Ricky Carandang
Posted on 27. Jan, 2010 by Ryan Tani in Oplan Pepe
If you haven’t read Ricky Carandang’s recent post, Thou Shalt Not Vote For… please do. Read through the comments as well and you’ll find that Father Melvin Castro tries to backtrack on what he said, but to little effect. He still finds supporting the Reproductive Health legislation and education more evil than graft and corruption. This “flabbergasted” Ricky, prompting him to write the said post, and even resign from the Church.
What did he mean by this? Is Ricky still a Catholic? What should be done about the Church’s meddling in legislation? I asked these questions and more in a brief interview with Ricky the other day. I’ll be posting the transcript soon, but till then, I’m sure you’ll enjoy listening to the interview itself. Especially if you’re as pissed at the Church’s anti-RH stance as we are.
You interviewed Ricky Carandang? That’s awesome!
I’m supporting Gibo Teodoro, but I don’t like his current stance on RH.
I read something from the Inquirer Letters to the Editor that made my blood curdle.
—begin quote—
The rich cannot afford to have many children because more children will deprive them of time to make more and more money. Only the poor can afford to have many children because they trust that God will bless their best efforts to provide for their children.
—end quote—
When people decide not to have many children, sometimes they do it so they can assure the quality of life of their kids. When people put their trust in God to provide for them, they are being downright irresponsible.
Hi Richard,
That letter to the editor infuriated me too. How callous and condescending could that person be to the poor?
I’m looking for the link to the original article where that letter was published. Do you happen to have it? I wanna write a commentary on it.
Lemme see if that commenter has a reply email.
He/She is just asking for a strongly worded rebuttal.
ricky c. said fr tried to backtrack. further fr melvin didnt answer the question directly.
without a transcript, i cant say anything about this, but fr. melvin’s position is clear in his comments here.
he (and the cbcp) says 2 things:
1) i reject the hypothetical tradeoff u pose because a legitimate pro-life candidate is also anti-corruption
2) i reject it also because i also reject the candidate that has the reverse position to ur hypothetical candidate: a candidate who is pro-life and pro-corruption.
i suspect this is why he didnt directly answer the question — its because he reject the question’s premise (and didnt want to say, i reject the hypothetical choice offered… etc)
Thank you for the audio post red