"In light of reason, the enactment of the RH Bill into law should be rejected"

DECLARATION OF STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PASSAGE OF THE RH BILL INTO LAW: AN OPEN APPEAL TO THE PHILIPPINE L...

On today's full-page ad on the RH bill amendments

Today, a full-page advertisement versus the amended RH bill was published in Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer. The advertisement actually consists of two statements published together:

1. The November 6, 2012 CBCP-ECFL Statement on the Amended RH Bill: (The first document in this post: Two recent statements by Bishop Gabriel Reyes on the RH bill and the Culture of Life)

2. The CFC-FFL Statement on the Amended RH Bill: MISSING THE POINT: CFC-FFL Statement Against the Proposed Substitute (Amended) RH Bill dated Oct 17, 2012.

For now, I'm not posting any image of the ad, as I have none with a resolution good enough to make it readable. At any rate, it simply reproduces the texts linked above. For those who simply want to see how the ad looks like, the website of CFC-FFL has a picture. 

Two recent statements by Bishop Gabriel Reyes on the RH bill and the Culture of Life (Updated)

(Update 15/11/12: I've uploaded an image of the ECFL statement on the revised RH bill)

Originally posted Nov. 12, 2012: 

Bishop Gabriel Reyes, Ordinary of the Diocese of Antipolo, is the current head of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL).

1. Statement of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life on the revised RH bill, November 6, 2012 (LINK)

A picture of the same statement, courtesy of Pro-Life Philippines: 

2. Lecture on the Blessed Virgin Mary in connection with the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death, June 21, 2012:

Mary and the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death

By Most Rev. Gabriel V. Reyes, D.D., Bishop of Antipolo

Culture of Life

Before talking about Mary in connection with the culture of life and the culture of death, let me review with you the meaning of the culture of life. in short, the culture of life is a way of thinking, a way of living that is in accordance with the Gospel of Life. To explain the gospel of life, I will depend much on the encyclical letter of Blessed John Paul II, "Evangelium Vitae" the Gospel of Life.

Basically the Gospel of Life teaches that human life has to be respected, promoted, and protected because of the human person. According to Vatican II, "man is the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake." Because of the transcendent dignity of man "he is the subject of rights which no one may violate – no individual, group, class, nation or state." ("Centesimus Annus", 44) Human rights are rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State Legislation. The right to life is a primary right of the human person.

The dignity of the human person is based on my things.

First, man has been crated in the image and likeness of God. He is an image of God through his intellect and will. "You have made him little less than a god and crown him with glory and honor. (Ps. 8:5) The glory of God shines on the face of man.

Second, he has been redeemed by Christ, the Son of God, through His suffering and death. Furthermore, Vatican II says: "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being." This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn. 3:16) but also the incomparable value of every human person (Evangelium Vitae, 2).

Third, man is called to share in God's own life, in divine life. "Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimension of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. (EV, 2). Through the redemption wrought by Christ, God shared his divine life with man making him his son.

"We see here a clear affirmation of the primacy of man over things; these are made subject to him and entrusted to his responsible care, whereas for no reason can he be made subject to other men and almost reduced to the level of a thing." (EV, 34)

Life is not only God's gift to man but is also a sacred reality entrusted to man. He has to take care of it and protect it. He has to bring it to perfection through love and through the gift of himself to God and to his brothers and sisters.

For the record: Pro-Life Philippines versus the revised RH bill

Other position papers versus the revised RH bill:

1) CBCP - ECFL (see first document in this post)
2) CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill
3) World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific on the Amended RH Bill

Pro Life Philippines Foundation, Inc.

Position Paper on the New RH Bill Version

Filed at the House of Representatives

                

Greetings of Peace!

We have received a copy of the new RH bill version which was filed at the House of Representative  last October 23, 2012. For the education and information of our friends and all those who support us, we are releasing this statement in order to shed light on this new proposed RH Bill and it’s implications.

1. There simple is no need for an RH Law. As Senator Tito Sotto has mentioned in his Turno en Contra speech, there are 23 existing laws that mimic the RH bill, and close to 8 billion pesos given to the DOH by the government to fund RH-like programs and projects. Then there is the Magna Carta of Women. The RH bill is simply redundant and unnecessary.

2. The RH bill is a population control measure that masquerades as a bill that will empower women. True women empowerment happens when there are enough jobs for women to support their families as well as education for their children. The funds to be used in purchasing contraceptives can be utilized in projects that directly alleviate poverty and empower women, like building classrooms and schools, roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure.

3. The provisions that will allow adolescents to have access to contraceptives are still present. Not that taking them off will convince us to accept this bill, but the presence of these provisions only reinforce our convictions that the RH bill is for population control. Aside from this fact, adolescents should not be given contraceptives as this would only reinforce teen-age sexual activities and lead to teen-age pregnancies.

4. The provision for sex education of adolescents is still present. The important points in sex education are already included in our present curriculum via our biology classes; what the youth need is education and formation geared towards the discovery and enrichment of their talents and skills, and personality development and self-mastery, which are all necessary in preparing them to be efficient members of the workforce. A student who is prepared both physically and emotionally for work will be an asset in any workplace, and if he is poor, he has more chances to bring himself and his family out of poverty.

5. The bill propagates the misconception of poor women needing contraception because they want to limit the number of children born to them, but are too poor to afford contraceptives. Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government professor Lant Pritchett says parents who have large families want large families, meaning parents want the children that they beget. It is also a misconception that poor women cannot afford contraceptives, hence the need for the RH Bill. According to the 2008 National Demographic Health Survey, only less than 1% of women cannot afford contraception.

6. The RH Bill has been a highly divisive issue, with both sides hardly yielding any ground. However, there are certain bills that are not as divisive as the RH bill but will also help this country move forward by curbing graft and corruption. We are referring to the Freedom of Information bill, and the Anti-Dynasty bill. Both the congress and senate would have taken the country a step forward in the right direction had they passed these two bills. Instead they chose to dwell on the RH bill, and because of this our politicians look like they are only after their own selfish interests.

The framers of the RH Bill presented this revised version of the RH bill hoping that they could pass it with the amendments in place. They are sadly mistaken. We still oppose the RH bill, and there shall be no compromise. We value life and the true dignity of women. No to the RH Bill!

Sincerely

Mr. Eric Manalang

President, Pro Life Philippines

(SOURCE) 

This paper was originally posted last week (November 7, 2012) on the website of Pro-Life Philippines

For the record: World Youth Alliance Asia Pacific versus the revised RH bill

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!

A student paper's courageous stand versus the RH bill

The recent editorial of DMMAxim, the official Student Publication of DMMA College of Southern Philippines (source):

“The long-term solution”

Despite the condemnation of some religious sectors, the congress has been speeding up the passage of the“Reproductive Health Bill” or otherwise known as the “Responsible Parenthood Bill” as they stand on their objective to provide an immediate solution to the exploding population of our country which is pointed out to be the root cause of poverty.

Part of the content of the bill is the prevention of the widely spread sexually transmitted disease, information on sex and reproduction, unwanted pregnancy, and other reproductive health concerns through the use of modern contraceptive methods.

People might wonder, however, what the real drive of the bills.  As it has been observed, anyone today can freely purchase a condom and other forms of contraception whether in a pharmacy or in a convenience store. In fact, some parents have been using condoms and other forms of contraception in order to space the birth of their children. Also, some of the youth today who engaged in pre-marital sex are already knowledgeable about these. On the other hand, some religious sectors have already recommended an alternative way in controlling population which does not violate the tenets of the church, such as the existing family planning program which uses natural and scientific knowledge and methods.

Taking these into consideration would lead to the question: Is the population of our country really the root cause of poverty?

A huge part of our population belongs to the ranks of the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW). In the year 2009, remittances from the OFW sector reached a record of US$ 16.4 Billion which is equivalent to 10 percent of the gross domestic product of our country that year. If these remittances were only used appropriately for the people, it would have been of great help, if not totally address, poverty.

What really happens in the Philippines is a grave unequal distribution of wealth. The rich gets richer, while the poor gets poorer and remain vulnerable, while the powerful politicians have a stranglehold control over the Philippine government. When they should be formulating resolutions to solve the poverty, they keep on grabbing the resources left from our treasury. At the end of the day, they fail to deliver what the people really need.

Indeed, RH bill cannot be placed as an address to our countless problems. The rising poverty rate cannot be blamed on the population, but on the corruption that takes place in the high offices of our government. What our lawmakers have been doing right now is formulating an instant solution to poverty without addressing the root cause of it. If our lawmakers are sincere enough in addressing this problem, then they must instead strengthen our laws on corruption cases to prevent some of our corrupt officials from dipping their dirty fingers into the nation’s coffers. Only by then can genuine change and long-term solutions come into existence.

"Against the RH Bill" by Howard Go

From the blog of Pauline Cauton, Catholic by Choice: 

Against the RH Bill 

by Howard Go

Part 1: 

A lot of people think the RH Bill is such a practical law, but it isn’t.

Is it easy to teach people to use condoms? It seems like the answer is so obvious, but it isn’t. Improper use of condoms was a big problem before and introducing it to communities that have never been able to afford it will mean that it will be a problem for them, too. Check out: http://www.pancap.org/en/news-global/821-improper-condom-use-a-global-health-issue-improper-condom-use-a-global-health-issue.html So, someone might say, we’ll spend more to teach them. But here’s the problem, the RH Bill is not just a distribute-condoms-to-those-in-need-and-teach-them-to-use-it law. It is not just about family planning. It is also about providing better health care to pregnant women in areas with poor hospital services (and this aspect is actually the better part of the law). But, let’s try to see how far family planning as an objective in our country can go; in particular, the artificial contraception way.

For the record: CFC-FFL on the Revised RH Bill

MISSING THE POINT: CFC FFL Statement Against the Proposed Substitute (Amended) RH Bill dated Oct 17, 2012

Scrambling to get the Reproductive Health Bill approved before the Christmas break, its authors in the House of Representatives have dangled an enticing gambit by unveiling a ”tamer, watered-down version” of the controversial measure.

The re-packaged Bill aims to bait acceptance from detractors and approval from the general public, on the strength of compromised amendments.

On surface, the amendments appear to bridge the gap separating the proponents from the objectors. But upon closer scrutiny and beneath the veneer of an attempted compromise, the revisions really do little to save the Bill. The reason is simple: THE AMENDMENTS MISS THE POINT.

Some secular reasons for opposing the RH bill

On Pro-RH Catholic educators

WE'RE BACK!

Double-standards at work: the RH bill and the Cybercrime law

From the blog "Ignored Genius":

What the RH Bill and Cybercrime Prevention Law have in common

I’ve been called dumb, stupid, closed-minded, etc. It usually happens when I sound to be talking against something that is popular.  Though the fact is I do not speak against something not for the sake of just being against it. I just try to look for balance. Most of the time, I’m really not against it but just figuring out the pros and cons. But for some it’s like either you accept it or you’re a moron. For them, some things are like a sweet candy that we can readily enjoy, eat, swallow and forget about anything. For the objective of these things are good. It’s for the benefit of everybody. Including me. Including you. There are a lot of things created for a righteous goal. But not all means are acceptable. This is something difficult for most people to understand. That is until  something surprised almost everybody. And it includes both sides.

According to some law experts, the Cybercrime Prevention Law includes the online libel. It means that a person can be penalized by fines and jail terms if found to have committed defamation of another person “using the internet and any other similar means which may be devised in the future”. That’s according to Sec. 4 of the said law.  A lot of people are protesting it being deemed as an enemy of freedom of speech. Libel laws in our country criminalize defamation and malicious discredit of another person’s reputation. And defamation does not always mean telling lies. It could also be of speaking the truth but having no good motives.  And most reason given by people who are against it is that this specific part of the Cybercrime law is vague. And that this will be in danger of being abused by some people. And also, being “malicious” and “discrediting” will mostly depend on each people’s perception. And allegedly, this might threaten the Filipinos right to opinion and thus curtailing freedom of expression.

A Facebook profile photo.

And unknown to some, or probably to many, there was a similar controversial clause found in the RH bill. I heard it was removed. Or maybe not but I’m sure it was there. You can check it on this link.  On Sec. 28(e) of the bill, it was stated there that “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act” will be penalized thru Sec. 29 of the bill. Either fined or a jail term. The “act” pertains to the RH bill. 

Like what was mentioned on this other blog post, there are those among us who talk about one thing but do the opposite. Like how most people are currently exerting a lot of energy to fight and to reverse the implementation of cybercrime law especially that specific clause that non-verbally includes “online libel” while many of them totally embraced the RH bill version that included the clause with the similar logic of penalizing people due to “disinformation”. And also those who were angered at the swift passing of the Cybercrime law but raised brows due to the “delay” of voting for the RH bill. The “delay” that makes it possible for our lawmakers to remove clauses and provisions which they may see as unnecessary. Just like the “disinformation” prohibition part and then the others.  And probably to avoid the same thing which is now happening around the Cybercrime Law.

Nice shirt design

Now a lot of us are crying out loud and blaming anybody we could blame. That is bound to happen if someone looks at personalities rather than the issues. And using emotions rather than logic. We'll contradict even our own selves. But never would we find fault of our own. 

For some, it’s still about the RH bill. But no it’s not. It’s much worse. It’s uglier. But unless we stop focusing on personalities, side issues, etc, we’ll continue being sidetracked, divided, weak and less effective. One thing I’m thankful about this Cybercrime Law is that people now realize how hard it is to accept certain freedom being taken away. Now most of us are hurting. Crying like caged birds. Whichever side you are, almost everyone is now angry.  Almost everyone is now up in arms. But then again,where were you when we were fighting for that same freedom when it was threatened by the RH bill?

Wellness expert comes out versus the RH Bill

Dr. Christine E. Gonzalez of the Wellness Institute (which advertises itself as a "a holistic natural health center registered in California, USA and in the Philippines") has just come out with a paper taking a "deeper look" at the RH bill.

For more on Dr. Gonzalez's work, see this and this.

RHBill - A Deeper Look at ...

On the pro-life principles embedded in the Philippine Constitution

The Sanctity of Family and Life Natural Law Thinking in the Constitution

For the record: Dissecting the Consolidated RH Bill -- Medical, Public Health, & Bioethical Issues

RH Bill Forum III 2011

Pastor Dennis Sy versus funding condoms with tax money

Pastor Dennis Sy is the Senior Pastor of Victory Greenhills. He had come out against the RH bill in 2010.

From the Evangelical Christian blog "Act Like A Man":

Here Comes the Condoms
Posted by Dennis on September 20, 2012


According to Philippine Daily Inquirer June 19th issue:

The Department of Health (DOH) on Monday said it would be distributing this year some P500 million worth of contraceptives, including condoms and birth control pills, as part of its renewed effort to reduce the rising maternal mortality rate (MMR) in the country.

The news article then tried to link the need to distribute condoms and contraceptives worth 500 Million on how we as a nation could decrease Maternal Mortality Rate.

In a statement after a press briefing on the issue, Health Secretary Enrique Ona cited the 2011 Family Health Survey that showed that between 2006 and 2011, the MMR jumped from 162 to 221.  This meant the number of Filipino mothers who died in childbirth had risen to 221 in 2011 from 162 in 2009 per 100,000 live births. 

The MMR, said Ona, is an important indicator of the government’s performance in improving the health of its citizens.“We can only say that the entire health system is improving if the maternal mortality rate is also improving,” he said. 

Ona cited the poor delivery of health services to impoverished communities as one of the main causes of maternal deaths which he described as highly preventable.

I am not a doctor but I am not sure if the solution to decrease Maternal Death is the free distribution of Condoms and Contraceptives using tax payer’s money. What we need are teaching seminars and a more long term solution to the problem of mis education or no education. It also means upgrading our public hospitals and clinics.

Does this mean that every year we will be shelling out millions of pesos to give away free condoms and pills to couples who want to have sex. I cannot connect how hard earned taxpayer’s money is used to fund the sex life of my fellow Filipinos. Also how sure are we that the distribution of contraceptives are targeting married people only? If the Department of Health goes full blast does that also mean that single men and women can avail of free contraceptives paid for by Filipinos who have a hard time making ends meet. If this happens among the single men and women in our nation, not only are we mis educating them on sex but giving them more license to engage in premarital sex.

Are we really going to pay for that???

Fr. Charles Belmonte versus "The Dissenter" (Fr. Joaquin Bernas): Round 2!

For part 1: Fr. Charles Belmonte on the dissent of Fr. Joaquin Bernas

The following is from Fr. Charles Belmonte's Facebook page. He published this yesterday, Sept. 24, 2012. The picture (Cimabue's The Treason of Judas) is part of the post. 

THE DISSENTER wrote…:

“Let me illustrate this through the teaching on contraception. The teaching of the Church on contraception is found in various documents. But Church teaching is not accepted by a vast number of people.” 

I SAY: Being an “eminent constitutionalist” he should know that “acceptance by the people” is not a necessary requirement for the validity or lawfulness of a law; at least in Canon Law. Moreover, “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator” (CIC, 16), not by any Dick, Tom or Harry.

THE DISSENTER: “Persons who adhere to Humanae Vitae, etc. and act in the sphere of the relation of man to God are expected to plan their family according to the principles of the Church teaching. 

I SHOULD ADD: Right so. These “persons” are officially called “christifideles” or simply, Catholics.

THE DISSENTER: “But these same persons should not be faulted if in the sphere of constitutional law they do not oppose a state plan that is not in accordance with Humanae Vitae, etc." 

I SAY: I contemplate tree possible motives for which they do not oppose a state plan that is not in accordance with their faith (using the legal resources they may have):

(a) They don’t oppose an evil law because they cannot do so, materially. Possible reasons: All the media are against them; the machinery of the State impedes them from intervening; they have no representation in the assembly, etc.

(b) They don’t oppose an evil law because they have two wills, instead of one, as all human beings have. We should not discard the possibility of aliens possessing two wills.

(c) They don’t oppose an evil law because of duplicity in their character. They are not fully determined in favor of Truth and Good; thus, they harbor in their hearts a certain love for truth and, at the same time, a personal inclination to evil not fully conquered (due to vanity, pride…, whatever). 

THE DISSENTER: “Religious liberty in the constitutional plane does not simply mean freedom to choose what to believe but also freedom to act or not to act according to one’s belief.”

I SAY: I really don’t know, or care, what “liberty in the constitutional plane” implies. 

But “liberty in the moral plane” –definitively and emphatically– does not mean what the Dissenter avers. 

“To act according to one’s belief” is usually called “sincerity,” or “authenticity,” or “having personal responsibility and maturity,” or “being coherent with one’s faith.”

On the other hand, “Not to act according to one’s belief” is usually called “duplicity,” or “insincerity,” or “betrayal of one’s faith.”

Faith is not a “hat” that one can take off when one enters the Congress and then put on when one enters the church; that is, properly speaking, having a “double life”… nakakasuka.

So, who is intolerant? Who is closed-minded? Two articles on the UP Forum on the RH Bill on Sept. 19, 2012

From CBCP for Life:

Pro-lifers show class amid discourtesy

MANILA, Sept. 24, 2012—Those who spoke for the most defenseless in society and who championed genuine freedom showed class and composure amid discourtesy from some supporters of the reproductive health (RH) bill during a forum on the legislative measure at the University of the Philippines’ National Institute of Physics last week.

Dr. Ligaya Acosta, regional director of Human Life International – Asia & Oceania, and Edgardo Sorreta, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Chairman, both held their composure even as purple-clad RH advocates spoke out from their seats, apparently in disagreement with what was being said by the speakers.

“We let the other speakers talk and we kept quiet. So we ask that you do the same for us,” Sorreta requested in the course of his presentation.

At one point, Acosta – toward the end of her talk – paused for a few moments when those seated in the first couple of rows in the audience became somewhat unruly and prevented the invited guest from proceeding as they chanted “Time! Time! Time!” – signaling that her time in the program was up.

“Okay lang,” Acosta calmly said with a smile as she waited for the disruption to end.

Mere opportunity for Church-bashing

The glaring difference between the speakers, too, did not go unnoticed by the students. Dash Cordero, a senior Statistics major, was immensely disappointed by the repeated jabs against the Church by one of the speakers, particularly due to the emphasis on academic and “research-based” information made in pre-event announcements.

“I was expecting that Dr. [Ernesto] Pernia would present his arguments the same way as economicst Dr. [Bernardo] Villegas does – which is precise and easily understandable by non-economics people. But it was just a mixture of pang-aaway sa Church and presenting statistics that were really not that well-explained,” Cordero lamented.

She also pointed out that the surveys on perception of Catholics of the RH bill were “irrelevant, at the same time insensitive. I didn’t really like his talk because he kept dragging the Catholic Church into the issue – even making side comments that were insulting to us [Catholics].”

The student pointed out that it was unfair of Pernia to make “rude remarks about Dr. Villegas” since the latter was not present.

The talk was not worth her time, Cordero said, adding that what was presented was not new to her and companions anymore and that economists advocating a culture of life had already refuted arguments brought up by Pernia.

What came as a surprise to Cordero and probably to most of the 100-plus attendees at the forum were Atty. Elizabeth Pangalangan’s remarks and demeanor in the open forum.

Responding to a question regarding the rights of mothers and their unborn children, the lawyer’s answer betrayed a belief that the equal protection of “the life of the mother and the life of the unborn” by the State as provided in the Philippine Constitution is not really equal.

Insisting on the inequality of mother and unborn

As observed by Cordero, though Pangalangan recognized the Constitutional provision, the lawyer put forth “the condition that the life of the mother is not endangered. Clearly, she doesn’t consider the mother and the baby having equal rights and dignity under the law.”

“She even said that it’s okay to use ‘procedures’ – which can be taken as their euphemism for ‘abortion’ – since the baby is not yet born,” the student continued, adding that the lawyer’s view was even worse than that of many, since it implied recognizing the baby’s personhood only after birth.

John Walter Juat found the implications of inequality between born people and babies in the womb objectionable, “as if it is the law that states that the life of the mother is worth more than the unborn. One cannot define anything based on what it has or doesn’t have. You define it by its identity,” the Education student said.

Human beings are defined by their DNA, Juat explained, and an unborn child or a person who has been born bur has disabilities is not less human just because of the inability to do certain tasks that most people can do.

“It’s really wrong to say the mother has more worth because she can work, earn money, can walk, talk, etc. And the unborn child has less worth because it cannot do these yet,” he said. “But when the lawyer said something about the circumstances to veer away from the equal protection of the State, it really makes me question…”

Unwittingly revealing an abortion agenda

“And now they still deny that they are in favor of abortion? [Pangalangan] had just revealed their intentions – and that is to eventually find a way for abortion to be legalized [in the Philippines],” Cordero lamented.

During the open forum, the lawyer responded to a question concerning the rights of mothers and of their unborn children. When she answered, betraying a belief in the in equality in dignity between mother and unborn child, she was visibly peeved by the reactions of disapproval from the audience. This prompted her to ask the audience in clipped tones, “Are you a law student?”

The arrogant manner in which Pangalangan delivered the question and succeeding remarks generated yet more comments of protest.

During the lawyer’s presentation, she stated her belief of human beings “from the moment of birth” as entitled to human rights that are universal and cannot be aliented.

Cordero admitted being saddened by insinuations of the absence of facts in the arguments presented by anti-RH bill folks when “we are presenting the facts while their side always finds ways not to answer directly. Their response has often been derogatory remarks about the Church, the fallacy of ’11 maternal deaths per day,’ … and many more fallacious statements.”

“I’ve noticed that the pro-RH people fear so much when the truth is revealed – based on their reactions when Dr. Acosta revealed things about Likhaan and the RH bill budget,” the student continued. “Then their speakers didn’t have the same composure as ours did. And most of them were also very rude – you know, that ‘Time! Time! Time!’ incident.”

It is a challenge for life-affirming people to practice charity toward these persons who condemn the Church and destroy the sanctity of life, Cordero admitted. “I think our Lord is doing this for us to grow in virtue. Kaya sana the Lord always gives us the grace to love and to pray for them.” (CBCP for Life)


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

Pro-life speakers in UP forum urge students to protect freedom threatened by coercive RH bill

MANILA, Sept. 24, 2012—Forty years after the declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines, Filipinos are still hounded by attempts to impose legislation despite vehement opposition. Fortunately, the opposition is sustained – and continuously growing, as more and more life-loving, God-respecting citizens learn more about a measure which seeks to earmark P14 billion  of taxpayers’ money annually for its implementation.

The reproductive health (RH) bill – which includes penalties of fines and imprisonment for those who insist on recognizing conscientious objection, abortifacient effects of certain contraceptives, and the freedom to inform others of the truth on the issue – was the subject of a recent forum held at the University of the Philippines’ National Institute of Physics, which had a former Department of Health (DOH) public information officer as one of the speakers.

“In 2004, I discovered deadly deception of contraception. For a year I was quiet, I made intensive research, and the more I read, the more I cried. I realized that contraceptives kill and cause horrible side effects. And that there is no overpopulation – it’s a myth,” said Dr. Ligaya Acosta, regional director of Human Life International  – Asia and Oceania.

Reacting to insinuations of economist Dr. Ernesto Pernia, who peppered his supposedly academic presentation with jabs against the Catholic Church for “holding Catholic countries hostage” and for “being in the Dark Ages,” Acosta ran through the salient points of House Bill 4244, at one point stressing the punitive measures contained in Section 29.

Overwhelming evidence

“The RH bill curtails freedom,” she said, explaining the penalties even for employers and health workers, and pointing out that even cases of youngsters’ requests for condoms being refused at health centers may mean punishment being meted out.

“Where is freedom of choice there?” she asked.

She gave a rundown of the various contraceptives and their damaging health consequences, making sure she didn’t leave out the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) study establishing oral contraceptives as Class 1 carcinogens. The IARC is an agency under the World Health Organization (WHO).

“Twenty-one scientists from eight countries ‘yan – hindi po Simbahan ang nagsabi niyan. Hindi po Catholic Church ang nag-conduct ng study na ‘yan,” she casually remarked.

“Bakit nga ba tumututol ang napakarami sa RH bill? Let me tell you that it is overwhelming scientific evidence… and of course coming from [the other side], I have a lot of documents,” said Acosta, who was part of DOH for more than 20 years.

Strategic use of “reproductive health” rather than “abortion”

She also revealed that the use of the use of the phrase “reproductive health” was a well-thought-out strategy in the global effort to make abortion on demand an acceptable option in as many parts of the world as possible – and eventually a legal one in nations where it is currently illegal.

“They were told that they would lose [in efforts to convince people  if they used the word ‘abortion’ so they used ‘reproductive health.’”

Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Chairman Edgardo Sorreta likewise alluded to the coercion being carried out on the Filipino people via the RH bill.

"The government has no right to fund the purchase of bibles, crucifixes, copies of the Koran etc. because these are [personal] preferences. In the same way, the government has no right to fund the purchase of contraceptives,” he explained.

He addressed the audience – composed of over 100 students mostly of UP Diliman – and told them that the proposed P14 billion that will fund the population control bill is the same amount that could enable over 50,000 scholars to finish a 4-year course in the university.

Why give the poor what they are capable of buying?

Sorreta also pointed out that oral contraceptives, contrary to the message RH supporters have been trumpeting, are within the buying capacity of the country’s poor. At P40 per sheet containing 28 pills, the expense comes up to less than P1.50 a day.

“Kaya bang bumili ng mahirap niyan?” he asked the audience, who was visibly surprised by the figures presented. “Yes!”  the audience called out.

“So bakit natin ibibigay sa mahihirap yung kaya nilang bilhin samantalang puwede namang ibigay sa kanila yung hindi nila kaya? Edukasyon…” he pointed out, interrupted by applause and cheers.

“Bawal bang bumili [ng pills]? Hindi bawal. Mahirap bang bumili? Naka-distribute ‘yan, umaabot pa sa bundok. Hayaan niyo na ang mga pharmaceutical [companies], sila na ang mag-distribute. That’s their marketing challenge,” he added. “But don’t get government to do the distribution and spend my money for that.”

“Is the Church forcing people not to use contraceptives? No, you are free to use them. But don’t expect the Church to keep quiet and be remiss in its mission to proclaim the Truth,” Sorreta added, again eliciting applause from the students.

Besides Sorreta, Acosta and Pernia, also speaking at the forum was Atty. Elizabeth Pangalangan, who delved on a rights-based approach to evaluating the issue of the RH bill.

While Pangalangan stated that “every human being is recognized as a person and as a right-holder,” her remark that everyone from the moment of birth — not from conception —  is entitled to human rights, angered the audience.

During the open forum, suggestions by the lawyer that the unborn baby is of lesser value than the mother carrying the unborn further unveiled an openness to the justification of abortion on demand, thereby generating more reactions of disapproval from the audience. (CBCP for Life)

When "commonly-shared values" are not enough: A diocesan priest's response to Ateneo De Manila

From Katolikong Pinoy:

Sept. 23, 2012
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ATENEO MEMO ON THE PRESENT RH BILL
by Fr. Neil Gavan Tenefrancia

Full text of the MEMO here: 

https://www.facebook.com/ateneodemanila/posts/10152037439845153

“Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.”

CHURCH OBJECTION: BASED ON DOCTRINE

I think, it is best to add to the reasons cited above (threats to constitutional rights & to commonly shared human and spiritual values) the non-negotiable basis of the Church’s objection to the present form of the RH Bill: it is objecting based on DOCTRINAL reasons to a proposed public policy that will significantly impact the freedom of its constituents with regard to their Christian moral witnessing.

This DOCTRINAL ground is the area where the Church is most competent to speak on, namely- the objective immorality of artificial contraception (aside from the questionable mandatory sex education in schools which is contrary to the inalienable, immediate, and primary right of parents to the upbringing of their children).

Basing the objection to the RH Bill on “commonly shared human and spiritual values” (aside from the constitutional implications) can be misleading. This is because “commonly-shared values” can be understood to be founded on, mediated by, or a result of CONSENSUS which can never be, according to the Catholic understanding of divine Revelation, the infallible and immutable foundation of moral and existential certainty.

In the Church, we receive God’s will as REVELATION which is faithfully transmitted and interpreted by the Teaching Office of the Church (the Magisterium), itself gifted by the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. All of us will not want to follow a blind and erroneous guide.

God’s will, therefore, cannot be based on human CONSENSUS or on “commonly-shared values” if these values are understood as arising from CONSENSUS.

“In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good.”

SOCIAL COMPASSION OF INTELLECTUALS VS. SOCIAL COMPASSION OF THE CHURCH?

I wonder how the “social compassion” of intellectuals can lead themselves to positions contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church, herself a world-expert in organized charity, cannot be accused of being insensitive to and ignorant of the various human forms of physical and spiritual poverty.

I think the questions to be asked are: Can Catholics innovate for themselves their own understandings and practices of CHARITY and do them outside the mission of the Church? Can we set up our own understanding of MINISTRY within the Catholic Church which is contrary to the very nature of the Church, to the nature of divine Revelation, and exercise them outside the supervision of our Church leaders?

Operare sequitur esse. The Church’s mission necessarily flows from its specific identity. You cannot tinker, therefore, with matters relating to the Church’s MISSION without inevitably tinkering with the Church’s very own IDENTITY.

The proper and healthy alliance of FAITH and REASON, a source of “strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people,” should imply that ‘intellectual liberalism’ will be employed at the service of the integrity of the Church’s identity and mission and not be used to relativize the truth claims of its doctrines nor to create cleavages and gray areas in matters that are non-negotiable.

“As there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.”

TEACHING THE CATHOLIC POSITION ALONGSIDE OTHERS

I think there is a need, so as to avoid misunderstanding, to emphasize the nature of the CATHOLIC POSITION alongside the other views. All Catholics should know that the truth-claims of Catholic doctrines on matters of faith and morals are essentially different from that of the others. They are expected to be infallible and binding on all who claim that they are Catholics. And here, intellectual liberalism cannot be considered a virtue. Yes, let us teach the Catholic position but let us also teach the infallible and necessarily-binding nature of this Catholic position.

—————————–

Finally, some words from St Ignatius of Loyola:

“Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one’s own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy…

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same.”

[RULES FOR THINKING WITH THE CHURCH, From the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola in Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Henry Bettenson, ed., pp. 364-367.]