Sin of omission

Too harsh, perhaps, but expressive of the righteous anger and frustration of many long-suffering Catholic pro-lifers with clerics who are either ambiguous or are for all intents and purposes supporting the RH bill:

From The Pinoy Catholic:

A Message to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

Admit it Fr. Bernas.

That is what you have been trumpeting all along.

You keep on saying that a person cannot be coerced to follow a law when his rights are protected by the Constitution, isn't it?

Yes, we all know you are a Constitutionalist.  You had been telling us that since day 1.

Yes, we also know that you are dean emeritus of the Ateneo Law School.  You keep on telling us that.

You just told us that you support Humanae Vitae, which is the first time you ever wrote about.

Now when will you ever tell that the State cannot force a person to disobey his religious convictions?

When?

You did not write about it.

All you ever care about is to tell that Catholics cannot force others to follow their law.

Is that what the bishops are talking about when they oppose the RH Bill?

Did you even write why the bishops are against the RH Bill?  Did you even write about the teachings of the Church against contraception?

Check your works.  You write more for the protection of the Constitution rather than the Laws of the Church.

Yes, we know you are a lawyer, a constitutionalist.  We all know that.

What we do not know is that you are a Catholic Priest.  You cannot even prove that, other than insisting that you are a Jesuit priest!

You have been so ambiguous, we just want to forget to respect you that you are even a priest!

"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16)

Jemy Gatdula's responses to Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Fr. Ranhilio Aquino

Again, Fr. Bernas is mistaken. Same with Fr. Aquino

(September 24, 2012)

By this article Fr. Joaquin Bernas (and those from whom he gets his advice) is again sadly mistaken. It is very evident that he compartmentalizes his reasoning, distinguishing the theological, philosophical, and constitutional points from each other. This is wrong. The arguments are actually unified and one. They are all constitutional arguments (and philosophical, and theological). The fact that he can't seem to see that is unfortunate.

His arguments on taxation, the nature of legislation, and the application of natural law are also myopic and, at times, quite fallacious.

Ultimately, how one understands the law, the nature of law, the nature of rights, and the nature of human beings would be determinative of how one ultimately views constitutional law. Though there would be occasions to properly discuss 'pluralism' and 'tolerance', there is still that point when one has to make a consideration of what is the objective standard (or else admit the lack of one) in determining what is constitutional or not and what what is right from wrong.

Far from helping achieve clarity on the issue, Fr. Bernas, I am grieved to say, continues to feed confusion to it.

I still stand on my previous comments on the issue, noting that Fr. Bernas has said nothing new that would give me cause to revise it. For a further exposition on natural law and how contraception violates it, see Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation & Defense.

Lamentably, another priest, Fr, Ranhilio Aquino, also seems to not "get" natural law (see The Trouble With Natural Law). One can point to so many reasons why this is so. Suffice to say, however, that the fact that he does not seem to grasp that the very authority he mentions (i.e., John Finnis) is actually quite clear on his position that contraception violates natural law (see "Every Marital Act Ought To Be Open to New Life': Toward a Clearer Understanding"; co-written by John Finnis with Germain Grisez and William May) points to his inadequate depth on the matter.

So, who is preventing maternal health from improving in this country?

"The Spirit will not lead you to bad-mouth the Church, whatever your stand is."

(UPDATE: In a series of blog posts in September, Pauline Cauton clarified her stand on the RH bill, from being somewhat undecided, to being not in favor of it: PART 1, PART 2, PART 3, PART 4)

(I have revised and clarified my comments in this post as of 5:00 a.m. of Sept. 22, 2012)

There are many Catholics who cannot (for now) bring themselves to agree with the stance of the Catholic hierarchy on this issue and thus withhold their assent (at least for now) from the orthodox Catholic position on this matter. If they have a hard time giving their assent on this matter, then I hope that they would at least withhold it discreetly, with reverence for the Church and her hierarchy, and in a spirit of willingness to learn and understand the Church's reasons for the position that she has taken.

Withholding assent ("I cannot as yet agree with the Church on this matter but I am open to the possibility that she is right") is not the same as dissent ("I disagree with the Church on this matter and I think she is wrong"). Unfortunately, many Catholics seem to be unaware of this difference, such that if they have difficulties understanding the Church's position, they immediately think that this means that they should reject that position. It is a rejection that is commonly expressed by lashing out against the Church and declaring her to be in error, as if a position is wrong simply because it is not easy to understand. Withholding assent also properly entails not condemning the Church's position in public, and airing one's difficulties with her position only in a manner that avoids scandalizing the faithful.

(What I am discussing here is the situation of those Catholics who find themselves privately opposed to, or unconvinced by, the public positions taken by the Church hierarchy on doctrinal grounds. This is not the place to discuss the situation of those who, precisely in the name of Catholic orthodoxy and doctrine, oppose the real or perceived compromise of some official representatives of the Church with heterodoxy.)

It is for this reason that I would like to point out the article "My Problem with the RH Bill" by Pauline Cauton, one of the founders of the Living Hope Catholic Charismatic Community. Mrs. Cauton makes it clear that she cannot, as yet, proclaim herself to be staunchly against the RH bill. Nevertheless she cries out against the wave of anti-Church vilification that has been coming out from not a few "pro-RH Catholics". 

Some of the salient passages from her article:

In the past, whenever the Church mobilized Her members to make a stand on an issue, those who deemed it worth the effort would participate in all the rallies, noise barrages and prayer vigils while those who disagreed would show dissent by staying home. This time round, everyone has something to say: Twitter, Facebook, and whatever medium our current age has to offer has been deluged with every man’s expert opinion on the matter (and yes, apparently, we are all experts on this subject). I can take people being vocal about their views, and ultimately, having some openly (and unfairly) criticize the Catholic Church is to be expected.

But what bothers me, hurts me, to the core is how Catholics themselves are insulting their own Church and their leaders.

****

... while I cannot, as yet, bring myself to staunchly proclaim that I am against it (at least not in the way those in the prayer rally last Saturday did), I know that I most certainly will never post an FB status, write a blog, or tweet a message openly declaring that I am for it.

Because that would be deliberately attacking the Church. And I would never do that.

****

Sure, at the height of passionate arguing (I presume), some anti-RH campaigners have let loose their own share of below-the-belt tirades, as have some pro-RH supporters. Again, it is no surprise when those who’ve had issues with the Church from way back rant away like there was no tomorrow. But for Catholics who parade their pro-RH stance proudly and boldly, I ask:

If you had a disagreement with your mother, would you broadcast it to the world that your mother was wrong? 

Would you call your mother ignorant, stupid, out of touch, not all there? 

Would you post it on your Facebook page that she’s a self-righteous hypocrite? 

Would you tweet that you’re declaring an all-out war on her?

For our Church is not an irritating aunt, or a nagging cousin, or even a difficult in-law–She is our Mother Church.

Blame the politicians’ hidden agendas, blame the misinformation campaigns, blame the convictions that have transformed into hate. But please, Catholics, do not blame our Holy Mother Church.

Does that mean Catholics are not allowed to have their own opinions when it comes to issues like this? Of course not–if anything, it should bring us to search for the truth, to pray earnestly for the Holy Spirit’s wisdom and guidance. I confidently encourage you to pray about this, because I am quite certain the Spirit will not lead you to bad-mouth the Church, whatever your stand is.

Girls defending Life -- Two Open Letters on the RH Bill from Young Filipinas

On July 11, 2011 the Manila Times published on its website an open letter from eight PAREF Woodrose Students (Woodrose students explain why they object to HB 4244). In these past few days my attention has been drawn to two more open letters (see below) that were very recently written and published, I am told, by PAREF Woodrose students. These were originally posted on a Tumblr account (Defending Life, the Truth, and Everything) that is currently dedicated to the defense of the Church's position on the RH bill.

We Defend the Truth - Letter for Life


The Philippines is now in a state of conflict. A rift has been formed between our fellow countrymen and the mature Catholics that reside in this country.

We believe that the government’s insistence on the RH Bill has a story many of us don’t know. The bill itself is vague to begin with; its words sugarcoated to mask the underlying truth of what this will all bring to the country. It’s not enough to read and accept the bill at face value; you have to read between the lines to truly understand what the government is promising.

In fact, the RH Bill is not what the country needs because population is not the problem. We should work on finding ways to give the people proper education and well-paying jobs, instead of decreasing the growth of our population in order to reduce poverty.

UPDATED: Q&A on Economic and Demographic Aspects of the RH Bill

The following is the updated version as of September 8, 2012. I had previously uploaded the version of September 8, 2011. Many thanks to Dr. Roberto De Vera for the updated text. Q & A on Economic and Demographic Aspects of the Reproductive Health Bill

Why the underlying principles of the RH bill are inherently flawed

No need for an RH bill, now or ever
By Bernardo Villegas, Evelina Atienza Frank Padilla Anthony Lumicao and 15 others
(Published online by Philippine Daily Inquirer on Sept. 15, 2012)

There is no need for any legislation that guarantees universal access to contraceptives, the so-called reproductive health (RH) care devices, now or ever. Whatever “band-aid” amendments may be proposed by well-intentioned proponents of the RH bill to make it more palatable, the underlying principles behind it are inherently flawed.

Anti-sustainable growth

The first component of sustainable development is a rate of economic growth that is high enough to contribute, together with appropriate economic policies, to the eradication of poverty. High gross domestic product growth is dependent on a growing and young population as has been stated by numerous international economists and top officials.

The just released Global Competitiveness Report 2012 of the World Economic Forum, like the HSBC 2012 Report, had the Philippines jumping several notches up in economic competitiveness because of our large, growing population.

Population control, however, will backfire and cause the acceleration of our falling fertility rate. Many pro-RH proponents harp on the dangers of population explosion. They have not learned from the lessons of the last two centuries of unparalleled economic progress in many countries of the East and the West that have disproved the Malthusian theory of perpetual poverty caused by the so-called geometric growth of population.

New resources

The unlimited capacity of the human mind to discover new resources and technologies has overcome the “limits to growth” that sowed fears in the last century.

Some of the greatest minds of the 20th century such as Nobel laureates Simon Kuznets and Michael Spence; Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, creator of the development index; and resource specialists Colin Clark and Julian Simon have shown through cross-country studies and long-term analyses of the economic experiences of developed countries that population growth was a positive stimulus to economic progress and that it was surpassed by the growth in real income.

Economists who purport to show the opposite have for their sample very few countries. They also have access to data over a relatively short period compared with the studies showing that there is no correlation between population growth and the spread of mass poverty, which is due to erroneous economic policies and failure of good governance.

Even those few countries in which there is some evidence that birth control policies temporarily helped in boosting economic growth in the short run are now regretting their fertility reduction programs. Well-known are the attempts of the leaders of Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan to appeal to their women to bear more babies.

Premarital sex, abortion

Since material well-being is not the only component of human development or happiness, there is another problem that widespread use of contraceptives can unleash. The findings of Nobel laureate George Akerlof who, despite his protestations that he was in favor of abortion and artificial contraception, demonstrated with empirical evidence that the “reproductive technology shock” led to an increase in premarital sex, and due to contraceptive failure, also in unwed mothers, children without fathers and other societal ills.

A 2009 University of Pennsylvania study, titled “Sexual Revolution,” showed that premarital sex in the United States ballooned from 0.06 percent of women in 1900 to 75 percent today as contraception provided the youth the ease of sex without “cost” or responsibility.

False sense of security

This same link with premarital sex was also suggested by the studies by JE Potter in Brazil, and clearly seen by the work of Dr. Edward Green in Africa. Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, affirmed that “condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa,” citing studies at the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal and explaining that the availability of condoms led to earlier and riskier sex by creating a false sense of security.

As the contraceptive mentality sets in (contra = against; conception = beginning of human beings), a negative view of human beings is promoted. A 2011 study in the scientific journal Contraception showed that the rise in contraceptive use in Spain also saw a jump in abortion rate. This link—both logical and empirical—has been acknowledged by leaders of the abortion industry, such as Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood.

Only five nations in the world still prohibit abortion. A hundred years ago all nations did. It was acceptance of contraception that changed their minds. This will happen here, too, if we accept contraception.

Secularist ideology

Another serious flaw in the RH bill is the sweeping generalization about “unwanted pregnancies.” Scientific studies in the United States, especially those by Lant Pritchett of Harvard University, have seriously questioned the assumption made by pro-RH bill advocates that unwanted pregnancies among married women are rampant. The finding of social scientists is that mothers have the number of children they want.

Surveys in the Philippines that purport to show that there are many mothers among poor households, who regret having given birth to some of their children, are suspect. These surveys are usually funded by international organizations that have a strong bias for population control.

Obama administration

It is no secret that in the Democratic National Convention, the Obama administration made it clear that there will be continuing support for abortion. One does not have to be paranoid to assume that if President Obama wins a second term, he and his Secretary of State will continue to target countries like the Philippines to spread their culture of death.

Besides being part of an ideological interpretation of “women’s rights,” such aggressive campaign to promote reproductive health (which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton averred “includes access to abortion”) continues the US-supported worldwide program that was unleashed by the National Security Study Memorandum 200:  Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.

Considering the revelations about the participation of foreign interests in lobbying for the RH bill, any version of it will be suspect.

Let us not be naïve. Only last year, Green, through his book “Broken Promises,” exposed in brilliant detail how the West’s AIDS establishment disowned scientific evidence that wide condom use was in fact ineffective in stopping AIDS in Africa, and how those who dominate it—the homosexual ideologues, population controllers and condom suppliers—worsened the epidemic and betrayed the developing world.

Taking away funds for poor

Besides being the antithesis to sustainable economic growth and human development, the RH bill also unwittingly goes against inclusive growth, i.e. economic progress that benefits the poorest among the poor.

It misdiagnoses the reason  households of larger family sizes are poorer than those with fewer children. Studies have shown that households with larger family sizes are poorer not because they have too many children but because their heads are the least educated.  This should lead policymakers not to convince these poor households to have fewer children, but to invest more resources in their education, especially the women, a proposal that is strongly supported by the studies of Economics Nobel laureates Amartya Sen and Gary Becker.

Improve basic education

Government should divert whatever is budgeted for contraceptives to improving the quality of basic education among the poor.  Poor households, especially in the rural areas, choose to have more children because human beings are their only resources, especially considering the failure of the state to provide farmers with infrastructure.

The poor farmers will suffer manpower shortages in their labor-intensive farming if they start imitating the rich in having only one or two children. The same applies to those millions of households that have at least one of its immediate members working abroad. Seducing them to have fewer children could very well leave them even more destitute, as publications of the UN and Asian Development Bank have predicted.

Disseminating a contraceptive mentality among the poor unmasks a condescending and elitist attitude that the poor should not be allowed to multiply. This policy is dangerously close to the eugenics practiced by authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler.

Considering that the competitive advantage of the Philippines in the global economy is its young, growing population, a really propoor economic strategy should allow the poor to choose to have as many children as they wish and then to generously support them with infrastructure, educational and technical skills training, and microcredit support, among other things, so that they can turn their children into truly productive resources.

Suspect surveys

Those who support the RH bill refer to surveys purporting to show that there is a large demand for free contraceptives among the poor. As mentioned, these surveys are suspect because they are funded by international agencies advocating contraception and abortion. Questionnaires are formulated to influence respondents to give the desired answers.

A recent consumer survey conducted among the C, D and E households (constituting more than 60 percent of households) by SEED Institute, a field research group, came out with more objective data about the demand for contraceptives among mothers in poor households in Metro Manila.

Wish list

The survey was conducted to identify the consumer patterns of the poor with the intention of giving guidelines to profit-making firms and social enterprises about what goods and services could be tailored specifically to the needs of the poor. The respondents (all mothers) were asked to list down the top three goods or services that they most wanted the government to provide for free after they exhausted their resources to meet their most basic needs. Among more than 20 goods or services on their wish lists, there was no mention whatsoever of “free contraceptives.”

The Philippine Medical Association also asserted that the goal of reducing maternal and child deaths “could be attained by improving maternal and child health care without the necessity of distributing contraceptives. The millions of [pesos] intended for contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills of our health workers.”

Provoking moral crisis

Several religious groups, Muslim, Protestant and Catholic, oppose the RH measure on moral grounds. Belying pro-RH surveys, these groups, together with other people of goodwill, have rallied by the thousands in many cities and towns around the country, and have contributed in winning post-debate polls on national television.

The Imam Council of the Philippines, leaders of our 4.5 million Muslims, pronounced that contraceptives “make us lose morality.” Throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church has taught that contraception is intrinsically evil. Pope John Paul the Great wrote that contraception “leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love.”

It is, therefore, advisable that Congress refrain from passing a law that would oblige citizens who adhere to their religion to fund an item which they consider immoral. Considering the strong arguments against the RH bill based on secular sciences, it would be prudent for the state not to provoke a religious-moral crisis among a large majority of the Filipino population.

Need for virtue

Lastly, two Asian intellectuals spoke of the virtue needed by a nation. Speaking of the “crime” of contraception, Mahatma Gandhi taught: “Even as many people will be untruthful and violent, humanity may not lower its standard, so also, though many, even the majority, may not respond to the message of self-control, we may not lower our standard.”

Jose Rizal wrote: “Only virtue can save! If our country has ever to be free, it will not be through vice and crime, it will not be so by corrupting its sons, deceiving some and bribing others, no! Redemption presupposes virtue, virtue sacrifice and sacrifice love!”

(The 19 authors are Dr. Bernardo Villegas, Ph.D Economics [Harvard University]; Maria Conception Noche, Alliance for the Family; Frank Padilla, CFC-FFL; Rolando de los Reyes, Courage Philippines; Dr. Eleanor Palabyab, Doctors for Life; Alan Dacanay, Families against the RH Bill; Dr. Angelita Aguirre, Family Media Advocacy Foundation; Leonardo Montemayor, Federation of Free Farmers; Evelina Atienza, Kababaihan ng Maynila; Joseph Tesoro, Live Pure Movement; Eric Manalang, Pro-life Philippines; Jemy Gatdula and Felipe Salvosa, Pro-life Professors; Dr. Raul Nidoy, Science and Reason for Human Beings; Maribel Descallar, Teodora: In Defense of the Authentic Woman; Kiboy Tabada, UP for Life; Luis Buenaventura III, YUPamilya; Anthony Lumicao, Youth United for the Philippines; and Anthony Perez, Filipinos for Life.)

Handbooks of Truths Behind the RH Bill

Published online on September 15, 2012.


Handbook of Truths Behind the R.H. Bill v.1

Why the Philippines doesn't need condoms

Fr. Charles Belmonte on the dissent of Fr. Joaquin Bernas

(UPDATE: For Fr. Belmonte's second response to Fr. Bernas, see this:  Fr. Charles Belmonte versus "The Dissenter" (Fr. Joaquin Bernas): Round 2!)

From Fr. Belmonte's Facebook page:

Conversing with a Dissenter

(Sept. 10, 2012)

Or where the Dissenter went off the road

To have a meaningful dialog, it should be on a level ground.

The Dissenter uses the Philippine Inquirer as his sounding board. The Bishop of the Diocese of Antipolo, writing under the stationery of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, had to pay to publish an ad in the newspapers. Is this a symmetric dialog?

The Dissenter voices his “opinion;” the Bishop reminds him of the definitive pronouncements of the Church. The Dissenter can change his points of view as he wishes; the Bishop can only be faithful to the Truth. The dialog the Dissenter proposes is flawed because there is no “symmetry.” 

These two individuals are not at the same level. The Bishop is a part of the Magisterium of the Church (when he declares united with the pope and the College of Bishops, which is the case, please, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the pronouncements of the pope). The Dissenter is not a part of the Magisterium. If he were a sound theologian, he should talk “within” the Church, not “against” the definitive pronouncements of the Church. The theologian’s work should be “ecclesial” not “purely rationalist,” without any reference to Revelation or to the guidance of the Church. Pope John Paul II reminds us:

“It is necessary truly to distinguish the attitude of some theologians who, with spirit of collaboration and of ecclesial communion, present their difficulties and questions, from the attitude of some others, who publicly oppose the Magisterium; this should be qualified as ‘dissent.’ While the first attitude contributes positively to maturing the reflection on the deposit of the faith, the second one tends to institute a kind of counter-Magisterium, formulating positions and alternative ways of behavior for the believers” (On the Authority of the Church in Doctrinal Questions, Nov. 24, 1995).

If he is priest, he should know that priests are collaborators of the bishops. They must be attuned to their bishop “like the strings of a sitar are tuned up to compose a symphony,” not really engaging their spiritual father in a cacophony of despondency, as if the bishop were the enemy. Thus, any dialog should be between a Bishop and a Priest. Unless, of course, the Dissenter wants to force the Bishop to give up his condition (the full expression of ministerial priesthood), so that he can engage him on even terms. But, I muse, should the Bishops give up his being a bishop? or should not rather the Dissenter give up his opposition and critique to the definitive pronouncements of the Church? 

There could be a real dialog, nevertheless, between a Bishop and a Dissenter when the latter has some objection to the explanation given of the truth, I guess. But in this case, the dialog should be realistic, not illusory. It would be realistic if it were a dialog between a Bishop and a theologian, not between two buddies. Bishop Reyes is not “your buddy,” I am afraid; he is more like a spiritual father. The Dissenter may as well have challenged him to a public boxing match in Araneta Coliseum with Manny Pacquiao as referee, to see what theological view is the right one. I am sure the Dissenter would have won. If so, would it mean that contraception was no longer “intrinsically evil”?

This dialog should be “indoors” not making the ordinary people take sides (pro-Bishop or pro-Dissenter; pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic). The Christian faithful should not be invited to be “against” the unequivocally announced Magisterium of the Church. Well, yes, unless someone has been baptized “in the name of the Dissenter” instead of “In the Name of the Father…”

What is a theological question or a misunderstood theological issue should not be brought to the public forum, presumably to solve the question by public vote. 

The root of the problem, as I see it, is a certain inability from the Dissenter to understand the essence of the Magisterium of the Church, rejecting what is expressed in the Code of Canon Law, number 749 #2 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 891 and 892. The Dissenter sticks to the reductionist theory that “only what has been declared ex-cathedra” should be fully accepted by a Catholic. The Bishop is reminding him of what is expressed in the law of the Catholic Church.

On being an orthodox Catholic

From an Atenean of the old school:

It needs courage to be Catholic

By Minyong Ordoñez

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Sunday, August 26th, 2012

It’s not easy to be a doctrinal Catholic today, one who adheres to the official teaching of the magisterium of the church. It’s easier to be a relativist, the obey/disobey type, depending on one’s pleasure and convenience.

A myriad of forms of independent thinking are peddled today in the public square of our pluralistic society. Media churns out messages and ideas, uncensored for intellectuality or banality. Desktops and laptops empower the youth to think and speak in personalistic terms.

Social issues interpreted by the State to legislate laws run in conflict with the Church’s doctrines, i.e. birth control, divorce, same-sex marriage, etc. When the debates ensue, the thin line between the separation of Church and State becomes thinner and thinner, to the point of intellectual and emotional violence.

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:

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

Fr. Rolando De La Rosa OP was the Rector Magnificus of the University of Santo Tomas from 1990 to 1998 and again from 2008 to 2012. He was, at one point, Chairman of the Philippines' Commission on Higher Education. 

In Defense Of The CBCP
Through Untrue
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P
September 8, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — A Few years ago, when the former Archbishop of Jakarta visited Manila and stayed in the University of Santo Tomas, I asked him jokingly: “Your Eminence, since you are a Jesuit, why do you choose to stay in UST, and not in Ateneo?” He smiled and said: “You are very naughty. Well, to be honest, I choose to stay here and not there because I am a Catholic.” At that time, I assumed that the good Archbishop was joking.

The widely publicized opinion of the 192 Ateneo teachers that goes against the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the RH Bill reminded me of the Archbishop’s comment. Was he insinuating something?

In the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II declared categorically that every Catholic university, without ceasing to be a university, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity.” In other words, “Catholic” is not just a label given to a school. It is a badge of identity that sets it apart from other schools and which endows a university a special bond with the Catholic Church “by reason of service to unity which it is called to render to the whole Church.” It is clear from this that a Catholic university has the mission, not only to instruct, do research, and perform community service, but to maintain UNITY within the Church.

This task is quite crucial today when the faithful are torn by conflicting issues, parties, ideologies, beliefs, and causes. The principle of private judgment which John Henry Newman calls the principle of disunion when conceived in opposition to the judgment of the teaching office of the Church has been popularized by media as the norm for expressing one’s opinion. Catholic universities do not render their service to unity by allowing their members to widely publicize, in the name of academic freedom, opinions that run contrary to the official stand of the Catholic Church on controversial moral issues. Once ideas are written and published, they acquire a life of their own, regardless of the good intentions of the authors.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae continues: “One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the Catholic university to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.” More importantly, the document obliges members of the university community to manifest a personal fidelity to the Church, and this implies adherence to its teachings. Every Catholic university worth its name teaches that part of the teaching function of the bishops is precisely to make pastoral judgements on doctrinal and moral issues. It is, therefore, never enough for a Catholic university to declare its adherence to the CBCP position on the RH Bill. It must see to it that its teachers do not uphold the contrary position.

After Ateneo, teachers from another Catholic university were emboldened to do the same. They must have thought: “The bishops may denounce this bill with all their might, but we can safely ignore them. We are above any sanction. The bishops will in fact invite us to a dialogue.”

Already, one newspaper labeled this state of affairs as the separation of the Church and the academe. Just like the people who love to parrot the dictum: “separation of Church and State” to justify their contention that the Church should stay away from politics, now self-styled advocates of the RH bill use the same dictum to redefine the bishop’s teaching function in the Church. They do not want bishops to denounce, but simply adapt. They want the bishops to bow to politicians and intellectual midgets who steal religious phrases to decorate their crackpot policies.

A request for prayers for Sr. Pilar Verzosa

UPDATE: Sr. Pilar has died. She passed away at 4:44 A.M. on September 9, 2012.

Let us pray for her eternal repose.

Requiem æternam dona ea, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ea. 



Originally posted on September 7, 2012:

A La Sallite responds to the Pro-RH La Salle professors

This note is currently being circulated in Filipino pro-life Facebook pages. 

Dr. Bernardo Villegas obtained his Bachelor's degrees in Commerce and the Humanities (both Summa Cum Laude) from De La Salle University. 

RH Bill Is Not Pro-Life

By: Dr. Bernardo Villegas

It is not my usual practice to debate with specific individuals or groups about  the issues I address in my columns. I am making an exception this time, as some might already have inferred from the title of this commentary.  Recently, some faculty members of the De La Salle University declared publicly that they support the RH Bill and asserted categorically that "the RH Bill Is Pro-Life." As an alumnus of De La Salle University, having spent  my formative years in both  high school and college in this prestigious university, I would like to engage in a friendly dialogue with my fellow La Sallites by stating that there are provisions of the RH Bill that are clearly anti-life.

700 Club Asia comes out against the RH Bill!

Another columnist comes out against the RH bill

CAP Note: Those who have read her columns for the past many years would know that Carmen N. Pedrosa of the Philippine Star is by no means a "Catholic columnist", given her history of criticizing the doctrines of the Church. She used to be a supporter of the RH bill: as she stated in her August 5, 2012 column for the Philippine Star, "I was one of those who were for the RH bill in the past because I did not think that the poor should be deprived of their right to decide how many children they should have." However, the dubious means employed by some pro-RH supporters to push for the bill, as well as the mounting evidence of the damage that population control can cause to a nation's long-term demographic (and therefore economic) stability seem to have been instrumental in changing her mind on this matter.

Although Mrs. Pedrosa has expressed her mounting doubts about the RH bill in previous columns (such as her August 11, 2012 column where she already declared that "I find it difficult to support the RH bill. It is a corruption of the commonweal and in time will be destructive"), it is with this September 8, 2012 column that she firmly and completely comes out versus the bill and declares that in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

*****

The money factor in the RH bill 

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) 

Updated September 08, 2012 

The way it looks to me, there is a dead-set intent by Congress to pass the RH bill and it has less to do with the Philippine economy or religious principles and even less, for the sake of the well-being of Filipino women. The debate is being fueled by these factors and made to appear as a Church vs. State quarrel with the state taking a stand for economic reasons and the Church for religious principles. But very little has been said about money.

*      *      *

Here is why: It used to be that USAID provided the money for an international population control program. The Philippines was one of the beneficiaries of that program and it included artificial birth control, among other things. The Church’s teaching is against artificial birth control. But as religious teaching, it did not impose sanctions on personal decisions.

As far as the middle classes in the Philippines (mostly Catholic church goers) are concerned family planning is a private matter and many use artificial birth control without giving up their religion. The poor did not have that choice.

USAID funded artificial birth control. Pills, condoms and IUDS were made available to those who could not afford it.

 But in time the USAID stopped funding the program. A reliable report said “the Philippines relied on international organizations, mainly the US Agency for International Development (USAid), to fund its population control program. It gave $3.5 million annually to subsidize artificial birth control like condoms and pills.

Because of limited funding sources, USAid in time was forced “to stop supplying the Philippines with condoms in 2003, birth-control pills in 2007 and contraceptives through injections in 2008,” the report added.

The question arose whether to continue the program in the Philippines and if it was to be continued who or what would fund the program. A new policy had to be found. The solution: let each country fund its own program. If money were to be set aside for the program, a bill would have to be passed to enable the government to allocate funds for it. That is the RH bill. It has to be passed to make sure that there will be funds, local funds to continue the worldwide population control program in the Philippines. There are no two ways about it.

*      *      *

According to an article “US Aid to World Birth-Control Efforts Faces Cuts” the downsizing began in 1996. According to Steven Holmes who wrote for New York Times, the Clinton administration subsequently lifted the ban on aid for international birth control efforts that included abortion and abortion counseling. There was a struggle between the House, the Senate and the White House about the ban that “threatened to block the passage of the $12 billion foreign aid bill.”

*      *      *

So it is not quite true when US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas says that the issue of passing the RH bill does not concern the US government.

There is duplicity too among Church officials. On one hand, Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Commission on Family and Life earlier said he believed the US government had influenced President Aquino’s “abrupt decision” to support population control.

But on the other hand, CBCP media director Msgr. Pedro Quitorio said he did not believe the US government had influenced the President. Aquino committed support for population control even before he visited the US.

Given this background I do not think it is accurate to reduce the RH bill debate as a local issue between the Church vs. the Aquino government.

*      *      *

Sen. Pia Cayetano recently moved to “delete controversial provisions in the Senate version such as the section that provided the care of women who have undergone abortions” as a concession.

She also sought a change in the title of the bill, from “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development” to “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood.” 

Cayetano, as chairman of the Senate committee on health, changed the title of section 9 of the bill. Instead of family planning supplies it was to be called “essential medicines.” Hmm. She said the title would be changed to “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning supplies.”

Under the section, she added: “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the essential drugs list in accordance with existing practice.”

Senator Vic Sotto is not as stupid as some people make him out to be because his speech writer had plagiarized an article from a blog. However, flawed he put the debate on a different direction.

*      *      *

The heart of the issue is whether or not we need to pass the RH bill. It is ironic that while the Church is seen as obstructing the passage of this bill, it is in fact protecting freedom. If passed the RH bill will by nature be coercive using the power and infrastructure of the state. On the other hand, the Church’s teaching as teaching is not coercive. Catholics can take or leave it as they have..

The Church has the obligation to keep to its teachings and members who do not believe it can leave the institution. There are those who believe that the size of their families is a personal decision and that is the primary consideration.

The State will have to seek a new paradigm for helping the poor other than giving them artificial birth control. As it is, the RH bill will institutionalize state coercion focused on cutting the number of poor in the Philippines.

It is unfair not to give them the freedom of choice. I know poor families who think of children as insurance for the family’s future. They believe that the more children they have the better off the family would be when all of them have jobs and contribute to the family kitty.

*      *      *

With this perspective and in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

Maybe the government should return the problem to the USAID to find the funds to continue their population control program in the Philippines.

Three Evangelical / Protestant groups versus the RH bill

From Intercessors of the Philippines (originally posted on their FB page on August 4, 2012):

WHY WE STRONGLY STAND AGAINST THE RH BILL

We strongly stand against the RH Bill for the following reasons:

1. It will wittingly or unwittingly promote if not legalize the killing of the unborn at conception, in violation of the Bible and the Constitution.

HB 4244, the consolidated version of all Reproductive Health (RH) Bills proposes in Section 3 (e) that the State shall “promote without bias all natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal.”

In the market right now, at least five (5) drugs and devices have abortive functions (they prevent the zygote, that is, the already unionized sperm and egg, also known as the fertilized ovum, from reaching and being implanted in the uterus, so that it will just die and be expelled.) These are depoprovera, RU 486, IUD, Norplant, and the morning after pill.

This is clearly killing a human life. The Bible teaches that a fertilized egg (the union of the sperm and the egg) is already human life. (Job 10:8-12, Psalm 139:13-16, Psalm 51:5).

The flushing out of a fertilized egg by drug or device is abortion. See Jeremiah 2:34, KJV. The blood of the poor innocents on the skirts of a nation is one of the surest ways of cursing a land.

It also violates Section 12, Art. II, of the 1987 Constitution which guarantees the protection of the life of the unborn at conception, equally with the life of the mother.

2. It will escalate and promote immorality, because it calls for the distribution of free condoms, IUDs, etc in public schools and barangays without need of parental knowledge, consent or advice.

3. It will teach “sexuality education” beginning at grade 5, with emphases on sex as a universal human right, and outside of the framework of marriage.

4. It will weaken if not destroy marriage because it gives any partner a right to avail of any artificial method of birth control (prevention of pregnancy) without need of spousal knowledge or consent.

5. It will weaken parental authority because under the Bill, youth can avail of free artificial methods of birth control which government will distribute or make available either as free, or as over-the counter drugs (meaning, without need of doctor’s prescription), without the youth being required to inform their parents.

6. It will trample on freedom of conscience because it will require all health care providers to inform and administer any of these methods, drugs and devices of birth control, and if there is refusal on religious grounds or conscience, they are still required to refer the patient or person to a doctor, clinic, institution or person that administers these services, and refusing to do so is punishable by imprisonment of six months or a fine of Php50,000.

7. It will pave the way for gay, lesbian, and homosexual unions and “marriages” in the future, because it already guarantees the right of every person for respect and against discrimination on the ground of sex, gender, or gender-preference.

8. It will threaten the most precious resource of a nation, and that is, its people or future generation. (In the Bible, the population of a nation is the glory of the king or the prince. Prov. 14:28)

On a note, rigorous population control legislations like the RH Bill imposed in so-called Christian nations or democracies will effectively reduce Christian populations, while leaving other religious populations like Islam to grow unabated because they do not approve of RH bill or similar measures.

9. It is harmful to women. Overwhelming studies have shown that drugs and devices of artificial methods of pregnancy or birth control have resulted in much higher incidences of cancer among women.

10. Government should pay attention to the top ten killer diseases of the country. Reproductive-related diseases and/or deaths are not in the top ten. (See 2006 report of the World Health Organization in the Philippines).

11. The surest way of addressing poverty is education and job-generation or employment promotion, not the killing of the unborn at conception. (See ADB report entitled “Key Indicators for Asia and Pacific 2010).

12. RH Bill has not prevented sexually-transmissible diseases from escalating in Thailand, which has more stringent similar RH measures in place.

If we want this country from being spared divine judgment, if we are to stop a curse from attaching to this land, if this nation is to be blessed, we must do everything in our power by God’s grace to see to it that the RH Bill is not passed into laW.

 -- PREPARED BY ATTY. LYNDON CANA, IFP VISAYAS COORDINATOR

From the website of Christ the Living Stone Fellowship - Rosales-Pangasinan Mission comes the text of the August 3, 2012 denunciation of the RH Bill by BibleMode International of Pastor and former Congressman Bienvenido Abante:

BibleMode International Says “NO!” TO THE RH BILL!

By: Congressman Abante

The Evil Consequence of RH Bill 4244

1. It will promote greater sexual promiscuity and immorality because all kinds of contraceptives, condoms and the like will be readily available to all for free;

2. It will not give us 100% reliable and dependable cure or answer to the growing population of this country as in the case of Mexico, India, Africa and China and other countries of the world operating under this kind of law. Rather, it will increase more pregnancy with the increase of sexual promiscuity among young people;

3. It cannot and will not help alleviate poverty nor spur economic growth. The US of America for example, has been implementing Reproductive and Right Law for over half a century but still their economy has been very poor in the law two decades. Greed, poor economy, graft and corruption, and moral degradation will always lead nay country to grave poverty, increased crimes and uncertain future;

4. It will open a Pandora’s box of every evil bill like Gray Rights Bill, Same-Sex-Marriage Bill, abortion and Divorce Bills. Are will still a nation under God who implores the aid of Almighty God with future godless laws such as these?

5. Crimes will grown unabated and uncontrolled because we have to licentiousness and lust. Juvenile delinquency will increase because the Bible says we have become “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4);

6. If ever this bill becomes a law and enforced effectively, after 20 years or so, there will be a great reduction in the population of our younger generation. There will be more older people than younger ones. Let us learn from Singapore which has take in young immigrants just to replace the older population. Human resource is a gift of God and if used and utilized properly, it will prosper our nation. Take the OFW for example, about 7M of them all around the world yearly contributing a lot to our country’s coffers to help pump up our nation economy; and

7. Whether we believe in God’s sovereignty or not, this nation will invite the wrath of God because of the promotion of anti-God, anti-Life and anti-family bills such as this one. We want His blessings and not His judgment. Every nation that departed from the moral principles of God’s Word has experienced the judgment of God. Call us zealots or religious bigots if you may, but this is an awesome truth of which every Filipino especially those in power should take into account.

OUR HUMBLE PLEA TO OUR HONORABLE LEGISLATORS

The consolidated RH Bill is the greatest deception upon the Filipino. The Bill is a:

1. State’s intervention into people’s private marital lives and affairs, as is strongly promotes the use of contraceptives;

2. Blatant disregard to the basic parental rights and influence of parents over their children, as it guarantees minor children the right to sex;

3. Suppression of the freedom of expression, as it makes mandatory sexuality education which includes sex and access to and use of contraceptives staring Grade 5;

4. Disguised State’s sanction to abortion, as it promotes the use of contraceptives which cause abortion;

5. Violation of encroachment on the Church’s primary and supreme domain over moral and spiritual principles, standards and discipline by imposing criminal sanctions or violation thereof; and

6. Violation of Freedom of Religion and the principle of the Separation of the Church and the State, as it makes mandatory sexuality education; promotes the use of contraceptives; and imposes criminal sanction for violation thereof.

The real problem is not population explosion BUT graft and corruption, defective resources allocation and unequal distribution of wealth. The use of Contraceptives; Mandatory Sexuality Education starting Grade 5; and 2-children policy CANNOT solve the country’s the country’s Graft and Corruption; Unemployment; Education; and Poverty problems. Instead of spending Billions of Pesos for the full implementation of this Bill when it becomes a law, we submit that such amount should instead be spend for Food Production; Education, Employment, Poverty Alleviation, Housing Projects for informal settlers, and fighting Graft and Corruption.

The real solution to the problem is not in man’s hands but in God; s who assuringly said: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land” ( 2 Chronicles 7:14, KJV).

We therefore APPEAL for your HNORS to CAST A “NO” VOTE to HB 4244.

Issued in the city of Manila this 7th of August 2012.

DR. BENNY MIRANDO ABANTE, JR.

National President and Bishop

13th and 14th Congress, 6th District of Manila

BIBLEMODE Secretariat Office: P.O. Box 1957, Makati City, Philippines. Tel (02) 561-1076. Follow us on twitter.com/Benny MAbante, and like us on facebook.com/biblemodeyouth

It should be noted here that these two texts are posted on the website of Christ the Living Stone Fellowship - Rosales-Pangasinan Chapter, which also makes these texts their own. Hence we may speak here of THREE Evangelical Protestant groups being against the RH bill. 

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

This declaration is the response of three theology teachers of the Ateneo De Manila to the erroneous understanding of conscience that underpins the public support recently given to the RH bill (or at least to the alleged moral right of Catholics to publicly support that bill) by 192 Ateneo professors and by Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ.

These three teachers also condemn the bitter hatred of the Church that has been unleashed in the aftermath of the statements of support for the RH bill given by the pro-RH Ateneo professors.

Mr. Rafael Dy-Liacco took his Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R) in Yale Divinity School, Mr. Markus Locker has a Ph.D in Philosophy from Monash University in Melbourne, and Josemaria Roberto V. Reyes, whose Bachelor's degree is in Management (from ADMU), is currently a candidate for MA in Theology from Loyola School of Theology.

Statement of Catholic Theology Teachers on Conscience and Faith

From the Ateneo: an academic article on the correlation between abortion and contraception

The article was first published earlier this year and is authored by two distinguished Jesuits with extensive secular professional credentials and a lay professor of the Ateneo De Manila University: Fr. Romeo Intengan (former Provincial Superior of the Philippine Jesuits, co-founder of the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party and a UP-trained Doctor of Medicine), Fr. Daniel J. McNamara SJ (a physicist by training, former Superior and Director of the Manila Observatory) and Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr. (a Theoretical Physicist in Manila Observatory). 

As the abstract states, this article sets out to propose a set of hypotheses for deriving the abortion rate as a function of the intercourse interval in weeks, the number of weeks since the start of first intercourse, the number weeks of pregnancy, the number of weeks of breastfeeding, and the contraceptive failure rate. We also propose risk compensation as feedback: the intercourse interval is proportional to the mth power of the contraceptive failure rate. We show that for different values of m, the abortion rate may become smaller, bigger, or remain the same compared to the case when no contraceptives are used. Thus, one way to settle the RH Bill debate is to determine the correct value of m derived from accurate data on the reproductive health parameters of a large sample of the female population. If this data is not available, it is better not to take risk in approving the bill, because there is a possibility of increasing our national abortion rate through the promotion of contraceptives. Instead, it may be better to use alternative methods to manage our population and reduce our abortion rate to zero by promoting chastity before marriage, late marriages, and breastfeeding—and accepting each child conceived as a gift and not as a burden.

Estimating Abortion Rates From Contraceptive Failure Rates via Risk Compensation: A Mathematical Model