Three poems, all full of pain

Since my last post, I've been dealing with the pain in a way I thought was lost to me; three poems attest to this.

The first poem involves a byproduct of my paranoia as a youth; I was once so paranoid I would devise at least three ways to kill a specific person where they stood, and in this poem, I pointed out four ways to off myself.

Four Paths of Ending

There is a .45 in a room
Belonging to my boss;
Yet buried in my gloom
All I can feel is my loss.

In a drawer in the kitchen
Lies a wicked sharp knife;
I can sense the edges itching
To steal my broken life.

Several meters of power cord
Lie across the den;
Yet, alas! I can ill afford
To ask that question: “When?”

By my side, a lethal cocktail

For before I go to bed

Screams that I must not fail

If truly, I should be dead.

The second poem I gave a title that was admittedly more of a Naruto reference. "The world shall know Pain" and all that...yet the last part of that poem involves me driving off a bridge into the abyss below--another way of ending myself.

Six Paths of Loss

It is said that there are many ways to skin a cat;
Tell me, is that true?
If so, I’d like a little of that
Juice imbibed by you.

If only to assuage the pain,
The agony of a broken heart,
I’m willing to board an express train
Going all the way to the start.

From strangers, to friends and more,
My journey has gone far;
Now before you dismiss me as a bore,
Let me get the car.

Hand me something from the fridge,
Before I cross this bend,
And watch as I go drive off the bridge
And meet my final end.

The third poem is more me bleeding out in pain than anything else; loss is its own agony, as it were, and even as I post this I feel that loss keenly.

Unwanted, unneeded, unaccepted, unloved

Wanted? I am obviously not;
The fact that the world is against me truly says a lot.
Did you want me to speak out, to raise my cup?
Or are you waiting for a reason to gang up?

Did you need me today, were you looking for a friend?
Or were you looking for a reason to see to my end?
I know where this goes, I’m no stranger to it;
It is truly clear that I’m simply unfit.

Acceptance? What is that to me?
What is it to one who can only be
Rejected by those around me wherever I go?
Truly, I am doomed to remain solo.

As for love, where do I begin?
The one thing that I failed to win
Is also the one thing that I am doomed to lose;
Such a pain cannot be erased by booze.

In any case, I seem to have an abundance of pain; in the interest of full disclosure, I had attempted to off myself just recently--by which I mean yesterday, with a wicked edge itching to steal my broken life, as it were.

Perhaps the part of me that still pushes me to live took over, because a few hours after the attempt, I called the NGF hotline. Looks like I owe someone an explanation...

The Madness of A Certain Shattered Soul

It's not every day that you wake up and wonder what you are doing with your life. This is the case for your average human being; we have enough on our plate as it is living day by day.

That said, I know it's been way too long since I last posted here; my most recent post was three years ago, a cross-post from my FB blog on the ramifications of abolishing religion altogether. That sentiment held true to me then, and it still holds true to me now: as a practical matter, the antitheist that wishes to see all religion eradicated from the face of the Earth is just another bunch of totalitarian bigots that can suffer no diversity of conscience. Such a person would definitely put the "Godless" in "Filthy Godless Commie Nazis."

Now if you're wondering why "Commie Nazis" instead of just Commies--and I know my inner Tailgunner Joe would have settled for the latter--I direct you to Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965) who once said that "if you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin." (Christianity and Culture, 1939--fitting, as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that year on August 23rd) In other words, those who consciously reject God and denounce belief in Him as primitive, cultish, backwards, and practically anything your standard fedora-wearing neckbeard who by the standards of Eliezer Wiesel (1928-2016) would be on the same boat as the racist sunzabitches that put six million of his own people (and around five million others, lest they be forgotten) to their deaths--"All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them," after all--would be better off bowing down to no god but the State, with the champions of the Totalitarian Twins that are Communism and Fascism--if you really want to be pedantic, Stalinism and Nazism, respectively--as either Messenger.

Alas, I have digressed quite early in this post. A lot has passed in the three years since my last post: I fell in love, sired a bouncing baby boy, and had that relationship go south faster than Operation Mars. Two years, yet it felt like three.

Add my general instability vis-a-vis keeping a job for more than six months, and it all crashed down on me. Now I rarely get to see my son, and my quest to finding another job keeps coming out tails--I was so desperate that I didn't come home for four days just to find a job. In the end, my guilty conscience drove me back; I had failed, and that was that. All the money I had from my back pay wasted in a quixotic pursuit that ended with repeated denials. "Try again in three months," to me, meant that in their eyes, I was as good as a write-off.

Alas, what do you do when you find yourself hitting rock bottom? If you answered "go up," I can't say I blame you; it's what I'd say. In practice, though...with what might just be my whole world crashing down on me, all I can do now is wait for the proverbial hammer to fall on, and crush to a bloody pulp, me.

Yes, there is a part of me that cries out, even now, for it all to finally end, to ask the Powers That Be to finish me off, seeing myself as a complete failure of a son, a significant other, and a father. Problem was that if I had listened to that part, I wouldn't even be posting this right now; I would have died a long time ago, not having survived San Carlos at all.

I guess the part of me that pushes me to stay alive is still dragging my otherwise broken ass around, even when the part that has finally given up on me is kicking and screaming. Hellbent on making a breakthrough, the part pushing me to live is still awake, still reminding me that I have a son to look out for, that even if his mother and I are no longer together, ensuring that he has a bright future ahead of him is the least I could do.

I guess I really am not alone in this regard.

Kapag binasura ang Diyos, ang Pamahalaan ay magiging Diyos.

"Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. The fact is written all across human history; but it is written more plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin. There the Government is the God, and all the more the God, because it proclaims aloud in accents of thunder, like every other God worth worshipping, the one essential commandment: 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.'

"...Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world. And, by the very nature of the Bolshevist and many other modern systems, as well as by the practical working of almost any system, the State will be strongest thing in the world."

-- G. K. Chesterton, 1932

Removing religion from the public sphere, as per Chesterton, leaves a large hole for the State to fill. This is a decades-old warning that apparently has fallen on deaf ears, which is vexing, for those who fail to heed such a meaningful warning end up dooming themselves. Consider the totalitarian regimes of the previous century: inter alia, the Soviet Union, Red China, and even Nazi Germany (at least, when everything fell according to plan). In the case of the former two--both communist states--religion is held to be a counterrevolutionary, therefore subversive, force, a force antithetical to the State's grasp on power. And the Communist State will suffer no dissent. In the case of the last, it was all about the long game; when the Final Solution was delivered and the Jewish question "eliminated," the Nazis would slowly and surely subvert Christians, replacing faith in God with faith in the rule of the powerful, quoting Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI--the Sith Lord of Rome himself.

It is because we believe in something greater than ourselves that we can challenge our own creations and ultimately change the world. When belief is not an option, we end up worshipping the world in all its banality, but most of all, we end up gathering sacrifices to the Church of the State--some offering their very lives to it as human sacrifices. A world where the State is God would be more like Orwell's 1984. And Big Brother is the Almighty Father of this travesty.

The reason Church and State must be separated is because of the implications that would arise should the two be united: only a jackbooted, goose-stepping, totalitarian thug would seek to bind the two together in a union barely above the Twilight Saga (EXTRA HERESY! *BLAM!*) and thus consolidate power.

Those who truly value liberty know what to do. Tyranny demands Rebellion, after all.

LIBERTAS!

Dr. Lawrence Britt's Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism and how they apply to the Philippines

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. (*cough*Pinoy Pride*cough*)

2. Disdain for recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need”. The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. (Proclamation nr. 1081, vigilantism in Cebu and Davao...)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities, liberals, communists, socialists, terrorists, etc. (Generally, this refers to critics of the current occupant of Malacañan, those he calls "the noisy minority.")

4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. (Unsure--do we have something like that here? It's as if our military is good only for parades!)

5. Rampant sexism – The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. (No divorce, no abortion, but homosexuality isn’t suppressed at the macroscopic view.)

6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. (*ahem*)

7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. (Unsure--can someone give an example?)

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion (Roman Catholicism, in this case--and I'm a filthy Papist!) in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions. (Do we need any explanation?)

9. Corporate Powers is protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. (A.K.A. the 250 Families--better known as the Oligarchy--controlling the Philippines.)

10. Labor power is suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. (*cough*Hacienda Luisita*cough*)

11. Disdain for intellectuals and the Arts – fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. (Politeismo, anyone?)

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under the fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forgo civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. (Atimoanan? Most likely Atimoanan.)

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. it is uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. (We call that the Kapamilya, Kaklase, Kabarilan at Kaibigan of the current occupant of the Palazzo.)

14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against opposition or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. (Hocus PCOS! *hurr*)

CHANGELOG:

1. Added examples to #2.

2. Expanded #3.

3. Erratum in changelog fixed. Now shows "Expanded #3" instead of "Expanded #2."
4. Erased the unneeded smiley in #8.

Apparently, the Second Aquino Administration sees this as HERESY! *BLAM!*

For one reason or another, the original article in the Manila Standard Today's website redirects to an adult site unless you're reading from outside the country. Compare #6 of the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism (Controlled Mass Media). Feel free to copy and paste the following text, and give the 250 Families a pair of middle fingers while you're at it.

-----

‘Secret lunch story sparks angry voices’
By Francisco S. Tatad

MalacaÑang tried but failed on Monday to disprove this paper’s story about President B. S. Aquino III’s purported secret lunch meeting with Janet Lim Napoles at the Music Room of the Palace before the reputed pork barrel queen and former fugitive from justice “surrendered” on the evening of August 28.

As the story went viral online, angry voices in the social media began calling for Aquino’s impeachment.

It seems an improbable and wishful scenario, given Aquino’s virtual control of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate all case of impeachment. But the call seems to show the anger of people who feel they have been betrayed. Absent any support from the “pork”-conflicted lawmakers, the angry netizens could simply turn to the streets and call for Aquino’s resignation instead.

This is not without precedent. Joseph Ejercito Estrada was ousted in a coup after a botched impeachment trial fueled by an “Erap resign” movement. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who succeeded him, had to survive ten years of continuing calls for her resignation and threats of impeachment.

On August 26, the so-called “Million People March” at Rizal Park and similar other marches in various parts of the country and abroad demanded the scrapping of the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund and the President’s humongous “pork” presented as “lump sums” in the national budget. This was fueled by anger in the social media against Napoles’ and some lawmakers’ alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam over a period of 10 years.

But at the end of the day, some critics thought the crowds were not angry enough. This time, some people seem to believe Aquino’s reported secret lunch with Napoles could produce “better results.”

The Office of the Presidential Spokesman tried to deny parts of this paper’s story, which appeared under this writer’s byline, by saying —and using some footage, too—that at 10:00 am Aquino was addressing the 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy at Sofitel, and at 1:30 pm, the 27th Apolinario Mabini Awarding Ceremonies at Malacanan’s Heroes Hall.

The conscript media swallowed hook, line and sinker the statement, which called this paper’s story “a tall tale” and its writer “a weaver of tales.” A modest attempt at analysis, however, should have shown that the official denial did not deny anything at all. Both the spokesman and the conscript media failed to consider that Sofitel is not quite 10 minutes away from Malacanang by presidential limousine, and that a president who delivers a short speech at 10:00 am and rushes out afterward could be back at the Palace by 10:30 am or 11 am, if he lingers a little. And that Heroes Hall is but a few steps away from the Music Room.

Above all, the official statement failed, and the conscript media failed to notice its failure, to dispute the story’s basic information that Napoles came to the Palace escorted by presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda at 10:30 am (not 10 am) and was immediately conducted inside the Music Room where she remained in “closed door” conversation with Aquino (obviously after his engagement at Sofitel), Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II and Lacierda, and eventually Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., until 4:30 pm.

According to the story, Aquino left the room three times between 2 pm and 3.30 pm, and then finally left for good at 4 pm. According to the spokesman’s statement, the President was (or was supposed to be) at the Heroes Hall at 1:30 pm; at the Study Conference Room, a few steps away from the Music Room, for a meeting with Ochoa, Abad and Finance Secretary Purisima at 3 pm; and back in the same room for a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and Communication at 4 pm.

This paper’s story is confirmed, rather than contradicted, by the spokesman’s statement. The latter contains the President’s approved schedule for the day rather than what he actually did during the day. It is altogether possible that he went to Heroes Hall, a few steps away from Music Room, at 2 pm rather than 1:30 pm for no special reason.

The spokesman’s statement quoted Abad as saying he never went to Malacanang on that day. But the same statement said Aquino met with Abad, Ochoa and Purisima at the Study Conference Room at 3 pm. How did this contradiction find its way into the spokesman’s statement?

During the whole day of August 28, Napoles carried a P10-million bounty on her head, set by the President himself, in connection with charges lodged by the National Bureau of Investigation for the alleged illegal detention of her cousin and former employee Benhur Luy. This prompted the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 to issue an arrest order, which in turn prompted her to go into hiding, from August 14. Yet Lacierda never denied having escorted the fugitive from justice to and from the Palace before they reappeared together at 9:27 pm for the formal “surrender” photo op with the President.

Malacanang’s laborious non-denial came late in the afternoon. Before that, this writer had been swamped with reports that his article had been blocked on the Internet and could no longer be posted on Facebook or forwarded to others. The first report came from Inquirer Radio in a telephone interview, then from an email from abroad, saying: “It seems your explosive piece today was censored by your ISP (Internet Service Provider). They may be putting a trace to all your bloggers. They cannot do this without the connivance of your ISP. Please investigate.”

Presumably Big Brother—the surveillance system originally imagined by George Orwell in his novel “1984” has become such a reality in our time, as Edward Snowden tells us. But if the story was entirely worthless, why should a government that sees itself above the law and all mores bother at all? And why all the invectives being thrown by the spokesman at this writer?

For most of the day there seemed to be no sign of Malacanang reacting. “They will probably not react officially,” said some loyal Aquino insiders. “But it has created quite a stir,” they added. “The lower and middle echelon guys are reacting, some positive, some negative.”

By late afternoon, however, the official statement came. It tried to build its case on the basis of the Sofitel and Heroes Hall engagements, but it made no effort to deny categorically that Napoles came to the Palace escorted by Lacierda and talked through lunch with the President and several Cabinet members, then left the Palace around 4:30 pm, escorted by the same official.

Apparently embarrassed by such mindless performance, Malacanang has now turned its attention on trying to uncover this paper’s “Deep Throat,” sources said. “Deep Throat” is the title of a 1972 American pornographic film, which the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post adopted as a pseudonym to protect their source of the deep secrets about the Nixon administration’s involvement in the 1972 Watergate affair.

Watergate shook the US for years until President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974—the only president to do so in US history. “Deep Throat” was subsequently identified as Mark Felt, former associate director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 31 years after Watergate and 11 years after Nixon’s death.

This paper’s sources have since theorized that Malacanang first showed its inclination to protect Napoles as early as March when the NBI took cognizance of the complaint of Arturo and Gertrudes Luy and their children Arthur and Annabelle that Benur Luy was being detained against his will by Janet Lim Napoles and her brother Reynald Lim.

However, it appears Malacanang and the DOJ got their signals crossed, the sources said. After the NBI “rescued” Luy from a Napoles condominium in the South Wings Gardens of Pacific Plaza Tower at Bonfacio Global City on March 22, he started executing affidavits about Napoles’s alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam.

Napoles was alarmed. So on April 17, she wrote Aquino a letter, reportedly with the assistance of Ochoa’s former law office, denouncing the NBI for alleged “threats, intimidation and even physical harm being inflicted upon us by several unscrupulous individuals in cohorts (sic) with some ‘corrupt agents of the NBI.” The letter was reportedly handed to the President by Ochoa himself. She wanted the NBI to cease and desist.

Aquino promptly called Justice Secretary Leila de Lima about it, the sources said, and the next day she ordered the NBI to respond to Napoles’s complaints. The NBI denied the allegations. But powerful Liberal Party officials feared that the PDAF issue could involve valuable political allies. So they thought it best to let the matter “sleep” until after the May elections, the sources said. That would give them time to “clean up” the list of accountable politicians, they thought. They also thought they could also tap Napoles to “sweeten” their war chest, the sources said.

On June 10, the DOJ dismissed the charge of illegal detention against Napoles. But when the NBI moved for reconsideration, the DOJ had a change of heart and reversed its earlier ruling. This apparently did not sit well with some people in Malacanang, causing some friction between those who wanted to prosecute and those who wanted to protect Napoles.

This was why ultimately NBI Director Nonnatus Rojas had to resign irrevocably, the sources said. It is also why we could never be sure that Leila de Lima would long remain in her position, they added.

fstatad@gmail.com

CIC Cann. 96-123

TITLE VI.

PHYSICAL AND JURIDIC PERSONS (Cann. 96 - 123)

CHAPTER I.

THE CANONICAL CONDITION OF PHYSICAL PERSONS

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

Can. 97 §1. A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached majority; below this age, a person is a minor.

§2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

Can. 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.

§2. A minor, in the exercise of his or her rights, remains subject to the authority of parents or guardians except in those matters in which minors are exempted from their authority by divine law or canon law. In what pertains to the appointment of guardians and their authority, the prescripts of civil law are to be observed unless canon law provides otherwise or unless in certain cases the diocesan bishop, for a just cause, has decided to provide for the matter through the appointment of another guardian.

Can. 99 Whoever habitually lacks the use of reason is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) and is equated with infants.

Can. 100 A person is said to be: a resident (incola) in the place where the person has a domicile; a temporary resident (advena) in the place where the person has a quasi-domicile; a traveler (peregrinus) if the person is outside the place of a domicile or quasi-domicile which is still retained; a transient (vagus) if the person does not have a domicile or quasi- domicile anywhere.

Can. 101 §1. The place of origin of a child, even of a neophyte, is that in which the parents had a domicile or, lacking that, a quasi-domicile when the child was born or, if the parents did not have the same domicile or quasi-domicile, that of the mother.

§2. In the case of a child of transients, the place of origin is the actual place of birth; in the case of an abandoned child, it is the place where the child was found.

Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away or has been protracted for five complete years.

§2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there for at least three months unless called away or has in fact been protracted for three months.

§3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; within the territory of a diocese, even though not within a parish, diocesan.

Can. 103 Members of religious institutes and societies of apostolic life acquire a domicile in the place where the house to which they are attached is located; they acquire a quasi-domicile in the house where they are residing, according to the norm of ⇒ can. 102, §2.

Can. 104 Spouses are to have a common domicile or quasi-domicile; by reason of legitimate separation or some other just cause, both can have their own domicile or quasi-domicile.

Can. 105 §1. A minor necessarily retains the domicile and quasi-domicile of the one to whose power the minor is subject. A minor who is no longer an infant can also acquire a quasi-domicile of one’s own; a minor who is legitimately emancipated according to the norm of civil law can also acquire a domicile of one’s own.

§2. Whoever for some other reason than minority has been placed legitimately under the guardianship or care of another has the domicile and quasi-domicile of the guardian or curator.

Can. 106 Domicile and quasi-domicile are lost by departure from a place with the intention of not returning, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 105.

Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.

§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

Can. 108 §1. Consanguinity is computed through lines and degrees.

§2. In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are generations or persons, not counting the common ancestor.

§3. In the collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons in both the lines together, not counting the common ancestor.

Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.

§2. It is so computed that those who are blood relatives of the man are related in the same line and degree by affinity to the woman, and vice versa.

Can. 110 Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

CIC Cann. 94-95

TITLE V.

STATUTES AND RULES OF ORDER (Cann. 94 - 95)

Can. 94 §1. Statutes in the proper sense are ordinances which are established according to the norm of law in aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) and which define their purpose, constitution, government, and methods of operation.

§2. The statutes of an aggregate of persons (universitas personarum) bind only the persons who are its legitimate members; the statutes of an aggregate of things (universitas rerum), those who direct it.

§3. Those prescripts of statutes established and promulgated by virtue of legislative power are governed by the prescripts of the canons on laws.

Can. 95 §1. Rules of order (ordines) are rules or norms, which must be observed in meetings, whether convened by ecclesiastical authority or freely convoked by the Christian faithful, as well as in other celebrations. They define those things which pertain to the constitution, direction, and ways of proceeding.

§2. These rules of order bind those who participate in these assemblies or celebrations.

Protip for Election 2013

It's Election Year once more. This time, it's the midterm elections that we focus on. During this set, half of the current Senate will be replaced, as will elected officials from Congressman down to Municipal Councilor...or re-elected. Considering this, I only have one real pro tip for we who are about to vote: SUBSTANCE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Do not vote for someone because he/she/it/hermaphrodite is popular, vote because that person has a platform you understand. Vote for people with concrete plans...or those who have proven themselves, if that is the case, surveys be damned.

Remember: THIS IS AN ELECTION, NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!

Yours truly,
Alistair Jephte Cabugsa-Migriño (Pe) Caseñas de Cebu

CIC Cann. 85-93

CHAPTER V.

DISPENSATIONS

Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.

Can. 86 Laws are not subject to dispensation to the extent that they define those things which are essentially constitutive of juridic institutes or acts.

Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.

§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.

Can. 88 A local ordinary is able to dispense from diocesan laws and, whenever he judges that it contributes to the good of the faithful, from laws issued by a plenary or provincial council or by the conference of bishops.

Can. 89 A pastor and other presbyters or deacons are not able to dispense from universal and particular law unless this power has been expressly granted to them.

Can. 90 §1. One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.

§2. In a case of doubt concerning the sufficiency of the cause, a dispensation is granted validly and licitly.

Can. 91 Even when outside his territory, one who possesses the power to dispense is able to exercise it with respect to his subjects even though they are absent from the territory, and, unless the contrary is expressly established, also with respect to travelers actually present in the territory, as well as with respect to himself.

Can. 92 A dispensation is subject to a strict interpretation according to the norm of can. 36, §1, as is the very power to dispense granted for a particular case.

Can. 93 A dispensation which has successive application ceases in the same ways as a privilege as well as by the certain and total cessation of the motivating cause.

CIC Cann. 76-84

CHAPTER IV.

PRIVILEGES

Can. 76 §1. A privilege is a favor given through a particular act to the benefit of certain physical or juridic persons; it can be granted by the legislator as well as by an executive authority to whom the legislator has granted this power.

§2. Centenary or immemorial possession induces the presumption that a privilege has been granted.

Can. 77 A privilege must be interpreted according to the norm of can. 36, §1, but that interpretation must always be used by which the beneficiaries of a privilege actually obtain some favor.

Can. 78 §1. A privilege is presumed to be perpetual unless the contrary is proved.

§2. A personal privilege, namely one which follows the person, is extinguished with that person’s death.

§3. A real privilege ceases through the complete destruction of the thing or place; a local privilege, however, revives if the place is restored within fifty years.

Can. 79 A privilege ceases through revocation by the competent authority according to the norm of can. 47, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 81.

Can. 80 §1. No privilege ceases through renunciation unless the competent authority has accepted the renunciation.

§2. Any physical person can renounce a privilege granted only in that person’s favor.

§3. Individual persons cannot renounce a privilege granted to some juridic person or granted in consideration of the dignity of a place or of a thing, nor is a juridic person free to renounce a privilege granted to it if the renunciation brings disadvantage to the Church or to others.

Can. 81 A privilege is not extinguished when the authority of the one who granted it expires unless it has been given with the clause, at our good pleasure (ad beneplacitum nostrum), or some other equivalent expression.

Can. 82 A privilege which is not burdensome to others does not cease through non-use or contrary use. If it is to the disadvantage of others, however, it is lost if legitimate prescription takes place.

Can. 83 §1. A privilege ceases through the lapse of the time period or through the completion of the number of cases for which it had been granted, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 142, §2.

§2. It also ceases if, in the judgment of the competent authority, circumstances are so changed in the course of time that it becomes harmful or its use illicit.

Can. 84 One who abuses the power given by a privilege deserves to be deprived of that privilege.

Therefore, when the holder of a privilege has been warned in vain, an ordinary is to deprive the one who gravely abuses it of a privilege which he himself has granted. If the privilege was granted by the Apostolic See, however, an ordinary is bound to notify the Apostolic See.

Pope Benedict XVI to resign effective 02-28-2013

"In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, et Judex tremendus judicabit populum suum.

Finis.

In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible Judge will judge his people.

The End."

The above text comes from St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes. It describes what the prophecy calls the final Pope, after the one called Gloria olivae--Glory of the olive, who in this case refers to Benedict XVI.

"In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church..."

This comes at a time where people are quick to demand the extermination of the Catholic Church, quick to demand what any normal human being would call genocide, just because they detest 1.2 billion people for their religious beliefs, the Nazi fucks!

"...there will sit Peter the Roman..."

Is the next Pope going to be an Italian? Who knows?

"...who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations..."

I wish Ratzinger's successor good luck...

"...and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the terrible Judge will judge his people."

...because this prophecy implies that the Day of Wrath is near.

On the use of firecrackers

Originally posted in FB, 12-31-2010.

Happy New Year!

-----

Firecrackers are like firearms: You DO NOT dick with them inappropriately unless you're looking to see something or someone (most likely yourself) blown to bits.

I mean, how hard can it be to use these explosive implements RESPONSIBLY? Common sense in using these implements of revelry, tree-and-animal nazis (the tree- and animal-huggers who freak like Hitler on Jews or al-Qaeda on non-Muslims or Jack Chick on Catholics when they see the things) be damned (because they have a mad-on for these explosive devices), can be found in such simple things:

1. Responsible, SOBER adults should light them up. If your kids are that responsible, however... Good for you.

2. When they blow up, keep your distance.

3. When they fail, douse them IMMEDIATELY. With water, unless you want all sorts of hell to break loose.

4. When some idiot (hopefully NOT you) gets himself injured because he went too close or dicked around, have him treated.

5. DO NOT use fireARMS in place of or along with fireCRACKERS. God help you if you do.

6. Buy Legal. It may cost more, but you can enjoy assured that your five-second fuse is five seconds instead of just two or, heaven forbid, a split-second.

Follow these tips, and you need not worry about blowing something or someone up. God help you if that tickles your fancy, you psychotic fuck.

Happy New Year!

CIC Cann. 59-75

CHAPTER III.

RESCRIPTS

Can. 59 §1. A rescript is an administrative act issued in writing by competent executive authority; of its very nature, a rescript grants a privilege, dispensation, or other favor at someone’s request.

§2. The prescripts established for rescripts are valid also for the oral granting of a permission or favors unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 60 Any rescript can be requested by all those who are not expressly prohibited from doing so.

Can. 61 Unless it is otherwise evident, a rescript can be requested for another even without the person’s assent and has force before the person’s acceptance, without prejudice to contrary clauses.

Can. 62 A rescript in which no executor is given has effect at the moment the letter is given; other rescripts, at the moment of execution.

Can. 63 §1. Subreption, or concealment of the truth, prevents the validity of a rescript if in the request those things were not expressed which according to law, style, and canonical practice must be expressed for validity, unless it is a rescript of favor which is given motu proprio.

§2. Obreption, or a statement of falsehood, also prevents the validity of a rescript if not even one proposed motivating reason is true.

§3. The motivating reason in rescripts for which there is no executor must be true at the time when the rescript is given; in others, at the time of execution.

Can. 64 Without prejudice to the authority of the Penitentiary for the internal forum, a favor denied by any dicastery of the Roman Curia cannot be granted validly by any other dicastery of the same Curia or by another competent authority below the Roman Pontiff without the assent of the dicastery before which the matter was initiated.

Can. 65 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2 and 3, no one is to petition from another ordinary a favor denied by one’s own ordinary unless mention of the denial has been made. When this mention has been made, however, the ordinary is not to grant the favor unless he has obtained the reasons for the denial from the prior ordinary.

§2. A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar cannot be granted validly by another vicar of the same bishop even if the reasons for the denial have been obtained from the vicar who denied it.

§3. A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar and afterwards obtained from the diocesan bishop without any mention made of this denial is invalid. A favor denied by a diocesan bishop, however, even if mention is made of the denial, cannot be obtained validly from his vicar general or episcopal vicar without the consent of the bishop.

Can. 66 A rescript does not become invalid due to an error in the name of the person to whom it is given or by whom it is issued, or of the place where the person resides, or in the matter concerned, provided that, in the judgment of the ordinary, there is no doubt about the person or the matter.

Can. 67 §1. If it happens that two contrary rescripts are obtained for one and the same thing, the particular prevails over the general in those matters which are particularly expressed.

§2. If they are equally particular or equally general, the earlier in time prevails over the later unless there is express mention of the earlier one in the later one or unless the person who obtained the earlier one has not used the rescript out of malice or notable negligence.

§3. In a case of doubt whether a rescript is invalid or not, recourse is to be made to the one who issued it.

Can. 68 A rescript of the Apostolic See in which no executor is given must be presented to the ordinary of the one who obtained it only when it is prescribed in the same letter, or it concerns public matters, or it is necessary that conditions be verified.

Can. 69 A rescript for whose presentation no time is specified can be shown to the executor at any time, provided that there is neither fraud nor malice.

Can. 70 If in a rescript the granting of a favor is entrusted to an executor, it is up to the prudent judgment and conscience of the executor to grant or deny the favor.

Can. 71 No one is bound to use a rescript given only in his or her favor unless bound to do so by a canonical obligation from another source.

Can. 72 Rescripts granted by the Apostolic See which have expired can be extended once by the diocesan bishop for a just cause, but not beyond three months.

Can. 73 Rescripts are not revoked by a contrary law unless the law itself provides otherwise.

Can. 74 Although one can use in the internal forum a favor granted orally, the person is bound to prove the favor in the external forum whenever someone legitimately requests it.

Can. 75 If a rescript contains a privilege or dispensation, the prescripts of the following canons are also to be observed.

Libertas!

Injustice demands outrage.

Oppression demands dissent.

Tyranny demands rebellion.

LIBERTAS!

Nos es Legio

Tomorrow, RA 10175 will be implemented in full force.

In less than an hour from this post, all dissent against the current powers shall be treated in the same manner as HERESY! in the Imperium of Man.

We, the denizens of this entity called the Internet, shall NEVER FORGIVE. We shall NEVER FORGET! If we burn for speaking out against the tyrant, so shall it be.

Injustice demands outrage.
Oppression demands dissent.
Tyranny demands rebellion.

Sic semper tyrannis!

Alistair Jephte Cabugsa-Migriño (Pe) Caseñas de Cebu
LIBERTAS!

OPPOSE RA 10175!

First, they came for the bloggers.
You said nothing, for you were not a blogger.

Then, they came for the "likers."
You said nothing, for you did not like indiscriminately.

Then, they came for the retweeters.
You said nothing, because you did not retweet.

When they finally come for you,
Who, pray tell, will speak for you?

Another Niemoller snowclone, this time in opposition to the Philippine Cybercrime Law.

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
-- Elie Wiesel

CIC Cann. 48-58

CHAPTER II.

SINGULAR DECREES AND PRECEPTS

Can. 48 A singular decree is an administrative act issued by a competent executive authority in which a decision is given or a provision is made for a particular case according to the norms of law. Of their nature, these decisions or provisions do not presuppose a petition made by someone.

Can. 49 A singular precept is a decree which directly and legitimately enjoins a specific person or persons to do or omit something, especially in order to urge the observance of law.

Can. 50 Before issuing a singular decree, an authority is to seek out the necessary information and proofs and, insofar as possible, to hear those whose rights can be injured.

Can. 51 A decree is to be issued in writing, with the reasons at least summarily expressed if it is a decision.

Can. 52 A singular decree has force only in respect to the matters which it decides and for the persons for whom it was given. It obliges these persons everywhere, however, unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 53 If decrees are contrary to one another, a particular decree prevails over a general in those matters which are specifically expressed. If they are equally particular or equally general, the decree later in time modifies the earlier to the extent that the later one is contrary to it.

Can. 54 §1. A singular decree whose application is entrusted to an executor takes effect from the moment of execution; otherwise, from the moment it is made known to the person by the authority of the one who issued it.

§2. To be enforced, a singular decree must be made known by a legitimate document according to the norm of law.

Can. 55 Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 37 and 51, when a very grave reason prevents the handing over of the written text of a decree, the decree is considered to have been made known if it is read to the person to whom it is destined in the presence of a notary or two witnesses. After a written record of what has occurred has been prepared, all those present must sign it.

Can. 56 A decree is considered to have been made known if the one for whom it is destined has been properly summoned to receive or hear the decree but, without a just cause, did not appear or refused to sign.

Can. 57 §1. Whenever the law orders a decree to be issued or an interested party legitimately proposes a petition or recourse to obtain a decree, the competent authority is to provide for the matter within three months from the receipt of the petition or recourse unless the law prescribes some other time period.

§2. When this time period has passed, if the decree has not yet been given, the response is presumed to be negative with respect to the presentation of further recourse.

§3. A presumed negative response does not exempt the competent authority from the obligation of issuing the decree and even of repairing the damage possibly incurred, according to the norm of can. 128.

Can. 58 §1. A singular decree ceases to have force through legitimate revocation by competent authority as well as through cessation of the law for whose execution it was given.

§2. A singular precept not imposed by a legitimate document ceases when the authority of the one who issued it expires.

Why faith exists amid the nihilistic tide

If, as a certain group posits, there is no reason for faith to exist in a world such as this, what is the point of trust? After all, is not trust an expression of faith?

You trust someone because you have faith in his or her abilities. In other words, you believe that the person you trust is more than capable of something, commonly shown when that person has you covered in many a given context--be it in the battlefield, amid an apathetic crowd, or even in a camp where the victims of intolerance are herded to be destroyed by murderous thugs whose evil can never be forgiven both in this life and in the next.

When you trust someone with your life, it shows that you have absolute faith in that person. The same thing goes with belief in a higher being. You trust that God or Allah or whatever supreme being you profess faith in has your life in mind.

Are you familiar with the term "test of faith?" The world as we know it is an imperfect one. In fact, the imperfections apparently give reason for certain people to deny the existence of a supreme being... Just say it: I'm getting ahead of myself.

Back to the imperfect world... Yes, it is a world where might makes right, where the strong prey upon the weak with utter impunity, a world apparently devoid of any shred of positive energy. Is it not a wonder why man in general has mixed feelings towards the existence of a supreme being?

If, as the nihilist posits, there is no hope for humanity, then the YOLO (You Only Live Once) philosophy applies. Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we shall die. Let us try to do everything we can for the sake of pleasure in this nasty, brutish, and short existence those stupid religious dumbfucks who should all be remanded to mental institutions or extermination camps call life, because there is nothing else to it!

If, on the other hand, you believe that there is hope for the human race, you will most certainly understand that life...is worth living, for want of a better term. There is more to living than just waking up every single day to do your part in society and nothing more. There is more to life than the free-flowing booze, the insanely large harem, and the oscenely deep pocket that the hedonist sees as life's only purpose.

There is a reason Faith, Hope, and Charity (the last being the more theological term for Love) are considered theological virtues in the Christian context. Take a look around you. While many are apparently inclined to see the world as it is in the absence of faith (incredulity taken to extremes--trusting no one), hope (despair, cynicism), or love (intolerance, indifference), people embodying these three virtues still exist, extolling God wherever they go, loving one another. How else can one explain the "Faith in Humanity restored" meme?

I'm starting to digress again, am I not?

Faith exists despite the tide of nihilism because it is part and parcel of the human condition. Do you have faith? Don't worry, it's normal. It's something human beings like you and I are inclined towards having. Even if you disavow the existence of a supreme being, you still have faith--how else can it be possible for you to trust your neighbor? How else can it be possible for you to believe that you are loved, that you are not alone in this dark world?

No human race is superior. No religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.

First, they came for the Anglicans.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Anglican.

Then, they came for the Sunnites.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Sunnite.

Then, they came for the Baptists.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Baptist.

Then, they came for the Orthodox Jews.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Orthodox Jew.

Then, they came for the Shiites.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Shiite.

Then, they came for the Daoists.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Daoist.

Then, they came for for the Hindus.

I said nothing because I wasn't Hindu.

Then, they came for the Sikhs.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Sikh.

Then, they came for the Animists.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Animist.

When they finally came for Catholics like me,

none remained to speak for us.

-----

The article is an adaptation of Martin Niemoller's "First They Came..." speech. The title is a quote from Elie Wiesel.

Nie Wieder.

Never Forgive.

There are some evils in this world that are so reprehensible that the perpetrators go down in history as some of the most notorious men and women ever to walk the face of this earth. From the dark days of the Spanish Inquisition to 9/11 and its aftermath, from the government-sponsored genocides (Khmer Rouge) to cases of rampaging individuals going amok with no regard for anything else (Virginia Tech), these people--if one can still call them people--are so reviled that in extreme cases, they are accorded neither mercy nor sympathy when they receive their just penalty. Obvious case in point: The Holocaust. After the Second World War, Nazis were being hunted down like the rats the Soviet Army considered them to be. Even the uninvolved children of Nazi perpetrators are seen as evil, something that a Holocaust survivor named Elie Wiesel said was wrong, for "only the guilty are guilty; their children are not."

Never Forget.

Going back to my case, when the world learned of the systemic genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, it was horrified. Men, women, and children were murdered by the millions because they were mentally infirm, socially awkward, or of ethnic and religious affiliations that the ruling NSDAP loathed to the extreme. In 2001, almost 3000 people died as an immediate consequence of the 9/11 attacks. They were ordinary people: soldiers, office workers, firefighters, policemen, bankers, and the like. Just as the Jews, the Poles, and others were killed by the Nazis for being Jews, Poles, and others who happened to live in Nazi Germany and its occupied locales, these ordinary people were killed by Al-Qaeda for being ordinary people who happened to live, if not work, in the Eastern Coast of America. In both cases, the aftermath was the same: those who understood sought never to forget the evil that happened. In fact, since 2006, January 27 (on that day in 1945 the Soviets liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau) has been commemorated as the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And of course the United States has Patriot Day in memory of those who died in 9/11.

BUT I DIGRESS.


Never Again.

Determined to ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust were to never again take place, the nations of this earth stood united. Despite this, incidents of scales that vary from Bosnia to Stalin's Russia to even al-Assad's Syria still occur. Is it a pipe dream to still hope that never again will the evil of genocide take place? Perhaps, but it is a noble cause.