advocacy of the donor, which happens to be one of the largest supporter of Planned Parenthood and other such organizations which are clearly promoting abortion and the use artificial contraception in different countries.

    • Druid says:

      oh yan Cedric meron ng reply sa hinihingi mong ebidensya…
      Tabora explain!
      Basta pera na pinag usapan.. nagiging bobo ang mga tao

      • Cedric says:

        Druid,

        Then, fr, nori and you can now officially file a legal case against fr. Joel. Try it and we shall see what will happen. (-:

        We know too well that those grants may have been NGO initiative linked to addu. Besides, did addu, san carlos and la salle – as recipients of the grants, conducted a massive artificial contraceptive campaign, privately and/or publicly to their local communities? If your listing fr. Nori is accurate, does that necessarily mean that the three universities i mentioned above betrayed their catholic identity?…the archbishop of davao, msgr. Capalla, once said that “even if the devil will make a donation, he will receive it and give it to the poor”.

        Druid, there are so many possibilities and reasons of the recipients regarding the above grants other than foolishly and narrowly accuse those institutions to be “paid” bythe funding agency.

        And by the way, check your data on fr. Joel’s installation as university president of ateneo de davao. The grant was in 2004. Fr. Joel came to ateneo de davao in 2011.

        Therefore???

      • Druid says:

        oh yes of course there are many reasons… receiving funding from an agency that actively promotes and campaigns for the use of contraception is clear enough…

      • Fr.Nori says:

        Cedric, to advice us to resort to legal procedures and file a case in court against fr. joel to prove his guilt means that you didn’t understand the Gospel message about brotherly correction. It’s not a Christian way resolving issues in a Christian community by bringing him to court to pay for his misdeeds. Forgiveness and mercy are better than condeming even a guilty person as written in the Holy Gospel!

  24. Curious Reader says:

    According to my research:

    Fr. Tabora was in fact not with Ateneo de Davao in 2004. He was serving as the the president of Ateneo de Naga University at that time.
    The president of AdDU was Fr. Edmundo Martinez, but Fr. Samson replaced him in December 2004.

    As to the “$800,000 grant”, I am still digging my newspaper archives if there was really such grant and how was the fund used if there was any.

    Do your research first and confirm your sources before you accuse somebody.

  25. Fr.Nori says:

    FC Stats: The Foundation Center’s Statistical Information Service
    (foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/)
    Top 50 Recipients of Foundation Grants for Reproductive Health Care, circa 2004
    Recipient Organization State/Country
    Dollar
    Amount
    No. of
    Grants
    1. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) WA $49,822,641 10
    2. Family Health International NC 27,047,534 6
    3. Planned Parenthood Federation of America NY 12,653,390 30
    4. Population Services International DC 11,379,530 10
    5. Pathfinder International MA 10,743,736 11
    6. International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS) NC 7,683,166 13
    7. Population Council NY 6,148,477 15
    8. Planned Parenthood Federation, International England 5,925,000 5
    9. Center for Reproductive Rights NY 4,888,000 20
    10. Population Action International DC 4,032,500 10
    11. Little Company of Mary Hospital CA 3,159,820 3
    12. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy DC 2,630,000 11
    13. Marie Stopes International England 2,491,405 4
    14. NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation DC 2,365,180 15
    15. Columbia University NY 2,254,146 6
    16. Action Health Nigeria 2,150,000 3
    17. International Womens Health Coalition NY 2,018,625 18
    18. Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte CA 1,869,500 14
    19. Saint Joseph Hospital Foundation TX 1,500,000 1
    20. EngenderHealth NY 1,491,316 13
    21. Advocates for Youth DC 1,300,000 12
    22. Centre for Development and Population Activities DC 1,215,000 6
    23. Choice USA DC 1,204,700 13
    24. Planned Parenthood of New York City NY 1,185,050 18
    25. Catholics for a Free Choice DC 1,150,000 8
    26. Planned Parenthood Federation of Korea South Korea 1,140,000 3
    27. Alan Guttmacher Institute NY 1,122,615 6
    28. Planned Parenthood of California Educational Fund CA 1,051,945 4
    29. Fundacion Mexicana para la Planeacion Familiar (MEXFAM) Mexico 1,040,000 2
    30. Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health NY 1,020,000 9
    31. Center for Study and Research in Collective Health Brazil 1,011,500 1
    32. United Nations Foundation DC 1,000,000 1
    33. De La Salle University Philippines 1,000,000 1
    34. University of San Carlos Philippines 1,000,000 1
    35. Academy for Educational Development DC 1,000,000 1
    36. Gynuity NY 975,000 3
    37. Maternal and Child Health Access CA 900,000 4
    38. World Population Foundation Netherlands 875,000 2
    39. Medical Students for Choice CA 820,000 7
    40. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains CO 817,953 15
    41. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area IL 813,500 10
    42. Ateneo de Davao University Philippines 800,000 1
    43. Magee-Womens Health Corporation PA 797,062 2
    44. World Health Organization Switzerland 790,800 4
    45. Family Care International NY 761,000 4
    46. ETR Associates CA 735,762 2
    47. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice DC 715,500 6
    48. Pacific Institute for Womens Health CA 706,000 6
    49. Population Connection DC 705,000 6
    50. Saint Annes Maternity Home CA 657,500 6
    Total $190,564,853 382
    Source: The Foundation Center 2006. Based on grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a national sample of 1,172 larger U.S. foundations
    (including 800 of the 1,000 largest ranked by total giving). For community foundations, only discretionary grants are included. Grants to individuals
    are not included in the file. The search set includes all grants to recipient organizations classified in this topic area and grants to other recipient
    types for activities classified in this topic area. Grants may therefore be included in more than one topic table, e.g., a grant to a university for its
    arts program is included in Education, Higher Education, and Arts.
    Copyright © 2006, The Foundation Center. All rights reserved. Permission to use, copy, and/or distribute this document in whole or in part for internal, noncommercial purposes without fee is
    hereby granted provided that this notice and appropriate credit to the Foundation Center is included in all copies. All references to data contained in this document must also credit the
    Foundation Center. No other reproduction, republishing, or dissemination in any manner or form is permitted without prior written consent from the Foundation Center.
    Requests for written consent should be submitted to the Foundation Center’s Research Department.

  26. Fr.Nori says:

    33. De La Salle University Philippines 1,000,000 1
    34. University of San Carlos Philippines 1,000,000 1
    that’s why la salle univ. is in favor of RH Bill…Lord forgive for they know not what htey are doing!

    • Tony says:

      stupid sentence: it is some la salle faculty that are in favor, NOT la salle university as such.

      • Fr.Nori says:

        You can call it stupid Tony but you cannot separate the institution from the people that represents the very same institution and unfortunately ruins the good ones who are part of it.You cannot say it is Philippines when its citizenry is not Filipinos. Both must be together! In plain language its the two side of the same coin. I think now you cannot call it stupid anymore!

    • Jose D says:

      Fr. Nori, if both DLSU and USC got 1M grant, how come they have different stand on the RH law?

      • Fr.Nori says:

        I don’t have an answer for that question and I believe the grants for DLSU and USC were not specifically for RH Law only. It might be for RH Law and/or other NGO projects!

  27. C Dino says:

    Now that the new pope is a Jesuit we hope that Tabora will remember his vow of obedience. It is providential that our new pope is the first Jesuit in the seat of Peter since all the dissension and confusion in the church’s teachings are caused by independent Jesuit thinkers. Our pope named himself Pope Francis from St. Francis who is known for his love and obedience. This time a Jesuit who knows how to obey the bride of Christ, our Church.

    • Cedric says:

      Come on, Dino!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        We will see then what will happen if his Society of Jesus will heed to his call now that he is not just a prov. superior but the the Vicar of Christ. Hans Kung said in an interview with the italian newspaper La Repubblic yesterday that Card. Jorge was the best choice among equals cardinals to become the Bishop of Rome and Servo dei Servi. At least, one man down from Jesuits Order. Although, Kung left the order many years ago like Hans Urs Von Balthasar!

      • Cedric says:

        “since all the dissension and confusion in the church’s teachings are caused by independent Jesuit thinkers”

        Come on Dino! Your statement only shows your GROSS IGNORANCE ABOUT THE JESUITS. As a matter of suggestion, try having a stroll in a catholic library and scan the names of authors and writers who made “Big” in academic frontiers.

        By the way, start with Ignatius of Loyola and his writings (-:

      • C Dino says:

        Pardon me. I have nothing against Jesuits. In fact my favorite priest is a Jesuit, Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J., author of Ten Universal Principles. As far as I know about church history, Jesuits are not only great missionaries, they are also great scientists. But with great minds, they also contributed to a philosophy or school of thoughts that are contrary to what the catechism of the Catholic Church espouses. The idea that some theologians particularly activist Jesuits have a skewed understanding of Vatican II on liberation theology, came from Jesuits themselves, at least those who are loyal to blessed John Paul II when he was still a pope.
        I am sorry if my post offended you. Have you ever wondered why of all these years, it is only in the 21st century that a Jesuit has been elected to the seat of Peter? Looks like the suspicion is not unfounded.

  28. Cedric says:

    C Dino,

    Jesuits from the start of their formation are oriented in service to the popes, not to become popes.

    That is precisely the reason why Jesuits all over the world were syunned, jubilant but humbled, with the election of pope francis.

    Besides, is becoming the pope the final, definitive measure of the greatness of a specific religious congregation? You got a wrong yardstick to judge the jesuits. And by the way, count the leading universities owned by the Jesuits worldwide. (-: Pope Francis is also an example of an activist Jesuit who have shunned the values of the world to reach out to the poor and the forgotten in Buenos Aires.

    Thanks for affirming the greatness of the Jesuits – you enumerated them yourself!

    By its own class, in sui generis, Fr. Joel Tabora simply lives out his brilliance and identity
    as a true Jesuit!

    • Fr.Nori says:

      Excuse me Cedric,
      But why did Card. Bergoglio chosed the name Francis after all if Jesuits have it all ?
      He might as well chose other great names of Jesuits like Saverio, Matteo Ricci…etc
      ” L’abito non fa il monaco ” !

      • Tony says:

        Saan nag-aral ng theology itong Fr. Nori na ito? “Although, Kung left the order many years ago like Hans Urs Von Balthasar!” Kung was NEVER a Jesuit. Anong binabasa mo at ganito na lang kawalang halaga ang data mo? At alam mo bang gustong bumalik sa Jesuits si von Balthasar in the last few years of his life? Huwag tatanga-tanga sa mga comments na walang basehan!!!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        Hans Kung studied at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome run by the Jesuits to be precise and your right he was never a Jesuit by the grace of God otherwise his theology is like yours: too much speculative and unrealistic which can never be found on earth as in heaven Tony. About my theological background you can just check my facebook account and see for yourself but be humble and never be boastfull about you theology because theology taught you to be so! Fr. Nori

  29. Cedric says:

    Errata: were stunned

    • C Dino says:

      Perhaps brilliance is in the eye of the beholder because for me Tabora is far from brilliant. Even if you think he’s brilliant, it does not change the fact that he’s views at least on his blogs pertaining to RH are contrary to the church’s teachings.
      You might also want to check out the biography or news articles about Pope Francis. He stood firm in denouncing his govt for legalizing same sex marriage, and perhaps on other moral issues, and was known for his orthodoxy and conservative views. It is far from whatever illusions you have about Jesuits. In fact my favorite Jesuits are defenders of the church especially the pope and are very good in doing so. Have you ever wondered why of all the many great Jesuits he chose to be called Francis who is not a Jesuit?

      • Cedric says:

        Your opinion is noted but i strongly disagree. Your categorical presumption of fr. Tabora’s disobedience to all the moral teaching of the church is grossly and carelessly concluded.

        The last statement also is your contribution to the infinite hall of fame
        of PROPOSITIONAL FALLACY.

      • C Dino says:

        Why of all the many great Jesuits, a Jesuit pope chose to be called Francis who is not a Jesuit? Perhaps it has something to do with HUMILITY and OBEDIENCE. I rest my case.

      • Cedric says:

        C Dino,

        It is goo easy to answer your question. You seem too presumptuous that you alone thought about that….now, you speak in behalf of pope francis.

        You may choose to see the pope’s interview with the media on CNN to find out why.

        Godspeed C Dino.

      • C Dino says:

        Love for the poor has something to do with humility, believe it or not. Anyway, both us agree that it is truly a blessing to have Pope Francis, a Jesuit, to lead and serve the bride of Christ, His church.
        Godspeed too and God bless you Cedric.

      • Tony says:

        well, he has the credentials. what do you have? Tabora was educated at the University of Innsbruck, with a doctorate in Philosophy, writing on Hegel and Marx. he used to write for the late Cardinal Sin on issues of Social Justice. He basically pushed for the Urban Land Reform Act. He was parish priest of the urban poor of Kristong Hari (Commonwealth Ave), which then included the garbage dump site communities of Payatas, Quezon City. He was professor of ATeneo de Manila University. He was rector of San Jose Seminary. He was president of Loyola School of Theology. He was President of ATeneo de Naga University. Now President of ATeneo de Davao University. And you, C. Dino, what are your credentials? And please, do not bring in Pope Francis into this discussion. Such cheap name-dropping does not work with the new Bishop of Rome, if you have not noticed!!!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        where is God then in all Fr. Joel achievements?

  30. Steven Ermino says:

    Fr. Tabora, I want to believe that you write interesting articles on this blog because at the bottom of it all, you are aiming for something that is good, whatever that is. Now, the position you have in this particular article clearly made some to think (previous comments will suggest this) that it is okay especially for Catholics to think that bishops can get it all wrong when it comes to some issues. Okay, let us just say for example that indeed on this very issue, the bishop/s were really wrong. And here you come writing this article and telling everybody that “Hey, some bishops on this issue were very much wrong.” Did you ever wonder that it would have been better that you never wrote this article and instead went directly to the bishops concerned and expressed to them what you thought was not good with what they said or did? And I would ask exactly this same question with regards to previous articles written with the usual criticism against bishops or challenges to the official teachings of the Catholic Church.
    Fr. Tabora, as I’ve said, I would like to believe that with this blog you are aiming for something that is good. I just hope you still love the Catholic Church especially now that we have a Jesuit pope and that you still want the good for the Church. So please, stop all this mess and instead be prudent with what you say and do.

  31. Cedric says:

    I appreciate your comment steven ermino for recognizing the good intention
    that fr. Tabora has in this blog.

    Telling directly the bishop is an option but it definitely deprives the discerning public of
    a perspective worth considering, enables some Catholics unable to name their voices and desires, injects greater fear to priest and bishop’s condemnations on the pulpit to those who voted or tolerated the rh law (instead of fostering love for the search of the truth, no matter how uncomfortable and troubling), minimizes depth of understanding and well-informed conviction, and lessens personal decision and accountability.

    Steven Ermino, i appreciate your sincere concern but from my end,
    it helps me better in becoming a Catholic by confronting issues
    – at all angles and sides, without fear…
    but simply with the same love for the truth.

    To fr. Joel, please keep on writing and sharing your thoughts.
    You are doing great service to the Church.

    • Fr.Nori says:

      The “Truth” is one and their is no other truth. If their is other/another truth Cedric other than what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches it is an OPINION. Truth must be ONE or their is no truth at all! Have a nice Sunday! I close my case! Thanks!

      • Tony says:

        God is the Truth, Truth is one of the names of God. Jesus Crhist is “the way, the truth and the life” (NOT the magisterium, by the way!!!) But note re this truth: :”si comprehendis, non est Deus”; “if you understand it, then it is not God.” Please do not encapsulate/reduce God in/to your petty theories and moralistic propositions about what is and what is not the truth. Scripture and Tradition cannot be captured in your pithy simplistic advocacies.

      • Fr.Nori says:

        Your theology tony is soo vague and sound ridiculous to me and worse by quoting St. Augustine words you do more harm than good. if you would quote St. Augustine, first you need to study his life’s history,spirituality,social,cultural,psychological and anthropological genesis and strucutres ..etc. Secondly, review your subject about History of Salvation because Catholics believe in a God revealed by Jesus Christ which is the Incarnate Word and not your god of philo,socio and pyscho.Lastly, avoid quoting St. Augustine the way you do because the Saint is a refined theologian and a Father of the Church and doesn’t deserve to be treated without reverence like you do.Next time, I will send you the proper Internet etiquette which is much simpler to understand and study than philosophy,theology and ethics!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        si comprehendis, non est Deus” ito ang background niyan tony: kausap ni San Agostino ang isang bata na nasa baybaying dagat na natatanong tungkol sa Dotrina ng De Trinitate.Sabi ng Santo ang kaalaman ng Diyos ay napakalawak parang dagat na hindi kayang limasin dahil siya ay “si comprendis,non est Deus”. iyan yan tony!

    • Steven Ermino says:

      Cedric, I am glad that with this blog, you get a kind of help in becoming a better Catholic. But unfortunately, not everyone who is reading this (the comments can testify to this) is as open as you are. My concern is what if with this kind of criticisms that they learn from Fr. Tabora (we are dealing with serious criticisms here and not petty ones), people will just simply walk away from the Catholic Church, or simply just lose that trust in her? If I am a good Catholic with so much love and concern for the Church, I would rather not tell the whole world about misgivings especially by priests and bishops but I would opt to deal with it in a very private way so as not to scandalize the rest of the faithful and risk losing many of them. Prudence I should say is the best measure we can have if we are thinking of saying something about the Church. And hopefully, we realize that when it comes to the Church, we are not just dealing with an institution like any other. When it comes to the Church, we are also dealing with the Mystical Body of Christ. We are dealing with Christ in fact.

      • Fr.Nori says:

        EFFECTIVE AND AFFECTIVE relationship with the Bishop is a mark of a true and holy priest.Thanks Steven for the timely and very wise advice to Fr. Tabora in particular, and to all of us priests and laity who form and part of the Mystical Body of the Christ: the Holy Catholic Church.

      • Tony says:

        “people will just simply walk away from the Catholic Church, or simply just lose that trust in her” because of comments made by people like snabur, c.dino, druid, fr. nori and their ilk who present to the world an image of a church far from the one founded by Jesus Christ. Fr. Tabora IS helping people STAY in the Church, even RETURN to the Church. note well: Benedict XVI himself has repeated again and again, the Church PROPOSES, NOT IMPOSES…

      • Fr.Nori says:

        tony pls. refrain from saying proposes and not imposes because it is not right. the word proposes and not imposes as you have quoted Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ( not even Benedict because it was there already from the very start of Christian comunities) refers not to the Catholic teaching of the Magisterium but to the proclamation of the Good News. The Catholic Faith is propose to all but not being impose to anyone. Don’t confuse Evangelizzation and Magisterium! Be precise if possible!

      • Fr.Nori says:

        “people will just simply walk away from the Catholic Church, or simply just lose that trust in her” because of comments made by people like snabur, c.dino, druid, fr. nori and their ilk who present to the world an image of a church far from the one founded by Jesus Christ. Tony, people loss Faith when they left the Catholic Church and not the otherway around and beware because Jesus Christ said: keep watch if you believe that your standing erect because you might fall anytime! good day!

    • Cedric,

      Not all truth must be made public…only those that contribute to build better friendships. And what about the Gospel teaching on “fraternal correction”? Of speaking with the concerned person in private first before going public? Fr. Tabora started all this mess, we are just trying to clarify points — especially the stand of the Catholic Church on RH law. And since you seem to be Fr. Tabora’s “knight in shining armor” you too share in all this mess! May God forgive you and Fr. Tabora.

      • Tony says:

        where were you, Sir, when the following was posted on this site:

        druid says:
        March 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm
        bULLSHIT!
        EH MAGPARESPETO DIN ANG PARING ITO..
        MAGSALITA SYA..
        YES OR NO? TUMANGGAP BA NG PERA ANG WALANG HIYANG PARING ITO?
        Reply
        druid says:
        March 12, 2013 at 12:52 pm
        SAMBAHIN MO NA ANG PARING ITO CEDRIC..
        CLA LANG NAMAN ANG MARURUNONG D BA?
        CGE.. ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN THE ACCUSATION THAT IS CIRCULATING IN THIS BLOG…
        WE WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN!
        WALANG HIYA
        Reply

  32. Jambo says:

    Catholics must pray for all the priests, especially for Fr. Tabora who is now in trouble with his faith. He is a priest in the “Church of Nice” where the center of worship is man and all about man, placing the Creator aside.

    Some people here try to defend the side of Fr. Tabora. Then, so be it. Yet, they fail to protect the Church and Her teachings from the witty evil posing souls at stake.

  33. Cedric says:

    Hi steven ermino,

    I share your love for the Church but as each person is called to discernment and decision-making to respond to Christ, all voices must be taken into account and be reflected upon. Consistenly, i must say than Fr. Joel is simply leading people to a personal responsibility of the faith – not mere obedience without question to those who are in authority.

    Such invitation is not an open defiance of the Church but a sincere action to dialogue, even with uncomfortable disagreements. The problem though with a few folowers of this blog is that they attacked and condemned fr. Joel, hence reaping the same seed that they sowed, something they triggered on their own and het when criticized, cried foul and invoked the infallibility of the Church. Personally, i am tired of this reaction and view from a few of the church authority.

    We disagree on certain aspects and nuances of the issue but we eventually respect each other, even with disagreements. As a lay person, I can live with these differences of opinions and still give my respect, as long as condemnations, threats of fire from hell, and self-righteousness from a few pastors/fellow lay do not rule the table of discussion.

    • Fr.Nori says:

      “as long as condemnations, threats of fire from hell, and self-righteousness from a few pastors/fellow lay do not rule the table of discussion” This way of thinking and idea about the Holy Catholic Church is misleading and does not reflect the true essence and nature of the Catholic church. For those who really experienced and encounter Jesus Christ in an experiential and existential way cannot but love,serve,blessed and faithful to Her because She is ” Mater et Magistra”. She is a Mother and a Teacher and as such will not condemn and use fear and violence to perform his divine mission. Sorry for those who think that the church is like an organization,an NGO,charitable institution only or worst to think like “Religion is the opium of the people” as German economist Karl Marx said: “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes” which I think the good fr. joel studied a lot.

  34. Steven Ermino says:

    Cedric, thank you for sharing my love for the Church.
    And I share your position of not liking some Church leaders of easily condemning people, cried foul when criticized, etc. Although this is also a concern for me, but this is not what I am pointing out.
    All I would like to say is for Fr. Tabora to be prudent enough when writing some articles.
    The concept of personal responsibility towards one’s own faith is highly plausible. But this concept is only true for those who are mature in faith. Those who are not should be given guidance. If we are telling people something that they are not ready to hear of, they might react in a very negative way. And the same thing with the members of the Church. Those who are not mature in faith, when they hear something like say for example, sexual abuse scandals inside the Church, I don’t think they will end up liking the Church all the same. They might end up hating the Church and so walk away from her. It takes one to be mature in faith so that we can talk about personal responsibility towards one’s own faith.
    When Fr. Tabora becomes so critical about the leaders of the Church, it takes one to be mature in faith so as to end up getting help from it. But if some are not mature in faith and hear Fr. Tabora criticizing the leaders of the Church, I would bet that they will end up hating the institution and so finally become cold about their faith. I just hope followers of this blog are all mature in faith. But do we really think so? I say, “No”.

    • Fr.Nori says:

      And the polemics,criticisms and half truths discussions are coming from within the church which makes it even harder to comprehend and digest if my faith is superifical or infantile considering that Catholics need more catechetical instructions and continuos religious formation to become a mature christians as such in the image of those like saints,martyrs,virgins and confessors.

  35. jambo says:

    @ Fr. Tabora and all in his side …why do you promote something that is contrary to the Church’s teachings? You should be the stewards of Faith, like soldiers defending to death the people they love. You should put in mind that RH Law is all about life and death. When you give no support to such a law, you are pro-life. But when you hail it, then you are pro-death. And you no longer embrace the divine wisdom of the Church.

    Like what I posted before, it seems you belong to the Church of Nice where man has become the center of worship. You don’t like to hurt anybody’s feelings so you compromise the Truth. You have forgotten or may have ignored the Authority entrusted to the Church.

    • Tony says:

      the following is CONTRARY to the Church’s law of charity:

      druid says:
      March 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm
      bULLSHIT!
      EH MAGPARESPETO DIN ANG PARING ITO..
      MAGSALITA SYA..
      YES OR NO? TUMANGGAP BA NG PERA ANG WALANG HIYANG PARING ITO?
      Reply
      druid says:
      March 12, 2013 at 12:52 pm
      SAMBAHIN MO NA ANG PARING ITO CEDRIC..
      CLA LANG NAMAN ANG MARURUNONG D BA?
      CGE.. ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN THE ACCUSATION THAT IS CIRCULATING IN THIS BLOG…
      WE WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN!
      WALANG HIYA
      Reply

  36. Tony says:

    <>

    i wonder how long it will take before the catholic talibans start to condemn Pope Francis to hell…

    • Tony says:

      http://ncronline.org/news/art-media/book-co-written-argentine-rabbi-sheds-light-francis-views:

      “Bergoglio explains that the priestly role is threefold: to be “a teacher, a leader of the people of God, and president of the liturgical assembly where prayer and worship take place.”

      Bergoglio describes the ideal role of a priest in a person’s search for God and what sometimes happens when a priest can go overboard or be too controlling.

      “The priest, in his role as teacher, teaches, proposes the truth revealed and accompanies you. Even if he has to face failure, he is with you,” Bergoglio says. “A teacher who assumes the role of making decisions for the disciple is not a good priest. He is a good dictator, an annihilator of the religious personalities of others.”

      A priest dictator “weakens and holds back people in the search for God,” Bergoglio says. A true teacher “will let his disciple go and he will walk with him in his spiritual life.””

  37. C Dino says:

    Apologies Tony but no matter how many degrees or work experiences Tabora may have, for me he is not brilliant. I myself is very very far from being brilliant in that regard. Maybe for his fans like you and Cedric he is so brilliant. I guess brilliance is subjective.

    As a priest, he should be the one defending the teachings of the magisterium. For lay people like us, it is understandable for some to be against it and perhaps it is expected for non-catholics to be vehemenently against the teachings of the church.

    He did understand and knew that the Catholic Church is against artificial contraception. He just can not accept this teaching but instead use conscience as his defense in justifying his objection. But as a priest he should know that conscience must be well-formed and informed. As catholics, our conscience should be conformed with the teachings of the Catholic church, precisely the reason why we need priests. Isn’t he a priest?

    Perhaps with all his credentials he is convinced that he can not be wrong on this matter. Perhaps knowing his credentials, he is convinced that he does not need to be obedient to the bishops and have forgotten his vow of obedience.

    Brilliance is light. Light makes us see the truth. For me, a brilliant person is crystal clear in explaining what is true and never compromise the truth, not only in sciences but also in matters of faith and morals. A brilliant person will not make a wrong seem right under the veil of compassion.

    The truth is artificial contraception is not accepted by the Catholic Church and simply considered a sin to be confessed in the confessional. Telling people that their sins are not sins will not help them. What will truly help them is knowing that their sins are forgiven.

    Apologies Tony if I may have hurt your feelings for my comment that Tabora is far from brilliant. God bless you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s