THE CAUSE OF CORRUPTION IN CATHOLIC COUNTRIES

It is a fact that religion has played an important role in the formation of a country. This is absolutely true in Catholic countries; undeniably, the common denominator of all corrupt and impoverished countries is religion [in general] and Catholicism [in particular].

Is there really a relationship between corruption and the Catholic Church? The answer is YES, actual situation speaks for itself.

Before the decree on separation of church and state, the colonies dominated by Spain [which was the Pope's sattelite] were controlled by the Catholic Church. During these historical time, the colonies were managed in accordance with the Catholic systems.

Now, what are these Catholic systems which are still prevailing until this modern time?

1. Briberies and all forms of corruptions that could be traced back to the giving of something to the church in the guise of donation for purposes of facilitating the givers’ request to the saints.

2. The giving of donations in exchange for a divine intervention or any favor; this is a form of bribery clothe with another terminology. This is a clear pattern of corruption.

3. The pardons for sale and indulgences which still occur in another form until these days.

4. The hypocrisy and shrewdness which could be traced back to the time of bishops and priests covering their evil acts behind the curtains of secrecy.

The holy appearance with a divine posture is their only hiding wall from the real self – this hypocrisy is still an effective tool of corruption to evade from public suspicion. This instance is still prevailing until now may it  be in religion or politics, the main point is that it was inherited from the Catholic system.

Existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre: The Salient Features

Submitted by Paul Whelmer Alforque to the Thinkers Guild

1. Existence always precedes essence. Existence as an infinite situation [not as a precondition] prevails over the concepts of meanings.

2. Man, first has to exist and defines himself afterwards. The meaning of his existence is only a result produced by his consciousness, consciousness comes after he attained existence.

3. The search for meaning presupposed nothingness. Searching for meaning suggests that there is no meaning at all, it is only through the searching that meaning comes out – there is no innate meaning.

4. The “meaning” being a result of existence and acquired human consciousness. It is the conscious mind that has the capability to create “essence” and not the unconscious.

5. There is no human nature, man made it. There is no god, we made them in the process of our quest for essence.

6. The conscious mind is the sole manufacturer of meanings, interpretations, essence and perceptions.

7. The will to  interpret for himself is the main denominator of one’s capability to fabricate essence.

8. There is neither determinism nor destiny – man is free. Man’s freedom includes the freedom to create his destiny.

9. Man is condemned to be free. Condemned because he did not create himself; existence obtained by competition of billion sperms running towards a fertile egg. Together with his existence is his responsibility for everything he does.

10. It is in man’s existence whereby man is inventing himself.

11. EXISTENTIAL HUMANISM. There is no other universe except the human universe – the universe of human subjectivity.

12. HUMANISM in the sense that there is  no legislator but himself. 

Legal Hypocrisy: Strike 2

addendum no. 2

The justices and our top prosecutors proudly solve the cases of ordinary men; but they seldom solve the murders of judges, prosecutors and lawyers. This is a specie of hypocrisy because they are giving to somebody which they could not give to themselves. The trial shows for the ordinary men were considered as the theatres of grand standing lawyers showing their best neck-ties and cuffs purposely reserved for public audience.

addendum no. 3

The use of Latin phrases in legal language creates the pretension that Latin is something which involves brilliance. The Latin words and terms are often displayed to impress the public that they possessed special knowledge and inaccessible learnings such that the client may give more incentives and the public viewers may applaud for. This is hypocrisy because the dead language became a curtain to conceal the simple knowledge and have it appeared as if it is a very-difficult-to-understand-principle.

addendum no. 4

The patent language of hypocrisy is reflected in the legal axiom which says: “It is better to free one hundred convicted criminals than to send one innocent man to jail.” Of course we know its essence and we knew that it is a figurative language which is naturally unrealistic, therefore, another hypocrisy. Besides, it is always the case whereby an innocent man is sent to jail.

addendum no. 5

The legal principle that “No one is above the law” is another words of hypocrisy. We are aware that the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be disbarred because of the reason that they can ONLY be removed from office by IMPEACHMENT and not by disbarment. The basis for disbarment is moral turpitude, and moral turpitude is not a ground for impeachment. The legal principle that “no one is above the law” does not or cannot be applied to the justices of the supreme court because they enjoyed a lot of judicial privileges in the guise of interpretation which will blanket them from legal liabilities. The justices that declares “no one is above the law” is himself “above the law”. Besides, the law is what the justices said, it is not the law when he said it is not and it is the law when he said it is.

addendum no. 6

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is one of the ancient legal norms. They pretend to be the medium of justice; they “hate” delayed justice but they delayed justice in the name of due process of the law. Some cases may even reach  20-30 years and some may even be archived and left unresolved. HYPOCRITES OF LAWS will now replace the Bachelor of Laws.

addendum no. 7

In the law books, legal ethics and principles of legal profession, it is always emphasized that legal profession is NOT a money making enterprise. It is NOT a business but a “dignified” profession. Only a dumb and ignorant being from the other planet may be convinced by this hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is very patent. From the time a person asks a question, there is the “consultation fee”; a case is referred, there is the “professional fee”; the case is accepted, there is the “acceptance fee”; in representing in court, there is the “appearance fee”, and many more fees. Now, is this not a money making profession? What happened to the teachings which is still in the textbooks  and in the law school which says a different version? HYPOCRISY becomes the professional images of the legal practitioners.

HERMENEUTICS: The Salient Features

Formulated by Paul Whelmer Alforque

 

Definition

I defined hermeneutics as a philosophical instrument for interpretation, appreciation and evaluation of a literary intent, linguistic compositions and any written or verbal manifestations.

Applications

I maintained that there is no impediment in applying hermeneutics to both written and oral presentations. Meaning, hermeneutic analysis is not only applicable to a writing piece but also to a verbal discourse.

Interpretation – It refers to the method of understanding the contextual meaning of a written or verbal language.

Translation – It refers to the transportation of an intention from one language to another.

I.       The precedence of Interpretation over Translation.

         Error always follow from a direct translation. This means that one should first interpret before attempting to translate it. Interpretation comes before translation.

II.      The two aspects of Interpretation

          1. External Construction – Interpretation on the circumstances before and of the time of the writing.

          2. Internal Construction – Interpretation based on the letters and substance in the language of the writing.

III.    The properties of External Construction [interpretation on the outside factors]:

          1. Time and place of creation. [ex. the inquisition period, civil war, renaissance, etc]

          2. Social circumstances of the time and place of creation. [ex. views on gender, race, etc.]

          3. Participation of the creator on the events of circumstances.

          4. Mental and physical condition of the creator at the time of creation. [ex. depression, frustration, senility, insanity, etc.]

          5. Influences that affects the creator. [ex. political affiliations, religious stands, etc.]

          6. Purpose and intent of the creator.

          7. The peculiarities and level of intelligence of the creator.

For an efficient understanding of a literary piece, it is necessary to go back to the emotions, sensation of the time of the writing, social framework and other events that may have influenced the work. External construction should be made prior to or concurrent with the reading of the subject literature.

IV.    The properties of Internal Construction [interpretation based on the language used]

          1. Discernment on the kind of language used [ex. Old English, Latin, Greek, etc.]

          2. Usage of words, terms and language.

          3. Grammatical intent of the language.

          4. Equivalent meaning of a word or language in accordance with time and place.

          5. Ordinary and special interpretation of language.

          6. Etymology of a borrowed term.

          7. Substance and the logic of the language.

Internal construction is the interpretation according to the letters and linguistic usage of the subject literature. This stage does not anymore encroach other sources but the language as used in the subject literature.

V.      Three kinds of conflict:

          1. Conflict in concept

          2. Conflict in language

          3. Conflict in logic

The study of conflicts in hermeneutics is essential because it allows the scholar interpreter to examine the changes and variations of the mind of the writer/author of the subject literature. The study of conflicts may also suggest that some portions of the writing may have been made in some other time where the learnings of the writer improved, progressed or regressed. Conflicts may be caused by ignorance, negligence, or intellectual improvement.

VI.    Three branches of conflict in language

          1. Conflict per se [the same statement carries the conflict]

          2. Interior conflict [conflict with reference to the series of statements]

          3. Exterior conflict [conflict with reference to the other sources]

VII.   Two branches of conflict in logic

           1. Plain logical conflict

           2. Experimental logical conflict

VIII.  Two branches of conflict in concept

           1. Material-Conceptual conflict

           2. Rhetorical-Conceptual conflict

IX.     Basic rules and treatments of reconciliation of conflicts:

           1. Ordinary elimination of irrelevant matters

           2. Multiple comparison of conflicts for the consideration of the most pertinent matters

           3. Substitution of the nearest meaning and substance when conflict appeared to be irreconcilable

           4. Convention when substitution seems inappropriate

X.        Suggested guideline for interpretation

           1.  Ordinary usage must be interpreted ordinarily

           2. Usage is the best interpreter of language

           3. The context of the language may suggest its meaning

           4. The HERMENEUTIC OF ORIGIN may be resorted to when there is a literal or metaphorical ambiguity

           5. The HERMENEUTIC OF USAGE may only be employed when the entire literature speaks in clarity or when the literature is widely accepted.

XI. Two approaches of interpretation

           1. A Priori Interpretation – This refers to the interpretation before or during the time a literature is written.

           2. A Posteriori Interpretation – This refers to the interpretation at the time the text is read.

XII. Method of Comprehension of Written Text:

           1. Conceptual – The concept behind the term used

           2. Propositional – The meaning as to what the writer desired it to be understood

           3. Contextual – The meaning as could be gathered from its entire context.

           4. Pragmatic – The meaning as could be determined from its rational and practical sphere.

THE MIND AS THE SUPREME CREATOR: my analysis on the “cogito ergo sum” of R.Descartes

In 1637, Descartes published the Discours de la Methode wherein the phrase “cogito ergo sum” appeared on the 4th chapter for the first time. Then, the same phrase emerged for the second time in 1644 on the 1st chapter of the Principia Philosophiae which gives emphasis on the mind and reason employing his famous “Wax Argument”.

Based on careful observation on the life and teaching of Descartes, some apparent indications would show that he is trying to drive a philosophy which is more radical than any of his precedence – that I supposed was, THE MIND AS THE SUPREME CREATOR.

Of course, Descartes never mentioned this line of statement, needless to say that he was in a place with a culture of religious arrogance armed with authority to hack any person who might threaten the institution. Explicitly, to avoid any possible suspicion from the mighty church, Descartes designed a device to cover him from the dangerous heretical accusation. Instead of giving more substance to his concept of the “cogito” as the first cause, he deviated from further explanation but rather interjected his flimsy arguments on the proof of God’s existence. As we all knew, all intellectuals and philosophers during those times always have had a piece for “God’s existence” in all of their works as an advance shield for the frivolous inquiry of the Church.

It could be inferred from Descartes’ works that the mind as the cradle of thinking is the core of identification. Meaning, the identification of the self and of all things shall always commence in the mind. To Descartes, the thinking and reason are the determinants of certainties when the senses are not capable of perceiving due to deceptions.

The translation “I think, therefore I am” has also been transliterated as “I think, therefore I exist”. By virtue of prudent examination and analysis, the phrase “I exist” is an outcome of consciousness from the phrase “I think”. The thinking, therefore, is the identifying element of existence. It is to say that without the thinking there can be no other remedy of determining the existence. Since existence is the only substance by which the being becomes a component of reality, and since existence is hinged on the thinking and the thinking is anchored on the mind, we may draw a safe conclusion that the mind is the supreme creator. It coud have been a blasphemous syllogism had Rene Descartes made it explicit for this arrangement would include any god as a creation of the mind through the thinking.

Despite of a careful concealment, however, some of the institutions might have been aware of the intentions of Descartes and the directions of his philosophies; this could be supported by the fact that in 1643 the University of Utrecht condemned the Cartesian Philosophy, and another instance after Descartes’ death the Pope placed his works on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1663

MODERN ETHICS – MODERN PROBLEM: CRITICISM

The tales of human circumstances, tragedy, war,  love, politics and religion has been a common venue of human history. Perhaps, problems are always included in every human life; and some problems would involve ethical issues that which could only be resolved through the existing ethical standards.

But by what means this so-called ethical standards attained its reliability? It is a fact that there are instances in our law wherein some forms of killings are not considered as crime such as the justifying and exempting circumstances in our penal law books.

Also, there is an instance whereby a professional killer or whose occupation is to kill a person is not ethically sanctioned by the society, example of which is an executioner of verdict.

So, how reliable is the ethical standard? Who determines the suspension of morality towards brutality and hostility during a war? War losers are always the victim of persecution.

To remember some incidents of our history, the deaths of innocent lives during the Vietnam War was termed by the American government as “Collateral Damage”; and in the World War II, the Nazis called the death of 6 million Jews as the “Necessary Evil”.

In my honest opinion, the term “ethics” and “morals” were just a semantic interplay for “human will”. It is natural in human behavior to maintain silence when the unpleasant event does not affect our interests or to tolerate unpleasant situations when it brings us favorable benefits. There are parents, to exemplify, who kept silent on the “immoral” acts of prostitution of their daughter on the reason of benefits caused thereby.

Now, what is ethics? What is moral? Who declares what it is? And what authority shall make it binding?

Indeed, it is a funny tale, human fears – worries – concerns crafted the term “ethics”, “morality”, “sin”, and “retribution” as a mechanism of our godly attitude.

One significant feature that man behaves like god is the maxim “vox populi, vox dei”, whereby, he invented a more or less godly concepts of ethics and morality with a more or less godly authority. Defining ethics and morality is an attempt to unmask man from his godly appearance.

Besides, ethics and morality are matters within the property of reason. Without the reason, no one can assert the reliability of the standard.

To supplement this criticism, let us observe the gesture of this statement:

Inflicting injury to a person or killing him is justified or morally acceptable when it is made IN THE NAME OF PEACE, IN THE NAME OF GOD, IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW, or IN THE NAME OF A JUST and DIGNIFIED CAUSE.

The statement herein mentioned is a clear and explicit proof of human manipulation on the so-called ethics and morality to fit his particular purpose… and to note, it has been proven a long way back to the ancient history of man.

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”

THE LEGAL HYPOCRISY

Unavoidably, we have a lot of hypocrisy in our legal system. Hypocrisy which always deceived laymen and ordinary citizens.

We have what we call Null and Void marriage, a marriage which does not exist from the very beginning. That is the hypocrisy no.1

We have the Presumption of Innocenceof an accused until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused who is presumed innocent may be convicted if he failed to object the admission of a particular question or an evidence. This is the hypocrisy no.2

The usage of a third person, like the undersigned counsel, the affiant, etc. were indicators of departing from themselves to sound as if they were separate entities from the real person. This is hypocrisy no.3

The personification of the court, like “this Court rejects that motion” “the Law does not allow that“. In the legal construction, the law is just a matter of interpretation and concept by its enforcers; but the interpreters and enforcers of law would distance themselves from the concept to appear as if they were separate from the court or the law. This is hypocrisy no.4

Final Decisions based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt is definitely a word of the hypocrites knowing well that it is still appealable before a higher tribunal. No.5

Many more countless hypocrisies in our legal systems which we conveniently lived with.

Hypocrites did not only live in our churches but also in our courts.

Addendum no.1 — The hypocrisy number 6. The lawyers will object on the hearsay testimonies; likewise, the judges will not allow these hearsay testimonies [general rule with exceptions]. However, they happily receive all details from their client and other sources on matters regarding with complaints and statements conveyed to them by witnesses and other third parties. They lived by hearsays, profited therefrom and became rich because of hearsay BUT in court they will proudly say it is hearsay and therefore INADMISSIBLE.

WHY NOT RUDY?

Why can’t Americans remember what Rudy Giuliani did during the mob era of American civilization?

Those were the dangerous times for every American, there is no sacred cows for the untouchable men. Government officials, private professional, ordinary citizen, etc… – they  die in the hands of these powerful mobs with or without reason.

In the 1970s, Rudy was then the District Attorney, using a synchronized strategy, they were all arrested and successfully prosecuted. Such a success marks as the boundary of the bully times and no-bully times. They were all sent to jail and rewarded a conviction.

Conviction that MAKES AMERICA A PEACEFUL PLACE TO LIVE FOR AMERICANS AND NON-AMERICANS.

Why do you forget that fact? His contribution to American tranquility is more magnificent than any political demagoguery and any politics of identification.

Rudy could be far more enough compared to any of the aspiring president. If Reagan, Kennedy, Johnson,etc. then WHY NOT RUDY? A real hero of our time, A living sage, A brilliant statesman with an extraordinary determination, and A prosecutor who participated in the most honorable undertaking of making America a safe place to live.

PUBLIC DEBATE: RELIABILITY OF CREATION

1999, Somewhere else in this globe.

Pastor: Yes, everything is created by the Supreme God.

Barrister79: How certain are you about it?

Pastor: Very certain. It is in the Bible, in Genesis.

Barrister79: I am not asking you if it is in the Bible or not. How true is it?

Pastor: It is the word of God. It is true, of course.

Barrister79: You seemed to have no understanding of the question, Pastor. Alright, since you are talking about Genesis, I think it is proper to start at the beginning. Can you please read Genesis 1:1?

Pastor: [stated the verse with his memory] “In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis:1:1-2

Barrister79: Is that what you call proof word of god?

Pastor: Yes.

Barrister79: Is it not a direct declaration of the writer?

Pastor: God instructed him.

Barrister79: Where in the Genesis that god instructed his or her writer to write something for him?

Pastor: What do you mean?

Barrister79: Authority. The authority of the writer to write for god.

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know the earth has no form and it was void?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know it was the spirit of god that moved in the face of the waters?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. Was the writer a real witness of creation?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Was the writer present while god is in the process of creation and witnessed the entire incidents?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Why can’t you just tell all of us that the entire tales of  creation is a matter of theology? No need to answer this question, I think we are not interested with your theology.