Grains of Almighty God.

7/23/2019 Grains of Almighty God.

1/27

1

GRAINS OF ALMIGHTY GOD

Roberto Siccuan De Alban

Tumauini, Isabela

The Highest Human Law of the Land, The

Const i tut ion of the Republic of the Phi l ippines, does

more than proclaim the Fi l ip ino peoples categorical

recognit ion of the existence of Almighty God i t

declares that the Fi l ip ino rel ies upon the hand of

GOD.

We, the sovereign Fil ipinoPeople, imploring the aid of Almighty

God

Believing in, and relying on God is, therefore, not

just a functional opt ion or pr ivi lege i t is the duty of

every Fi l ip ino to do so. This is reaff irmed when we, by

the very same Const i tut ional Preamble, commit

ourselves to:

* Author is the third child of Atty. Josefin De Alban (UST A.A. 1928, UST Ll.B. 1933) and retired Home

Economics teacher Esteria Bautista Siccuan (Philippine Normal School, 1937). Their eight (8) children are

all graduates of the University of Santo Tomas.


2/27

2

x x x Secure to ourselves andour posterity the blessings ofindependence and democracy underthe Rule of Law and a regime ofTruth, Justice, Freedom and Love,Equality and Peace. x x x

And God is Love.

Public off icers, high or low, in al l three

Departments of Government, are indubitably presumed

to know this since none of them could have legal ly

assumed off ice without f i rst taking their oaths of off ice

which proclaim their al legiance to the Phi l ippine

Const i tut ion and with which they pray:

So help me GOD

I t is in this context that we seek to offer our

part ic ipat ion in the current discussions on the so-

cal led RH BILL (hereinafter RH) .


3/27

3

Believing and relying upon God, and thereby

submitt ing to His wi l l , the mother quest ion is:

Is RH in accordance with the will

of God?

And what is the wil l of God?

The Almighty speaks to us with His

Commandments, thereby imposing His wi l l upon us al l ,

by His revealed voice and through Jesus, The Holy

Spir i t , His saints and Prophets. We learn this from the

Holy Scriptures.

We do not propose to give the reader uncondit ional

answers. Our offer is to present observat ions that

might provoke ref lect ions that, in turn, hopeful ly, could

lend enl ightenment to the concerned.


4/27

4

The Almighty

OVERPOPULATION

In one great moment of del ight God promised

Abraham generations of descendants as numerous as

the grains of sand. But are we commissioned to

count the number of grains or l imit their quant i ty?

Limit less populat ion was thereby regarded by the Lord

as a reward to His chosen people, as in fact, we, too,

are or wish to be.

I . Did God mean His reward to be a cause of

misery?

II . Is not the reward accompanied by reassuringprovisions for i ts sustenance?

Clearly the Almighty never saw numbers as a

threat to His people. A generous Giver, The Source of

things that happened and to come, the Lord stacked

the Earth with goods provident ial ly abundant to meet

the health requirements of His grains of sand .


5/27

5

I t has always been given to man to f ish and hunt;

to sow and harvest; to have dominion over the lands,

the seas, and the skies and al l nourishments that

come from them.

Yet i t was also given to man to choose: to be

loving or to be without love; to be grateful for his

share of blessings or to want to have much more -to

be greedy, to over-crave.

In growing years we were a family of eleven before

we were ten, our parents included.

On our table the concept of overpopulat ion isalways tested. Mama cooks a chicken, which she then

divides into ten pieces. I eat two and one of us is

deprived of his share.

I f a piece of chicken is enough to meet the food

needs of a family member there need not, def ini tely,be a problem of overpopulat ion of mouths

outnumbering the quant i ty of chicken inputs. But even

when one eats more than his share the problem of


6/27

6

consequential deprivat ion is not the fault of

overpopulat ion but of unequal distribution of

wealth due to self ish greed, avarice or over-

craving.

But supposed the lonesome chicken cannot meet

the dietary needs of al l of us, is overpopulat ion

appreciable as a root of the problem of deprivat ion?

Yes, i f i t is impossible for Mama to produce another

chicken or the equivalent of a supplementary fowl in

whatever form.

Is i t impossible for the government to help

produce the extra chicken? Is i t impossible for the

government to help the people, the so-cal led poor, tohelp themselves to produce chicken?

Is i t not the weight of over-craving with consequent

overstuffed abdomen that def ies the fulcrum of

equal i ty that overstrains the sinews of moral i ty that, in

turn,.?


7/27

7

I f overpopulat ion causes poverty, is i t not

dignifying an absurdity to assume that the reverse is,

therefore, t rue that underpopulat ion produces wealth

and prosperi ty. And what is wealth? What is

prosperi ty?

One would be quick to react:

"But we should have a

manageable/sustainable populat ion!

What quant i ty of mouths to feed is manageable?

And i f one wishes for a Balanced Population,

meaning, perhaps, a si tuat ion where the number of

mouths is matched by the quant i ty of nutr ients, do we

have the abi l i ty to make such determinat ion given

mil l ions who have dif ferent needs, tastes,

preferences?

Sti l l , even i f we assume that overpopulat ion breeds

poverty, i t may be aske d: So what?


8/27

8

To what extent is poverty tolerable andintolerable? What is the level of concern that i t

deserves given that we are threatened by the now

paral lel problems of drug-abuse, human traff icking,

murders, massacres, etc?

What is so compell ingly evi l about poverty that wehave to use al l means to address i t even by measures

that divide the nat ion? And can we real ly be one under

God by legislat ing divisive and coercive cooperat ion?

If RH is good, is there truth and fairness in

assuming, therefore, that those against i t are moved

by motives against the wil l of God?

The implied insistence on workable def ini t ions is

fair. Is i t not prudent to provide legislated solut ions

only to legislated def ini t ion of problems?

May we agree on conclusions based on undef ined

premises?


9/27

9

FutureReductionof Population isNot a solution toPresentProblems

RH is supposedly good because i t guaranteesfuture reduct ion of the populat ion, which supposedly

results in reduct ion of poverty thereby reducing thenations problems.

But how can a future reduct ion of the poor do that?

- Are the poor able, ready and real ly wi l l ing toinit iate and maintain a drug-habit , a d rug-shop, factoryor syndicate? Is it not said that they are tooinadequate to buy their own condoms?

- Are the poor able, ready and real ly wi l l ing toinit iate, commit and maintain, human traff icking,smuggling, massacre, among other high prof i le, mass-damaging criminal act ivi t ies?

Being in fact vict ims (recruited hoodlums, pimps,and couriers as induced by incent ives for their


10/27

10

intest inal needs), should the poor not be redeemedinstead of targetted for reduct ion? Is i t not a betterpol icy to reduce, and NOW, the r ich and powerfulcr ime-lords and their cohorts in government?

May we fault our poor for not having the hunger-l iberat ing power of i l l -gotten wealth, for unexplainedpoverty? How many poor are indictable for plunder;for land grabbing; for non-payment or underpayment

of wages; for possession of repl icat ing machines toviolate the Intel lectual Property Law; How many poorcould produce pornographic f i lms or establ ish red -houses? How many poor could set -up i l legalrecruitment agencies? How many poor could maintaingoons to terrorize voters and funds to buy v otes? Howmany poor could buy machines that could bury theirvict ims? How many poor could pay for the many

spears that crucif ied Christ?

We seem to refer to poverty as a permanentsocial status vis--vis the supposed r ich; but can theso-cal led poor not become rich and the now richpoor? Do the so-cal led poor real ly deserve theirdeprivat ion? Do the r ich deserve their opportunist icwealth?

Is i t real ly good, especial ly for our self ish ends,that we reduce those who sweat for our lands and


11/27

11

bear harvests to our doors? Who drive us to ourfavori te colored spots and casinos? Who tr im ourgardens? Who launder our shirts? Who lay red c arpetsfor us to strut on in s plendor? Who pol ish our f loors sowe could dance seamlessly without fear with ourparamours and mistresses?

The poor steal for their survival but in asyndicated, larger scale, for their manipulators. The

rich do not steal for the poor but largely from thelatter, rarely from their conspirators and most ly fortheir luxuries and excesses.

Could RH Breedthe MoralEquivalent Of

High Crimes?

Since the RH proposes to use government money,

the peoples, i t may be asked Is the expenditure

necessary? I f not, what fol lows would be waste of

government resources (akin to malversat ion) or undue

benefi t to a favored party (akin to violat ion of the Ant i -

Graft Law). We submit that RH is necessary only i f i tis shown that i t is the only ethical solut ion to a

problem to the exclusion of others already- tested.


12/27

12

Does RH have a monopoly of remedies in l ight ofthe fol lowing?

A. Is i t not good that schools, government

off ices, the church (al l those with formal inf luences)

adopt/ implement methods that discourage, even

prohibit , casual, one-night stand, out-of-marriage,

underage fornicat ions?

The issues of these immoral l ia isons are pre-

branded vict ims of irresponsible and thought less

concupiscence. More unloved than loved they are

potent ial sources of not only material but moral and

psychological poverty -wit t ingly or unwit t ingly

creat ing further and widening r ipples of misery. Theyare in the mil l ions. Reducible.

By distr ibut ing condoms on the pretext of avoiding

the supposedly otherwise inevitable HIV infect ion

without the plast ic protect ion, are we not encouraging

such fornicat ions that produce problem offsprings or,in the case of cymbal-sex, threats of divine wrath

reminiscent of Sodom and Gomorrah -precisely

because we are making i t easier for fornicators and


13/27

13

sodomizers? What is so caring about subsidizing

immorality?

The pro-condom logic has the wisdom of a

government pol icy that would fund the wide

distr ibut ion of less-painful murder-weapons, sleeping

pi l ls (for otherwise traumatized wide-awake rape-

vict ims) and state-of-the-art picklocks - so robbers

could leave door locks unscratched!

We can understand how a man can succumb to the

urgings of his animal inst incts in moments of moral

weakness, but do we have to provide him with tools to

diminish his strength to resist debasing temptat ions?

We read from yesterdays newspaper a piece

hint ing that condoms/IUD are good for women who

wish to avoid pregnancy induced by their raping,

drunken husbands.

Let us just be fair. Do we expect our churches to

teach brides to choose partners, af ter courtship, who

show part ial i ty for condoms/IUDs? Do we expect our


14/27

14

priests to teach brides to choose husbands who are

wil l ing to have their private parts jacket ted with rubber

tubes during the disorder of a rape r i te? Must women

be taught to acquire expert ise in rapid-IUD/condom-

f i t t ing?

Let us remind our women of their nat ive

gent leness, of their hands that can wash a thousand

smelly diapers. Let us suggest for them to be

obedient, not obsequious but compassionately

tolerant. May not a savage be tamed by a gent le

Yes, for better or for worse?

Sti l l , do not our churches and parents teach us to

measure our partners during courtship?

B. Is i t not good that diners (weddings, f iestas,

part ies etc.) top their plates with just enough but less

than a gluttons minimum sat iety?

Have the pro and ant i RH, the church and

government made a study on the benef icial ef fects of


15/27

15

spreading the economic value of lef tovers among the

needy?

C. Is i t not good that pet-owners temper their

at tachment to their expensive animals?

Have the pro and ant i RH, the church and

government made a study on how much pet- lovers

spend for the care and attent ion they lavish on their

dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes?

D. Is i t not good that readers real ize that

reducing populat ion is an unnecessary diminut ion of

human resources? We wish to reduce, for ourconvenience, the burden of feeding extra mouths so

we succumb to the suggest ion of reducing heads.

Does such mode of burden-avoidance not equal the

wisdom of cutt ing the head off to avoid a mosquito

bite on the face? No head, no face, no bite. Is i t notmore prudent to swat the mosquito or prevent i ts

access to the face? Is i t not more prudent to ki l l the

want with an extra chicken?


16/27

16

E. Is i t not good that members of Congress reactposit ively to a columnist s piece hint ing that both

houses of congress probably spend too much on in-

house and off-house committee hearings?

Have the pro and ant i RH Government and Church

made a study on how much can be saved, andchanneled to poverty-al leviat ion act ivi t ies, f rom

inordinately-funded government-related off ic ial

meetings, seminars, foreign travels, socials and other

group act ivi t ies?

F. Is i t not good that columnists use their talents

to wri te and expound on suggest ions for improving

quali ty of l i fe instead of using their spaces to

chronicle and inventory their bias percept ion of the

imperfect ions of others as though one r ises by kicking

others down?

Are we truly deserving of praise when we f launt our

talents? Should we not real ize that intel lectual

arrogance is ludicrously presumptuous and point less,


17/27

17

given that no one can ever be superior to God or the

Devi l anyway?

G. Is i t not good that sunshine-evangelists and

self-proclaimed bishops cal l at tent ion to God instead

of cal l ing attent ion to themselves and their personal

victories?

H. Is i t not good for the Commission on Elect ions

to use al l i ts resources to stop vote-buying which

steals from the voter Gods precious gif t of c hoice?

What can be more impoverishing than depriving a

person of his dignity -weakening his resistance tohunger so his intest inal comfort would command his

brain to choose Barabas instead of Jesus?

Given such opt ions are we not giving undue

advantage to manufacturers/dealers of abort i facients,

contracept ives, sperm-ki l l ing drugs, IUDs, and l i fe-frustrat ing medicines and gadgets?


18/27

18

Legislated advert isement and payment for their

products?

Are we not impoverishing the poor even farther

when we whisper by insult to them that they would

be healthier if they did not have more of

themselves?

God wantsUs to UpholdHuman Dignity

A song, wel l intentioned as i t might be, erroneouslyinvokes mans humanness as just i f icat ion for his

t ransgressions against God and fel lowmen:

Sapagkat kamiy tao lamang.

I t impl ies that humans are inherent ly weak andthereby invincibly vulnerable to corrupt ion.


19/27

19

We agree with our Thomasian professors that manis composed of body and soul; that man is a rat ionalanimal.

We also agree that Gods incarnat ion elevatedmans nature by extension of earned divinity to qual i fyman for Gods many mansions.

What dist inguishes man from pure animals is thatthey are not gif ted with free wil l which subsumes thepower to choose between r ight and wrong.

When a man does wrong against another hecommits a crime (vs. individual or state) or a sin (vs.God) He does so because he is part animal. The

criminal or sinner deserves punishment becauseunlike a pure animal he chooses to sink to the level of an animal; an animal cannot help b eing i tself . Man canchoose to subordinate his self to his rat ionalcomponent.

When a man is deprived of his r ight to choose (aswhen he is forced or fraudulent ly-persuaded to dowrong or prevented/discouraged from doing what isr ight) he is dehumanized. He is forced/ inf luenced tobecome an animal. He is deprived of Gods preciousgif t which he withholds from pure animals: Free will -


20/27

20

the l iv ing badge of his sovereignty over things,animals and his self ; he is deprived of humandignity , the essence of what makes him in theimage of God

The person who deprives another of his free wil l(as when the lat ter is forced by poverty to sel l his voteand thereby losing his r ight to choose) violates Godst rust. The vote-buyer commits an evi l deed of the

highest degree. We bel ieve that the Holy Spir i t , theParaclete, is the defender of our fai th and,subsumedly, of human dignity.

And i t is wri t ten that a sin against the Holy Spir i t isunpardonable.

AbettingDehumanizationVia Discrimination

The quest ioned proposal is the subsidized arrest of

populat ion growth. And who are the targets of thisfuture reduct ion? Could i t be the r ich who have the

luxury of wealth that guarantees the sustenance of

their of fspring?


21/27

21

The poor are cajoled into bel ieving that i t is fortheir good that they l imit the number of their mouths to

feed so that they can prof i t f rom the good health that

emanates from the reduct ion of the burden of feeding

more. But for whose benef i t?

Who can guarantee and cert i fy that the unchosenunborn of the poor would cause human misery and

the chosen born of the r ich would bui ld a better

society in accordance with the wil l of God?

By ent icing the poor to the supposed benef i ts of

f ree use of tools to ensure unbridled sexual

intercourse without fear of the responsibi l i t ies of

pregnancy, the charmed poor are brainwashed into the

hedonist ic culture of pleasure without accountabi l i ty.

The ent iced poor are deprived of the r ight to choose

responsibi l i ty over irresponsibi l i ty.

The poor are encouraged to lust without fear; to

regard orgasm as the ult imate good; to regard the


22/27

22

sacred union between the sperm and egg cel ls as just

a chemical concoct ion devoid of the Breath of God.

The sperm and egg cel ls are bearers of l i fe and,

therefore, of God, the sole giver of l i fe.

Is i t not a measure of their special sacredness that

such nature is not attached to the bodys more

numerous cel ls that rout inely die after their individual

terms of seven years ? I t is t rue that the sperm and

egg cel ls can also die but they have the potent ial

power to give l i fe from generat ion to generat ion. This

potent ial does not cease to exist when a union is not

formed just as cel ibates do not cease to be men or

women upon their ordinat ion. The ent iced poor womanis encouraged by legislat ion to say to her mate:

Let us have orgasms but let us not al low our cel ls to

have their sacred union. Let us just ki l l them!!!

The man is treated as a glori f ied producer of

orgasms. But soon he real izes that doci le beasts andmachines can produce more, and perhaps more

sat isfying, sensat ions.


23/27

23

Man is placed on the level of his plast ic c ompeti tor-the vibrator. Would humans be ennobled by a Nobel

award for excel lence in sexual performance?

Now free from dependence on the old-fashioned

notion of sacred and romantic love, are not the

enchanted poor tempted to avai l themselves of theservices of those who have better performance

competing with doci le beasts and state-of-the-art

st imulators?

To regard the sperm and egg cells as

disposable chemicals is to declare a repudiation of

Gods gift, an unmistakable declaration of

independence from God! Would that be in

accordance with His will? How may we declare our

independence from Whom we implore for aid?

We are, today, the historic 12t h

of June,

celebrat ing the Independence Day. Could we also

declare our independence from the unfairness of

unequal distr ibut ion of wealth?; from the spel l of


24/27

24

greed, arrogance, self ishness, envy?; from the

indif ference of lack of love the very opposite of love?

And fai l ing to make such unfounded declarat ions

are we vindicated by declaring our independence from

the Almighty?

It is agreed, in this nat ion of Christ ians, that the

human body is the temple of the Holy Spir i t . Is i t

consistent with the edifying sense of such holy

thought that such divine edif ice be ut i l ized as

receptacle for murdered cel ls? For when we invite the

Lord to be with us can i t be His wi l l to wish to dwell in

a temple of desecrated, orgasmic cel ls?

We are not ready to adopt the h asty bigot s view

that RH stands for Road to Hell , Regressive

Hysteria, Rubbish Hype, etc. But is it the will of God

for man to increase his options for enriching his

flesh yet impoverish his mind, his heart, h is soul?

In these aging years we are now only seven from

the original eleven. Mamas lonesome chicken seems


25/27

25

bigger but less tast ier. From our sacred cel ls we are

now 38, al l in joyful ant icipat ion of the 39t h

.

We see ourselves as of the darkness of natures

miraculous womb; we hunger and stumble, journeying

towards Gods ul t imate l ight, conf ident of His

Unending Grace.

Our Cathol ic fai th has given us a joyful promise of

the future and by that i t has given us strength to try to

be competent in our chosen professions; to be

committed to old-fashioned ideals of loyalty to God

and Country; to be compassionate to/with our

fel lowmen, warned by a m eek, humble and The kindest

King:

Whatsoever you do to the least ofmy brothers that you do unto me.

That same cathol ic fai th has taught us to treasure

the words of a rumoredly-si nful President who humbly,

and thereby nobly, registered his God-dependent

vision of t rue and last ing health:


26/27

26

Have faith in Divine Providencethat guides the destinies of men andnations.

And so we cont inue to teach our chi ld ren what we

learned from our parents:

It may be true that one cannot eathis moral principles, but what sort ofman is he who maintains an appetiteto eat without them

- Papa

It is a sin to not return excess

change

- Mama

We cont inue to labor, thankful to be among Gods

grains of sand.


27/27

And we pray to reach as many hearts and minds aswe can touch. And i t is joyful rel ief to bel ieve that we

succeeded in joining with you because we have

writ ten and you have readall for:

A

Respectful ly submitted:

Roberto Siccuan De AlbanTumauini, Isabela

Date post:	17-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rsa76ao
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Grains of Almighty God.

Documents