For the record: Ricardo Boncan on the RH bill as the product of male irresponsibility

The RH Bill is for Wimps

Ricardo Boncan

(Originally published on Sept. 1, 2012)

The reason why we have so many men supporting the RH bill is because men have become wimps! That is right, there is now an epidemic of wimpiness in our society and especially among our legislators and alas our priests. This is especially true of men who pass on the responsibility and accountability of the consequences of having sex solely to women by supporting and persuading them to use oral contraceptives. The condom is no different. It’s the same lack of fortitude of the manly will when he says, “I can’t control my urges so I will use a rubber” to disrupt what God has created to be an act of real love. All these, rationalized as being “natural” or a “basic need” or some other psychobabble term but at the end of the day it is still wimpiness.

There is really no difference between Adam saying, “the woman made me eat it” and telling a woman to take the pill so she won’t get pregnant. It’s the same buck-passing wimpiness of men all over again! Before the pill came into being, men either abstained or owned up and took responsibility for their actions, either by working harder to support a bigger family, marrying the woman if they were not yet married or providing support if they couldn’t marry. A man who didn’t own up to his actions or who allowed a woman to take the fall for it, lost everyone’s respect including his own! That sense of this manly self-respect has been lost in this society.

Complications of pregnancy are a reality and no one wants to see a woman or her baby die from childbirth. However, no one, most of all, real men, would also want to see women risk their health by using oral contraceptives.

My dear women, if you think for one minute that contracepting is empowering, think again, what stake does a man have in that deal …the risk of blood clots, the mood swings, loss of libido, cancer risk… what? Women who support the RH Bill are condoning this culture of unmanly wimpiness. Please don’t, please stop, just say no! Now to the men out there, MAN UP and account for your actions responsibly and morally and stop being wimps!

More responses to the 192 pro-RH Ateneo professors

For more on this ongoing story, please see the following:

* Former Rector of UST slams Ateneo's pro-RH professors

* From the Ateneo: 3 brave lay theology teachers speak out in defense of the authentic Catholic teaching on conscience

* Partial text of the August 29, 2012 statement of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines against the RH bill

* Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

* An open letter, a petition, a statement of the obvious, an appeal to common sense and a call for fidelity: the first five responses to the latest stunt pulled by pro-RH Ateneo professors

****

(It should be noted that a majority of the responses in this post come from alumni of the Ateneo De Manila University.)

Following on his petition to reclaim the Catholic identity of the Ateneo De Manila University, Ateneo alumnus and Catholic blogger and apologist Dr. Ricardo Boncan came up with two more responses to the 192 pro-RH Ateneo professors and those who have defended their actions on the basis of 'academic freedom'. 

The first is an article entitled It Appears We Have to Burn the House Down to Roast the Pig. The title alludes to an article written by Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ ("RH bill: Don’t burn the house to roast a pig") where he defended the RH bill from some of its critics. 

It Appears We Have to Burn the House Down to Roast the Pig 

Aug 22, 2012

The very same day that Fr. Jett Villarin came out with an official letter to quell the fire of dissent started by the 190 or so professors who publicly and surreptitiously used the Ateneo’s name to push their ideology in support of institutionalized contraception espoused in the RH Bill, hordes of Ateneo students, graduates and faculty, started beating on the drums in support of their president and in support of these dissenting faculty members and their cause. I was amused (and baffled) at the “drum beating” because Fr. Villarin explicitly said that the Ateneo rejects the bill and supports the position of the Catholic Church on the matter of rejecting the bill and the teaching on contraception, which means (not sure if they got this) that the Ateneo is dissociating themselves from these faculty members. Did the drum beaters’ clouded minds miss this fact totally or was there a cryptic message that the ADMU president sent to them that the rest of us, including the Bishops, didn’t know about? 

While many welcomed the letter, including me (tiny woohoo, what could I do, sigh  ), in reality, Fr. Vilarin merely repeated the perfunctory, mild dissociative statement issued by Fr. Ben Nebres three years ago when 14 faculty members made their first stand. Would those 14 abscess into 190 if that letter was stronger in tone and if reprimands were given and enforced, I wonder, hmmm. Looking at the statement in detail, one cannot miss the double-speaking style that pseudo-orthodox dissenters are so fond of employing. The letter, in my opinion, serves one purpose and one purpose alone and it is to satisfy (and douse) the Bishop’s warning that Catholic schools who do not tow the Catholic line may be stripped of their “Catholic” status. 

The Jesuits, it appears, are so very fond of doing the finger wagging with the left and patting the back of dissenters with the right hand. It is the “Ateneo magisterium’s” interpretation of Christ’s words, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Without going into details, the letter appears to be an adaptation of Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ idea that we can accept the bill if we remove the “problematic” provisions in them. He penned this in his blog with the title “Do not burn the house down to roast a pig.” Strange for a priest to essentially say, yes we can accept contraception for society but as Catholics we should obey Church teaching and shouldn’t…huh?? You mean artificial contraception has no negative societal effects and is only applicable to Catholics, really? 

Oh my dear Bishops I am afraid you no longer have to do any canonical sanctions to the Ateneo because they themselves are jumping out the window committing spiritual suicide. They had already started to cut themselves off from the vine a long time ago and fortunately for them it is a rather thick vine from which they are still hanging on by a mere strand! They hardly realize they are at the edge of a cliff and see their worldly prestige, honor and accolades, their social justice activism and their championing the causes of the poor as their new “life line.” They no longer understand the meaning of the passage “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul for it.” A long time ago the Jesuits of the Ateneo had started this by inventing for themselves, an imaginary, separate Catholic “magisterium” devoid of any real accountability to Rome (brings me back memories of Fr. Tanseco and his famous alternate magisterium hypothesis). They say one thing and do another, that’s the trick, the official stand and the de facto stand which no one hears about except if you are an insider within the halls of the institution. 

This is diabolical because of its insidiousness. It seems that Ateneo students really think that what they are being taught, this alternative, dissenting “magisterial” teaching, is what the Catholic Church teaches and that the CBCP and everyone else is, well, just too stiff, orthodox and not cool (they should get all the coolness they can for where they’re headed!). Could this be the “Catholic position”,  that “…continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done” that Fr. Villarin refers to in his letter? I only ask because based on my exchanges with Ateneans in that Facebook page, there is not a single iota of evidence I have seen that is reflective of this “Catholic position”, that corroborates the claim of Fr. Villarin, that the Ateneo teaches what the Church authentically teaches. Instead, you see students with an utter hatred for the Bishops and their requirement for the Ateneo to adhere to the Church’s line against the RH Bill. It appears that the dissent is alive and healthy within the House of Ignatius and it will be for many more years to come! 

If that is the case my dear Ateneans, I believe that what Fr. Bernas said was wrong, it appears that we DO have to burn the house down to roast that pig!

The second is a radio interview on DXND, a Catholic radio station in Mindanao:

An open letter, a petition, a statement of the obvious, an appeal to common sense and a call for fidelity: the first five responses to the latest stunt pulled by pro-RH Ateneo professors

UPDATE 8/21/12 @ 8:00 PM Manila time: I've posted the text of a memo from Fr. Jet Villarin, President of Ateneo De Manila University, regarding this issue. My post includes my commentary on the memo. Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

UPDATE 8/21/12 @ 5:00 PM Manila time: Fr. Charles Belmonte has penned a longer follow-up to his original note on what is "Catholic": Fr. Charles Belmonte reminds us of the politically incorrect fact that to be rightfully called Catholic, one must be... Catholic!

UPDATE 8/20/12 @ 1:50 PM Manila time: a FIFTH response, a short note from Dr. Quirino Sugon, has been added to this post. I've inserted it between Ricardo Boncan's petition and the CBCP News article on Archbishop Palma's recent remarks on this matter. 

The recent declaration of 192 (and counting) college-level Ateneo faculty members in favor of the RH bill is not surprising to anyone who is remotely familiar with the actual state of  much of 'Catholic' higher education in the Philippines. In too many Filipino Catholic colleges and universities there is open dissent against the Magisterium, ridicule and hatred directed at the very Church that nurtures them, and a refusal to actually try to know what the Church teaches, in favor of an "academic freedom" that one-sidedly favors 'free-thinking' and  often elevates childish propaganda against Catholicism to the level of protected academic speech. I do not deny that there are many good Catholic teachers and students even in the most 'secularized' of 'Catholic' schools, but their presence only makes the existence, and oftentimes the dominance, of theological dissent in Filipino Catholic institutions of higher education all the more glaring. Unfortunately, many Filipino Catholics -- clerics and laypeople alike -- had refused to acknowledge the existence of the problem. With this recent incident, it is no longer possible for Filipino Catholics to pretend that the problem does not exist. 

Meanwhile, I have the honor of presenting the first four public responses by Catholics to the Ateneo professors. I present them in no particular order. 

The first is an open letter by Ed Sorreta, Chairman of Pro-Life Philippines, that is now being circulated as a Facebook note. This is the full text of this letter:

To say out front, I am against the RH bill for reasons that are very real and personal to me.  But I do not intend to delve into these because there has been enough talk on the pros and cons of this bill.  It is now time to make a stand. That is why I respect their opinions, no matter how flawed they are to me.

What is beyond me is how they can group themselves together and make a public statement against the pronouncements of the Church of which their university is a part of.  What model of respect for authority can they impart to their students when they themselves do not live it?  I can be more forgiving with UP, a government university or any other non-sectarian educational academy if they support the RH bill.  But for Ateneo, a recognized Catholic institution, to publicly declare their support is something that is inappropriate and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Therefore, I challenge these renegade professors to stand their ground and resign from the Ateneo.  If they do not have the decency to do that, I call on the Jesuit community running the Ateneo to mete out sanctions against them.

If the Jesuits refuse to do this out of their principle of intellectual liberalism, I ask them to have the propriety of reclassifying Ateneo from being a Catholic institution to a non-sectarian university.  This is a call not only for the Ateneo but for other Catholic schools who defy the teachings of the Catholic Church.

EDGARDO SORRETA

Chairman

Pro-Life philippines

The second is an online petition launched by Catholic pro-lifer and blogger, Dr. Ricardo Boncan, who is an alumnus of ADMU. The following is the full version. A shorter version is coming out today (August 20, 2012) on the column of Antonio Montalvan II in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. As of the publication of this blog post (c. 4:00 AM on August 20 in Manila) this petition, less than 2 days old, has garnered 214 signatures. 

Re-claim The Catholic Identity of the Ateneo de Manila

Petition published by Ricardo B. Boncan on Aug 18, 2012

Petition Background (Preamble): 

In August 2012, 160 Ateneo faculty members abused their position and misused the name of the Ateneo de Manila University, a Jesuit-run university with a Catholic mandate, to express their personal stand and agenda in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill.  

http://www.theguidon.com/1112/main/2012/08/160-ateneo-professors-push-for-rh-bill/ 

The administrators of the Ateneo have not done anything to answer these dissenters nor to defend Catholic teaching on the matter.  

This petition is to precisely ask the Jesuit Fathers for accountability. 

Petition: 

August 15, 2012 

Written on the Solemnity of Our Ladyʼs Assumption

Father Jose Ramon T. Villarin, S.J

President  

and  

The Jesuit Fathers of the Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Dear Fr. Villarin and the Jesuit Fathers of the Ateneo de Manila University, 

Over the past 3 years, we, concerned alumni, family and friends of the Ateneo de Manila University have stood idly silent as some Ateneo faculty members abused their position and misused the name of this Catholic university to express their personal stand and agenda in favor of the RH Bill. The memo released against this by then ADMU President Fr. Ben Nebres was one of perfunctory, mild dissociation against the, then only 70 or so, faculty members who signed on. 

While declaring the official Jesuit stand against contraception as being consistent with the Church, Fr. Nebres, defended their actions by defaulting to what he claimed to be, “academic freedom”, that supposedly allowed them to express their personal views as faculty members of this Catholic University. As a result of that token denouncement and “academic freedom” excuse, these faculty members have become emboldened and have come out in bigger numbers to espouse an agenda and political ideology contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, confidently using the good name of our school, a Catholic school, to give credence to their voice. 

Academic Freedom in the proper context of allowing academicians to explore the ethical and moral limits of their chosen field and teach the good that comes out of it, is a praiseworthy principle. But what has happened in this case is clearly not that! Many of these faculty members are using the name of our university, its Catholic mandate, its Catholic ties to their own ends in the disguise of academic freedom. It gives the impression to many of us Catholic alumni, friends and family of the Ateneo that our Jesuit Fathers condone this action and have abandoned their calling to fight for Catholic truths. 

My dear Jesuits, THIS IS NOT FREEDOM, this is ACADEMIC TYRANY. Among those held hostage by these tyrants and dissenters are the many other faculty members who have chosen to be silent for fear of being ostracized by their peers, for holding contrary views on the issue. However, the biggest and greatest casualty here are those who were entrusted to be under your intellectual and spiritual care, the STUDENTS of the Ateneo de Manila University. 

As Catholic priests of a canonically formed order, founded by a great saint, Ignatius of Loyola, we find this unacceptable! These students are being made collateral damage by ideologically driven faculty members who freely “educate” them with things contrary to their Catholic upbringing. We, the parents of these students have spent years bringing them up, espousing love of Christ, His Church and obedience to Catholic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality and sending them under your care, confident in the thought, that the Ateneo would do the same and even strengthen them. All that effort, only to be undone by these anti-Catholic principles being espoused by faculty members, under your employ, teaching under the name of this great school. 

Calling to mind Blessed John Paul IIʼs encyclical, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (ON CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES), ... 

Article 2, “Catholic teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities, while the freedom of conscience of each person is to be fully respected(46). Any official action or commitment of the University is to be in accord with its Catholic identity.” 

Article 4, “The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself. While this responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/ or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity. 

The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.” and lastly, “Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University. 

We therefore; 

1. denounce the continued misuse of the Ateneo de Manila Universityʼs name by these 160 faculty members for their statement and stand for institutionalized contraception as it is contrary to Catholic teaching. 

2. ask our Jesuit Fathers, especially those in the administration, to publicly settle this matter unequivocally and strongly for the benefit of Catholic students under their care. 

3. ask that an explanation to all students of the Ateneo, on the clear and unwavering position of our Catholic school and our Jesuit fathers, on the matter of artificial contraception should also be sent to parents and alumni of the university. 

4. ask that a clear, strong and resolute reprimand be given to those who willfully signed that statement and made use of their position in order to voice their dissent to Catholic teaching. 

Inspired by this and the Ignatian motto “Lux In Domino” we pray that you, our dear Jesuit Fathers, take this letter as a show, of nothing more, than our love and concern for the school that nurtured our growth and made us what we are today, Men For Others. 

“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides” St. Ignatius of Loyola, Founder of the Society of Jesus, AMDG

(See update at the top of this post.) The third response I am placing here is Dr. Quirino Sugon's short note on the Facebook page of the Ateneo Latin Mass Society. He had signed Dr. Boncan's petition and was explaining his signature:

I signed the petition below in response to the 160 Pro-RH Ateneo professors who signed the petition in support of the RH Bill, in defiance of the Catholic Church teaching on contraception. I hope you and your other Atenean friends will also sign below. This is now a battle of the Two Standards. We need to reclaim the Catholic identity of our beloved university. Fidelity to Mary is fidelity to the Catholic Church. It cannot be otherwise.  

“We stand on a hill between the earth and sky. Now all is still where Loyola’s colors fly. Our course is run and the setting sun ends Ateneo’s day. Eyes are dry at the last goodbye; this is the Ateneo way. 

"Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you! 

"Down from the hill, down to the world go I; rememb’ring still, how the bright Blue Eagles fly. Through joys and tears, through the laughing years, we sing our battle song: Win or lose, it’s the school we choose; this is the place where we belong! 

"Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you!"

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr.

Coordinator

Ateneo Latin Mass Society

The (fourth) is the following 'statement of the obvious' of the President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines regarding Catholic schools that waffle on the RH issue, as reported by CBCP News:

Schools defying Church teachings may lose Catholic status

MANILA, August 17, 2012— The Catholic hierarchy may strip a school of its affiliation with the church if they go against its teachings particularly on life issues, a ranking archbishop said. 

Archbishop Jose Palma, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president, said this is possible if a Catholic school and other institutions violated ethical and religious directives of the church. 

“If we are a Catholic school, we should not teach anything contrary to the official teaching of the church,” Palma said. 

Amid the debate on a controversial artificial contraception measure, he admitted that there is a clash of beliefs between the church and teachers of some Catholic schools. 

However, the Cebu archbishop said they are trying to solve the problem through a dialogue. 

“In some places, we first talk to them because some teachers may have some misunderstanding of what they think of freedom of conscience or academic freedom,” said Palma. 

“In some of the universities, we say that if you want to teach that idea, do not do it in a Catholic school because we are confusing the students… do it in other universities,” he said. 

The CBCP head stressed that the motive why parents send their children to Catholic schools are for reasons of faith formation. 

“They are hoping that their children will learn the Catholic teaching and also the Catholic formation,’ he said. 

“It will be a contradiction if we will bombard them with ideas which are against the official teachings of the Catholic faith,” added Palma. 

Around 160 professors of the Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) have openly expressed their support for the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill opposed by the Church. 

The professors first released this statement in 2008, and reiterated their stand recently as the House entered into the period of amendments on the RH measure. 

They also stated that they are not speaking for the entire Ateneo institution and only expressing their personal position. 

The ADMU, however, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, clarified that it still stands with the CBCP and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus. 

Only last month, the Vatican has withdrawn the Catholic identity of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, because some of its policies are “not compatible with the discipline and morals of the church.” 

The Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium has also come into question in recent years as the Vatican probed the embryonic stem-cell research conducted at Leuven and its sister institution, Louvain. [RL/CBCPNews]

And, last but not the least, the following little Facebook note from Fr. Charles Belmonte that is now being shared by many pro-lifers, which explains in common-sense terms why an institution that refuses to teach Catholic tenets shouldn't be calling itself Catholic:

If you have a shop which exclusively sells pan de sal, ensaymada and mamon, don't call it "Hairdresser salon" because it is not. No insult. It's just a matter of sincerity and decency. 

If you have a university which hardly teaches the Catholic faith (irrelevant whether this faith is true or false), don't call it "Catholic" or "Pontifical" because it is not true. 

I don't know what is to be a Muslim, but I can tell you what is to be a Catholic: to be baptized, to profess the faith which the entire Catholic Church professes and has professed from the time of the Apostles (as taught by the pope and bishops) and to obey the legitimate pastors (the hierarchy). 

I don't think it is matter of academic freedom, but of sincerity and decency.

Our situation is best summarized with the following quote from George Orwell: We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

Pictures don't lie: the crowds at the August 4, 2012 rally against the RH bill in EDSA

UPDATE 8/5/12 at 2:18 P.M. Manila time: Please see this article for a picture comparing the anti-RH rally in EDSA with the pro-RH rally with the Filipino Freethinkers a few days ago. No Comparison!


UPDATE 8/5/12 at 3:33 A.M. Manila time: Based on the pictures on this blog post as well as other sources, Dr. Quirino Sugon of Manila Observatory, blogger at the Monk's Hobbit, has made an initial estimate of the crowd as having been at 60,000. 

******************************************************************************

And the pro-RH spin machine goes into high gear!

Manila Bulletin, in what will probably go down as one of the lowest and most shameful points in its history, declared that only 2,500 attended the rally. 

According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, there were only 7,000 at the rally today...

Manila Standard Today is a bit more generous: 10,000 were there!

As for the Philippine Star, it counted "more than 10,000" at the rally.

However, the pictures tell a different story.

From the UST Varsitarian:

From my friend Anna Cosio:

From Ricardo Boncan:

And from Lenard Berba comes this picture taken earlier in the rally, with a nice view of the streamers on a footbridge:

A NonFAQtual FAQ?

There's an "RH Bill FAQ" penned by a certain Donna Malangit that is currently being circulated on Facebook and elsewhere. Catholic apologist and blogger Ricardo Boncan has penned a comprehensive rebuttal for his blog, The Struggling Dad:


The Deeply Misleading and Erroneous RH Bill FAQ of Donna Malangit, A Response

Catholic Alumni United for Life

Position Paper: Catholic Alumni United for Life
http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends.

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043’s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

HB 5043 violates explicit Catholic teaching

Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.[4]

HB 5043, however explicitly promotes the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptive methods and devices, and provides funding for their procurement and distribution. In fact, HB 5043 mandates that contraceptives shall be classified as “essential medicine”. The claim, therefore, that the Bill is pro-life and is consistent with Catholic doctrine is totally false. No Catholic can support HB 5043 without violating the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

HB 5043 violates the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine Constitution, in Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception. It states:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

An abortifacient, however, causes the eventual destruction of the fertilized egg — of newly-conceived life. HB 5043, as stated earlier, promotes and funds such abortifacients. It therefore violates the Philippine Constitution.

HB 5043 is anti-women and anti-poor

While HB 5043 claims to prevent maternal death, its supporters fail to grasp that the great majority of such deaths are caused by the lack of proper medical facilities and care. Instead of using resources on controversial contraceptive methods and services, more good will be done by using such funds for basic health care, eliminating the real cause of maternal deaths. The Bill, however, does not address this lack of basic health care services, and will allow the problem to persist while it wastes funds on abortifacients and other ineffective reproductive health measures.

HB 5043 is coercive and violates freedom of speech

Section 21 (e) of the proposed bill lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.[5] It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients and other contraceptives to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000! HB 5043 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.

A call for Catholic unity and fidelity to Christ

No Catholic can support HB 5043 and remain faithful to the teachings of Christ, given to the Apostles and handed down through the centuries by the Church. To claim otherwise is deceptive and involves distortions of authentic Catholic teaching and flawed reasoning, if not outright falsehood.

For these reasons, we vigorously oppose HB 5043 and call on our respective alma mater — respected Catholic institutions — to unambiguously, unequivocally and publicly take a stand against HB 5043.

We also call on all Catholic educational institutions to rigorously examine their own different situations to determine whether the education they impart to Catholic students in their charge is faithful to the Magisterium, and to take steps to correct any contradictions being taught in the name of the Church.
December 2008

In Christ,

The Signatories

Emmanuel R. Amador

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Communication Arts (1984)

AB Philosophy (1985)

Marietta M. Aguado

Xavier University (1958)

Maryknoll College (1960)

De La Salle University (2006)

Bernard Bagaman

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Communication Arts (1984)

Philip V. Beley

Ateneo de Manila University

High School (1976)

Ricardo B. Boncan

Ateneo de Manila University

Grade School (1979)

High School (1983)

Tomas Borromeo

De La Salle University (Taft)

High School (1968)

Anna Filomena V. Generoso

School of the Holy Spirit (Q.C.)

High School (1986)

Jose Miguel R. Gomez

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Interdisciplinary Studies (1983)

Carlos Antonio Palad

Angelicum School (1994)

Holy Trinity Academy High School (1998)

Atty. Jan Ralph Y. Perez, CPA

University of San Carlos

High School (1995)

BS-Accountancy (2000)

Bachelor of Laws Batch (2005)

Endnotes
1. One such study, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,”(http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126) came to the following conclusion:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
2. CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:

“IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”

Another study by Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, “Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects,” which appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, notes:

“There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”
3. Section 9 of the Bill subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement.

4. A short listing of some of these early Church Fathers, along with quotations from their writings, can be found in the January 1996 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. This article may also be found online at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM The relevant sections of The Catechism of the Catholic Church are Part Three: Life in Christ, Section Two: The Ten Commandments, Chapter Two: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, Article six: The Sixth Commandment, #2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370. These sections are online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htmAn english version of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
An english version of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
An english version of the Vademecum may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

5. As Cong. Pablo John Garcia said: “Section 21 (e) is plainly stupid, placed there, I believe, by a ‘pikon’ author. RH bill proponents complain of the ‘religious pressure’ brought to bear. Section 21 (e) seeks to elevate the RH bill into a state-mandated religion.”