Nothing wrong with church officials accepting donations

2

I really do not see anything wrong with church officials accepting donations from its flock or members though heathens think otherwise.

Church leaders from any denomination or sect rely solely on donations to pay for the stipends or allowances of priests or pastors, utility bills, maintenance, missionary work and charity programs of their respective churches.

Last week, a newspaper reported that Quiapo church Rector Msgr. Josefino Ramirez received P2.5 million from pork barrel queen Janet Napoles in 2007.

The same newspaper said this was just one of the contents of the hard drive files of pork barrel scam star witness Benhur Luy which he had reportedly turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).


Msgr. Ramirez admitted accepting the donation but clarified that he got only P2 million, not P2.5 million as reported by newspapers.

The former Quiapo Church rector also clarified that he accepted the donation “in good faith and without any knowledge as to where the funds came from” and that the money was used for charity programs.

A source from the church told me that Ramirez knew Napoles as a legitimate government contractor who had a dozen or so foundations.

And back in 2007, nobody had any idea, except for Napoles and those unscrupulous lawmakers of course, that the priority development assistance fund (PDAF) is being abused and misused by these people, my source added.

“Definitely you do not ask your member where did his donation come from, and whether its clean or not particularly if it is given for church operations” my informant clarified.

Leave the church alone, and stop this holier-than-thou attitude while accusing everyone now as thieves!

This maternity hospital is not good for babies
A few days ago, a Cebu dad filed charges of child abuse against nurses of Cebu Puericulture Center and Maternity House after seeing his baby gagged with an adhesive tape.

An inter-agency committee investigating the incident is also contemplating filing charges of obstruction of justice against the hospital owners and board of directors for reportedly refusing to give out the names of those nurses who were on duty at the time.

Ryan Noval, the baby’s father, was so shocked that he took pictures of his child whose lips were sealed with adhesive.

Noval claimed that the nurses who were on duty at the time wanted to silence his newborn because his crying disturbed the other babies in the nursery.

But according to earlier reports, the hospital claimed the tape was placed on the baby’s lips to support the nipple of the feeding bottle in his mouth.

A doctor friend of mine, however, said the hospital gave a very poor excuse. “Infants, particularly the newly born, should be assisted by the nurses while drinking milk in the bottle, and the nurses should not tape the feeding bottle to the child’s mouth,” he explained.

Surprisingly, the hospital later denied that the nurses taped the baby’s lips.

If the hospital owners and management really refuse to cooperate with the authorities, charge all of them in court and shut down that hospital!!!

etulfo2011@yahoo.com

Share.
.
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

2 Comments

  1. Dominador D. Canastra on

    What the Church and respectable humanitarian organizations should do is accept money–even from the worst people–but without publicity.
    Mr. or Ms. Findlety is right, accepting donations from people like Napoles and corrupt politicians helps give these stinking people a good odor. But if their donations are accepted on condition that they do it without fanfare and press releases (which is what the Good Book says should be the proper way to make charitable acts), then the false sanitizing does not happen. The Bishops and priests and nuns can even make sure that the CORRUPT donor SIGNS his/her donation as ANONYMOUS. That way if the CORRUPT donor claims in public that he gave a donation, the Church can publicly say, truthfully, that no donation was received from that SCOUNDREL but an amount was received from Mr. or Mrs. ANONYMOUS.
    In this present case of the Monsignor it was not even the donor who publicized it but the Inquirer! That paper has a lot to account for in making good people look bad and in imputing evil on the Church and on Church people.

  2. Mr. Tulio, let us view this in another angle for their similarities. In case of drug money, those involve in money laundering are prosecuted. In this situation, it is not money that is being laundered but reputation or social standing. No one can really know the genuine intention of a donor. On the other hand, would it not be possible that is a means of making up appearances for public consumption? Are people really so naive about the generosity of people doing questionable dealings. History of Philippine politics have many examples of this kind. It is not only the clergy that is used for this matter.