This is an archive for open letters and declarations, illustrations, treatises, opinion pieces, interviews and videos that support the orthodox Catholic position on the so-called "Reproductive Health Law" passed by the Philippine Legislature and signed into law in December 2012.
(NB: Inclusion of a given piece in this blog-archive neither necessarily signifies the blog owner's agreement with all of its assertions, nor does it mean that he endorses it as completely accurate or precise.)
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.
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.