NOTE TO ALL READERS

Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Without God

The RH bill’s secularistic mindset
Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani
May 29, 2011

One of the basic objections of the CBCP to the RH bill is the secularistic mindset underlying the bill. What that means is that the bill practically excludes the spiritual and theistic dimension of human beings and disregards moral considerations in its proposals. This is already shown by its proposal to provide “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective reproductive health care services and supplies” to the people especially the poor and marginalized (Sec. 3, d). Note the absence of the adjective “ethical” to describe the reproductive health care services and supplies to be provided. Ethical considerations are left out, and the only qualities considered are “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective” The bill is amoral and is not concerned whether the services and supplies it will provide the people are moral or ethical. Now don’t tell me that when it comes to medicine and what are to be supplied to the people as “essential medicines” morality or ethics should in no way be involved.

Another manifestation of this secularistic mentality underlying the bill is the reported refusal of the bill’s chief sponsor, Cong. Edcel Lagman to accept questions that involve God in the discussion. This was supposed to have prompted Cong. Pablo Garcia to remark that the Bicolano Congressman was allergic to God. I did not see the exchange personally, but if the report I read is accurate, it would indeed be strange that a congressman from Bicol, a region noted for its religiosity, and a lawmaker who adheres to the Philippine Constitution which invokes the aid of Almighty God in its preamble, should try to exclude God from the discussion of a projected law intended for the Filipino people whose psychology (according to Dr. Lourdes Quisumbing) is essentially religious. In the setting of Philippine culture you cannot argue in such a way that God is practically excluded from consideration.

Before we Filipinos swallow anything, especially if it is supported by foreign funding and ideology (as seems to be the case with the present RH bill), we must first of all verify if what is proposed agrees with our culture. We may be just surrendering our soul in exchange for promised aid.

One other argument submitted by the proponents of the RH bill is the fact that other countries with a Catholic majority have already accepted what is being proposed by the present RH bill. The answer to that is a simple: “If they have gone the wrong way, why should we follow them?” The Popes have been lamenting this slide of many Catholic countries to secularism. We should be proud that we have bucked the trend to a great extent.

Many of our people, even perhaps the majority of our congressmen and congresswomen, admire Blessed Pope John Paul II. They rejoiced with the rest of the Catholic world when the late pontiff was beatified recently. Yet do they realize that Blessed Pope John Paul II rejected the propagation by governments of contraceptives and abortifacients to solve the population problem where it occurs? One can read his stand very clearly stated in his apostolic exhortation, “Evangelium Vitae,” no. 60. It would be pathetic for a Catholic lawmaker to claim to be a Catholic and to admire Blessed Pope John Paul II and then not take seriously what he taught authoritatively.

7 comments:

  1. Bishop Bacani, please tell us your interpretation of these passages in the Bible: Matthew 22: 21; Romans 13: 1-6; and I Peter 2: 13-17. I am confused because my understanding of them is that the church should not meddle in affairs of the state and vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Admin, couldn't my question for Bishop Bacani in the only posted comment in this article be forwarded to him for proper action or just answered by you as I want to be enlightened on the matter?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Admin, you mean the interpretation of the local Roman Catholic Church of the above stated passages are not available to the whole public?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Persistent Anonymous Troll:

    There are literally thousands of Catholic websites, including hundreds dedicated to defending and explaining every conceivable detail of the Catholic faith. Either you're lazy and want to be spoon-fed, or you don't know how to use the Internet.

    Now, if you want ME to spoon-feed you, you'll have to wait for a few days because I actually have a very busy life outside of this blog, and when the time comes for me to spoon-feed you don't expect me to be nice and gentle to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Palad, I don't mind your manner of speech when you give your long delayed answer. I already saw in your blog how you handle people of the contrary view. You call RH supporters enemies and Christ taught that you should love your enemies. As an apologist of the one true church, the church that claims direct line from Christ Himself, you should know and practice that.I am not lazy as you think but I just want the answer to my question to come from an official source so get on with it, Mr. Palad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Mr. Palad, I don't mind your manner of speech when you give your long delayed answer."

    The tone of your previous comments and the rest of your latest reply don't make me confident that you'll stick to your promise.

    "I already saw in your blog how you handle people of the contrary view."

    Umm, yeah. I post every comment from RH supporters, including those that insult me and other prolifers. Naturally I respond with vigor. The problem with you RH supporters is that you like dishing out what you yourselves can't take. Grow up.

    "You call RH supporters enemies and Christ taught that you should love your enemies."

    Take note that Christ Himself said "love your enemies" -- meaning that there is nothing wrong with identifying people or groups as enemies. Take a look at my latest post.

    Do we consider supporters of the RH bill to be enemies? YES, naturally. Do we HATE them? No. Do we WISH THEM HARM? No. Do I wish them all the good that God wills for them? Of course! Unfortunately the critics of the Church do not care to even understand the nuances of her moral discourse.

    "As an apologist of the one true church, the church that claims direct line from Christ Himself, you should know and practice that."

    Far be it from me to claim to be a paragon of virtue. I will leave things at that. Sinner as I am, yet I try to follow the Lord. That alone I say in my defense.

    "I am not lazy as you think but I just want the answer to my question to come from an official source"

    That is a demand that you have no right to make. If you want an "official source", then look for a doctrinal document of the Church and crack it open, if you really aren't lazy. There are tons of documents out there that a truly industrious fellow can delve into.

    If what you really mean is that you want to pester a bishop who has far more important things to do than let a wannabe village philosopher ruin his day, I'm sorry, but you won't get that satisfaction from me.

    "...so get on with it, Mr. Palad."

    And you wonder why I'm not being nice to you? At least I allow trolls to insult me on my own blog.

    ReplyDelete