Phony Outrage Against ‘Damaso’

carlos_celdranLet me first say that I have no beef against Carlos Celdran on a personal level. Heck, I don’t even know the guy. The stunt that he did back in 2010, well… that was something he felt he had to do to make a point, I suppose. While I do admire his courage (and creativity) to stick it to the clergy in front of their faces, he still broke the law and I think the judgment on his case was the right one. It doesn’t matter if the law on his case is “archaic” or if we feel that freedom of speech ought to trump ridiculous laws. It doesn’t even matter if we feel that the penalty of imprisonment is too harsh for such a stunt pulled. Dura lex sed lex, is the message. If we have a problem with the law, it is not the Church that we should target our disdain on. Instead, we should get our legislators to change the laws we are objecting to. So now that those points are out of the way, I would like to focus on Celdran’s vocal supporters, particularly a few professed atheists.

What’s up with the outrage of these atheists? We hear shouts of Catholic Church oppression here, religious tyranny there; these guys are starting to sound like a bunch of folks who are angrier than a pack of jackals with hemorrhoids! It seems to me that these folks would not hesitate to pounce at any chance they could get to bash religion particularly the Christian fold. Never mind that their hero Celdran himself said that it is not the Catholic Church itself that sued him but laypersons of the Catholic Church, for his atheist supporters it seems that the Church is still to blame because its followers are defending the Church with so much zeal. It’s like saying that:

1. The Catholic Church opposes Celdran’s views.
2. Person X is a zealous adherent of the Catholic Church.
3. Person X sued Celdran.
4. Therefore the Catholic Church is to blame because of its influence on Person X.

Well, if that is the case then I suppose we could blame atheism for its influence on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer for brutally killing seventeen men and boys. Afterall, Dahmer did say: “If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. Of course Dahmer converted to Christianity when he was already in jail but don’t we wish he became a Christian before he murdered many people? That way, the Christian influence might have just resulted in lawsuits against heckling atheists rather than serial killings. Anyway, so is it fair game to blame the influence of atheism to Dahmer’s murderous acts?

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

No! Of course not! At least not to the atheist supporters of Celdran. Blaming the Catholic Church is okay because Celdran stood up for something the atheists like – the RH law, which the Catholic Church opposes. However, we better not dare blame atheism for Dahmer’s notorious acts because it wasn’t atheism that killed Dahmer’s victims but Dahmer’s deranged mind. Now why is it okay to blame the Catholic Church (who incidentally did not sue Celdran) or the Church’s influence on the actual plaintiffs but not atheism or atheism’s influence on Jeffrey Dahmer? Is it because Dahmer may have committed the crimes not because of atheism but because of his mental condition? Well isn’t it possible as well that the plaintiffs sued Celdran not really because of the instructions or influence of the Church but because their individual religious sentiments were actually offended by Celdran’s act?

It seems to me that Celdran’s atheist supporters are hard on the Catholic Church because their outrage fits perfectly well with their assumptions. Of course their assumption always hinges on Christian Church tyranny and oppression. Why are these atheists tolerant of offending a party (the Catholic Church, its clergy, and its adherents) only if this party belongs to a category that these atheists do not like? This is the problem with the phony outrage of these atheists – the outrage isn’t really about the wrong application of the law but about not getting what they want (which is to flip the bird to the Church and get away with it). For these folks if Dan Barker and his demeanor were to offend a Christian, you wouldn’t hear an outcry. However if a priest prays at the World Trade Center Cross, atheists would sue the heck out of this priest and the outrage lasts as long as a case of herpes.

I suppose by raising all these objections to the phony outrage of atheists I will be lambasted till Kingdom come. That’s fine as I understand this comes with the territory. Hmmm… perhaps they’ll dub me as someone who supports religious credulity? I suppose I should be expecting to be labeled by some passionate atheist readers as someone who supports religious tyranny and bigotry. Maybe they’ll call me an idiot for questioning their support of Celdran or for sounding so supportive of the Church. Gee… heaven forbid that they throw the worst insult an atheist can give to another human being – and that is to be dubbed as a “Christian”.

[Photo courtesy]

25 Replies to “Phony Outrage Against ‘Damaso’”

  1. Looks like the issue ain’t closed until everyone weighs in on it. 😉

    Phony outrage. Now that’s the stuff outrage fads are made of.

    1. Yeah, it really smells phony given that these folks are mostly just about attacking religion and the Church. Watch out for the next stunt to be pulled that will attack or offend the Catholics (and other Christians) and I bet these guys will come rallying behind the stunt perpetrator expressing more phony outrage. Thanks for reading, Chino!

  2. kailan pa naging notoriously offensive ang ginawa ni celdran kung puro katotohanan lang naman nilahad niya, bobo niyo talagang mga katoliko alam niyo na ngang pineperahan lang kayo ng simbahan tuloy pa rin pagpapauto niyo, hay ang tatanga niyo talaga, sori ah naglalahad lang rin ng katotohanan

    1. Troll harder, mukha bang pabor sa mga katoliko itong GRP? Hah! Better get your facts straight first before you attempt to troll.

      1. Thanks for reading, Johnny Derp. It’s okay… ganyan talaga… mainit ang isyu kaya hindi maiiwasang magbatuhan ng mga salitang hindi napapagisipan ng husto.

    2. Kahit sabihin na natin na totoo ang mensahe ni Celdran, and isyu rito ay yung pamamaraan na ginawa nya at naka-apekto sa damdamin ng mga tao na nasa loob ng simbahan habang may church service. Ayon sa batas, bawal ang ginawa ni Celdran. Hindi man tayo sang-ayon sa batas, eh batas pa rin yun na kailangang sundin hanggang hindi pa naibabasura. Maaari namang ipamahagi ni Celdran ang mensahe nya sa mga Obispo ng hindi nambabastos, hindi ba? Maaari naman ni Celdran gawin yung eksena nya sa labas ng simbahan. Kung ganun sana ang ginawa nya, eh di may lusot sana sya. Eh kaso hindi eh. At balita ko nung ginawa ni Celdran yun hindi sya aware sa Art.133. Well, I guess malas lang nya. Pero okay lang dahil may consolation naman sya. Bigla syang sumikat atsaka naging bayani pa ng sekularismo sa bansa. Thanks for reading, mettaworlfish!

  3. Hmm, the prosecution was brought by a handful of angry Catholics; nothing to do with the Church.

    The legal action against the RH Law is being brought by a handful of angry Catholics; nothing to do with the Church.

    Yeah, sure.

    If the Church wants these things stopped, it need only say so.

    What sort of a Church has no influence on the behaviour of its adherents?

    1. I don’t speak for all Filipino atheist but I get offended by the church because of their constant meddling in government affairs. I get offended with Celdran being in jail, because of the application of an antiquated law “not offending religious feelings” instead of just chasing him out and banning him outright; if he comes back, charge him with trespassing.

      1. I understand your objection to the application of such an antiquated law… but unfortunately it is still a law of the land. Now I heard Sen. Pia Cayetano is working on repealing the law. Now I think that is something worthy of focusing our energy on. Thanks for reading, amonygoose!

        1. Let me add, the Department of Justice had already been working since 2011 on a new criminal code to replace the Penal Code.

    2. Well, the angry Catholics who sued Celdran aren’t the Catholic Church. From what I understand, the Archbishop of Manila even issued a directive not to pursue legal action against Celdran. The CBCP also forgave Celdran after the latter issued an apology. Sure, we can say that the Church can try to persuade or influence its adherents but I don’t think it coerces its followers to do what the Church wants (at least not in the present…. I am aware of its atrocities during the Inquisition period). For instance, Catholics are free to vote for whomever they want to vote for even those outside of whom the Church endorses. The Church may give its advice and recommendations but it ends up boiling down to people’s individual conscience and actions. Thanks for reading, Andrew!

    1. @ jcc

      Nice perspective on this whole Celdran circus. I also liked your comment about GRP, but like Celdran, you visit the blog anyway. LOL! I agree. That’s how it should be because having a totally different view is not a personal issue but these folks at GRP take it on a personal level. LOL!

      Did you mention somewhere in your article that laypeople, not clergy were the ones that took this issue to court? Or did clergy orchestrate the back door scenes? Clearly, Celdrans stock went up with this issue and had he been a candidate for public office in this years election, he might have been your next member of congress. LOL!

      1. hehhehe.. we can’t help it… mabababaw lang talaga tayong mga pinoy…

        from my point of view, it is immaterial if celdran was prosecuted by the church or by its lay members. he committed a crime, he should be prosecuted. 🙂

  4. I guess this is the same thing as when Pacquiao fans went ape over the comments of Adam Carolla. It turned out that the fans were rabidly worse than their idol. Or in Pacquiao’s case, rather, he was gracious, the fans were bad.

    1. Yes, some of Celdran’s fans can be quite a handful. When dealing with this Celdran issue they blast the Church’s record on pedophilia, other sexual misconduct, and pretty much anything under the sun while their idol was merely protesting against Church meddling in Philippine politics. They just can’t seem to ride on any issue that will give them a chance to bash the Church and religion itself.

      1. Ooops sorry… it should read: “They just can’t seem to wait to ride on any issue that will give them a chance to bash the Church and religion itself.”

    1. Perhaps, Hyden. I think Noynoy is also using the issue to put his enemy (the Church) under a bad light. Magmumukha nga namang vindictive ang CBCP kung hindi papatawarin at aaksyunan ng CBCP ang pagpapalaya kay Celdran. Okay na sanang PR warfare yung ginagawa ni Noynoy eh… ang problema eh isa rin naman syang vindictive na tao. Kaya kung “phony” ang outrage ng ilang vocal atheist supporters ni Celdran… I also think “phony” itong awa at pagmamalasakit ni Noynoy kay Celdran. Kung ang advocacy ni Celdran ay tungkol sa isang bagay na ayaw ni Noynoy sa tingin ba natin ganyan ang malasakit ni Noynoy? Halimbawa umeksena si Celdran sa Manila Cathedral habang may misa at biglang nag-“Damaso” uli at sumigaw na “Tigilan nyo na ang pag-gamit kay Cory sa pagkukumbinsi na tularan ng anak nya dahil wala namang kwentang presidente yang si Cory!”… I don’t think na kakampihan nyang si Noynoy si Celdran.

  5. The thing that saddens me most about this issue is that real atheists are now being put in the spotlight for something they have nothing to do with.

    This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do about the Filipino people’s inability to take responsibility for their actions. Whether catholic, muslim, jew or atheist, I think it’s common sense that rudeness is not something that’s going to get you positive feedback for.

  6. I don’t agree that Celdran should be punished by that archaic law. You don’t seem to understand the full range of ways a legal principle becomes enshrined in our legal system. You said that you also found the law archaic (fine). But it is not only Congress who can change the law. The court can do that too. If a court finds that the law violates another law or a Constitutional principle, then it resolves which law prevails. In this case, Celdran’s argument says that the archaic law violates the higher Constitutional principle of Freedom of Speech. If the court agrees, then your archaic law hangs in the air to dry. It does not have fang anymore and will not be enforced. Congress may bury it at this leisure, but the Court will be the one to change it.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.