DOT chief sees more European tourists

By Doris C. Dumlao
Philippine Daily Inquirer

 4 22 7

Tourism Secretary Ramon Jimenez Jr.: Optimistic INQUIRER.net file photo

LONDON—Foreign tourist arrivals to the Philippines reached a little over 3.8 million in the first nine months of the year, moving closer to the full-year target of five million visitors this year, Tourism Secretary Ramon Jimenez Jr. said.

Europe, which currently contributes at least 10 percent of foreign tourist arrivals, is seen boosting its share especially as flag carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) has started flying back to the continent after a 15-year absence.

In an interview at the sidelines of a reception held here to toast the opening of PAL’s nonstop flights between Manila and London (via Heathrow airport), Jimenez said he was optimistic that more European visitors would come to the Philippines.

“Europe has been underperforming because there were limitations before,” Jimenez said, noting previous limitations on flight connectivity as well as nonportability of insurance when the blacklist on Philippine carriers in the European Union was in effect.

But with all these concerns addressed, Jimenez said more European travelers could come to the Philippines, thereby boosting tourism receipts as European visitors typically spend more daily and stay longer.

On average, he said a European visitor spends much more for each day of stay in the Philippines and stays for at least eight days to as long as 16 days. This means that if more European travelers come to the Philippines, the nature and quality of tourist receipts would improve, he said.

At present, the United Kingdom accounts for about 120,000 tourist arrivals to the Philippines annually while Germany accounts for 100,000, he said. These include Filipinos who have acquired citizenship elsewhere and are using foreign passports.

From January to September this year, he said the latest count of foreign tourist arrivals to the Philippines was about 3.8 million, an increase of about 20 percent over the 3.15 million foreign visitors in the same period last year.

For couples just starting or even retiring please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your housing needs.

Purgatory, Hell, Jews, and the Old Testament

by Dr Taylor Marshall

Comment5Share

64

Tweet

1

Buffer

3

printemail

Orthodox Jews sometime speak of the Gan Eden (“Garden of Eden”) as the place of spiritual reward. It seems that Gan Eden is not the “historical” location described in the Bible. The term is used to evoke the beauty and peace that man experienced prior to sin.

The Garden of Eden

The rabbis describe Eden with the most beautiful imagery. The peace that one feels in Eden is sixty times more powerful than the peace one feels on the Sabbath. It is more pleasurable than sexual intercourse and more pleasant than the warmth of the sun. A mortal man cannot begin to understand the glories of Eden. It is like trying to explain the concept of color to a blind man. Saint Paul uses similar language concerning the Christian understanding of Heaven: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).

According to the rabbis, only the truly righteous go straight to Gan Eden. All others go the place of spiritual torment called Gehinnom or Gehenna. This is a place of punishment, but also a place of purification. It is sometimes called Sheol, meaning “the grave” or “the pit.”

Gehennom as Hell

The word Gehinnom is the name of a geographic location, the Ge Hinnom (“Valley of Hinnom”) located on the southern border of ancient Jerusalem. The valley stretches eastward from Mount Zion to the Kidron Valley. The Bible first mentions the location as a deep, narrow ravine at the foot of the walls of Jerusalem where refuse was burned (Josh 15:8). Gehinnom was also where unburied bodies were dumped and it considered a cursed and unclean place. It is associated with Hell because it was once the location where Canaanites sacrificed children to the false god Moloch. The prophet Jeremiah refers to the location as the “Valley of Slaughter.” (Jer 19:2-6)

Purgatory and Praying for the Dead

Like Gan Eden, the cursed Gehinnom is not identical with its historical geographical location. Gehinnom is a spiritual state. Some believe Gehinnom is a place of severe and eternal punishment, similar Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. This would presumably be the final destination of Adolf Hitler. Others see it as a place of purification, like the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. A common view is that this “purgatorial” version of Gehinnom lasts no longer than twelve months. After this one-year probationary period, the person ascends to his proper place in olam ha-ba. This twelve-month purification derives from the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish.

Jesus of Nazareth taught that Gehinnom was not a temporary place, but an eternal state:

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched (Mk 9:47-48).

“Gehenna” is also found in the epistle of James, where he teaches that Gehenna ignites the tongue with hurtful words (Jam 3:6).

Most Christians understand Gehenna (i.e. Hell) to be a place of eternal punishment (that’s what the Catholic Church teaches!). On the other hand, annihilationists, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, understand Gehenna to be a place where sinners are utterly destroyed (like garbage in a burning dump), not tormented forever. The New Testament also refers to Hades as a destination of the dead and of those who will not be exalted in heaven (Mt 11:23). However, Hades is portrayed as a different place from Gehenna.

Thomas Aquinas and the 4 Parts of Hell

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas (STh Supp q. 69, aa. 1-7), Hell (Latin: Infernus) is divided into four sections or abodes:

1. Gehenna. This is hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, both demons or humans.
2. Limbo of the Children. (Latin: limbus parvulorum) Where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, enjoy natural beatitude without the sensation of pain.
3. Limbo of the Fathers. (Latin: limbus patrum) Where the souls of the Old Testament saints who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven. Also called “Abraham’s bosom.” Also a natural beatitude without the sensation of pain. Limbo of the Fathers is now vacant.
4. Purgatory. Where the righteous who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to Heaven.

For couples just starting or even retiring please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your housing needs.

Court Delivers Blow to HHS Contraceptive Mandate in Gilardi Case

by GERALD J. RUSSELLO

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown

– Win McNamee/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The D.C. Circuit Court recently delivered another defeat for the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate. And in doing so, it set out substantive arguments that the Supreme Court would do well to adopt if it agrees to hear one or more cases challenging the federal mandate, authorized under the Affordable Care Act.

In Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services, two brothers, Frank and Phil Gilardi — faithful Catholics and owners of Freshway Foods in Ohio — filed suit to prevent application of the mandate for them, arguing that it violated their rights, as protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The lower court rejected this claim for two reasons. First, the lower court found that the Gilardis’ companies could not themselves assert First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. Second, the lower court found that the Gilardis’ own freedom of religion would not be “substantially burdened.”

These are the two core questions that the Supreme Court will have to address if and when it considers the HHS mandate, and the circuit court opinion — written by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush — provides the constitutional and statutory arguments, should the Supreme Court decide to invalidate the HHS mandate.

As to the first point, Judge Brown’s opinion canvassed the available arguments and found that the law was not clear enough explicitly to grant religious-exercise rights to secular corporations. However, Judge Brown’s decision did not foreclose the possibility in the future, and she certainly was not of the view — as some other courts have been — that such corporations could never themselves exercise religious rights.

Indeed, the D.C. circuit court refuted the central government argument on this issue, holding that “if the government is correct, the price of incorporation is not only the loss of RFRA’s statutory free-exercise right, but the constitutional one as well.”

The government argued before the circuit court that if people choose to incorporate, they cannot assert their individual religious liberty through the corporate form, and because corporations did not have religious-liberty rights on their own, the right essentially disappears. 

The court disagreed.

Instead, Judge Brown’s opinion concluded that “we do not believe Congress intended important statutory rights to turn on the manner in which an individual operates his businesses.” In other words, the fact that individuals act through corporations did not invalidate religious-liberty claims either under RFRA or the Constitution.

The court then turned to the Gilardis’ own religious beliefs and found that the HHS mandate substantially burdens their free-exercise rights under RFRA. Stated the court, “We disagree with the government’s foundational premise. The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a health-care plan.”

That is to say, the court moved the focus of the argument from the employee’s choice as to whether to use contraception under an insurance plan to the problem faced by the employer: that the HHS mandate forces the business owner to provide something that violates his religious beliefs.

The court went on to note that the real issue was that “the Gilardis are burdened when they are pressured to choose between violating their religious beliefs in managing their selected plan or paying onerous penalties.”

That choice was almost the very definition of being substantially burdened, the court found, drawing on Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that the right to free exercise “prohibits the government from ‘compel[ling] a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.’”

Throughout the HHS mandate controversy, the government has claimed that the mandate is vindicating important government interests that trump the rights of religious believers. The government thus asserts that the mandate is in compliance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Yet Judge Brown’s ruling held that the government was not able to prove that the law had secured the provision of the contested services in the least restrictive way possible, in a manner that would minimize the burden on the religious business owner.

Indeed, the ruling concluded that the state had failed to demonstrate its “compelling” interest in providing co-pay-free contraception and other services. In sum, the government had no compelling interest that justified the imposition on the Gilardis.

The government’s assertions that the HHS mandate’s purpose was “safeguarding the public health,” preserving “autonomy” or serving “gender equality” were found by the court to be either too vague or contradictory in the face of the statutory and constitutional protections of religious liberty.

Likewise, other court rulings in HHS mandate cases have noted the absurdity of the government’s claim to be protecting compelling government interests yet allowing millions of Americans to be exempted from the mandate. Judge Brown’s ruling in Gilardi makes the same point but goes on to note that the government failed to address any of the alternative means to address the goals sought by the mandate, some of which had been proposed by the Gilardis themselves. If there were such alternative means that served the mandate’s goals yet did not burden religious liberty as much, then the mandate would fail the constitutional test.

In light of the government’s failure to address possible ways to effectuate the mandate’s 

purposes, the court concluded it had no basis to agree with the government that the HHS mandate was the only way to achieve the government’s interests in the least restrictive manner.

Gilardi is an important decision and a strong explanation of the weaknesses of the government’s constitutional and logical arguments supporting the HHS mandate.

For couples just starting or even retiring please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your housing needs.

How to Spring a Soul from Purgatory in 4 Easy Steps

by Dr Taylor Marshall

Comment16Share

163

Tweet

7

Buffer

3

printemail

Purgatory and Indulgences. There’s a lot of confusion out there. Here’s the Catholic Church’s official teaching on how to spring a soul from Purgatory from November 1-8.

According to the current Enchiridion of Indulgences, one can apply a plenary indulgence to a departed soul by the “visitation of a cemetary” {Coemeterii visitatio} from November 1st till the 8th (i.e. the octave of All Saints).

Here’s the official text:

13. Visit to a Cemetery (Coemeterii visitatio)

An indulgence, applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory, is granted to the faithful, who devoutly visit a cemetery and pray, even if only mentally, for the departed.

The indulgence is plenary each day from the 1st to the 8th of November; on other days of the year it is partial.

In order for the indulgence to be plenary, the following conditions must also be met alone with the visit and prayers at the cemetery:

1. Sacramental confession within “about twenty days”[1] of the actual day of the Plenary Indulgence.
2. Eucharistic Communion on the day of the Plenary Indulgence.
3. Prayer for the intentions of the Pope on the day of the Plenary Indulgence.
4. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent.[2]

Taking young people, particularly teenagers, to cemeteries to pray for the dead is a wholesome thing. Young people are not usually aware of their mortality. It’s a good thing to recognize the tombs of the dead…and pray for them.

Perhaps our culture’s fascination with death and horror movies is related to the fact that young people are isolated from death and prevented from attending funerals.

For couples just starting or even retiring please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your housing needs.

Cebu, Bohol on mag’s list of Top 5 Islands in Asia

By Boboi Costas
Philippine Daily Inquirer

 23 769 607

Loboc River. INQUIRER file photo

CEBU CITY, Philippines—On the day a 7.2-magnitude earthquake struck Cebu and Bohol, these islands landed in the Top 5 Islands in Asia list of Conde Nast Traveler magazine.

The magazine announced on Oct. 15 the winners of its 26th Annual Readers’ Choice Awards, which ranks the best cities, islands, cruise lines, airlines, hotels and resorts in the world. The complete list will appear in the magazine’s November issue.

Conde Nast said Cebu and the Visayan islands “have it all, including all the shopping and restaurant needs for any traveler with the friendliest people anywhere in the world!”

“The night life is big here, but not as wild as Phuket,” one reader said. Entertainment is “smaller, more upclose and personal,” he added.

The Visayan Islands in the survey included Cebu, Panay, Negros, Bohol, Leyte and Samar.

One survey taker said “in all my years of traveling, Cebu is my No. 1 choice!” Another said: “It is probably the best island city on the universe.”

Cebu and the Visayan islands got a Readers’ Choice Rating of 80.4 points, behind Koh Samui but ahead of Phuket. The latter two islands are in Thailand.

The Top 5 Islands in Asia with their corresponding choice ratings are: Bali, Indonesia, with 83.1 points; Koh Samui, Thailand, with 82.8 points; Phuket, (Thailand), with 78.9 points; and Lombok, Indonesia, with 77.8 points.

Readers raved about Bali for its “exquisite hotels, exotic and rich culture and extraordinary food, and the sweetest people in the world.”

Although some readers felt Koh Samui was “almost too developed,” the island moved up to second place from fifth place last year, with some readers saying it is a “beautiful island with fun night life and great restaurants, and plentiful natural foliage and beauty.”

Phuket went down from No. 2 to No. 4 this year, with some readers saying “it’s good for families but too chaotic and filled with many tourists.”

In the past few years, only Cebu was cited in the survey rankings, occupying 7th place five times: 75.9 points in 2012; 72.6 in 2009; 70.9 in 2008; 72.3 in 2007 and 72.8 in 2004.

Thrice, Cebu has been ranked 8th best island destination by the same survey: in 2011 with 77.2 points; in 2006 with 71 points and in 2005, with 69.5 points.

In 2010, Cebu was shut out from the list, with the honor bestowed on Luzon island at No. 7 (75.1 points).

But on that year, Cebu was named Third Best Island in Asia by Travel & Leisure magazine in its World’s Best Awards, a listing of the best hotels, airlines, cruises, islands and cities all over the world.

Maui, Hawaii was ranked No. 1 in the Top 25 Islands in the World (with 93.9 points), with readers calling it a “veritable paradise; a combination of tropical ambience and American comforts.”

The Conde Nast Traveler Readers’ Choice Awards survey was conducted through a questionaire containing lists of candidates in various categories (cities, hotels, islands, etc.).

A candidate must receive a required minimum number of responses to be eligible for a Readers’ Choice Award.

Individual candidates were judged on a set of criteria relevant to their category, based on a standard five-point scale: excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. The percentage of excellent and very good ratings determines the final score published.

In the islands category, candidates were rated in the following: activities, atmosphere/ambiance, beaches, friendliness, lodging, restaurants and scenery. Resorts were rated on activities/facilities, food/dining, location, overall design, rooms and service.

Cebu and the Visayan Islands had the following ratings: 86.0 for scenery; 88.8 for friendliness; 78.5 for atmosphere; 68.3 for restaurants; 78.4 for lodging; 79.2 for activities; and 83.5 for beaches.

No Philippine city made it to the Top Ten Cities in Asia. Kyoto, Japan, was ranked No. 1 for being a “beautiful city full of history.”

In the Top 25 Hotels in Southeast Asia, two came from the Philippines: Edsa Shangri-La Manila at No. 9 with 92.1 points, and Makati Shangri-La at No. 25 with 85 points.

Only Shangri-La’s Boracay Resort and Spa made it to the Top 20 Resorts in Asia, at No. 8 with 92.5 points.

For couples just starting or even retiring, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your housing needs.