The fight is far from over!

From the blog Confessions of a Prodigal Daughter:

PRO-RH SUPPORTERS CELEBRATE DEATH OF PHILIPPINE DEMOCRACY

Pro-Life lobbyists throw their hands in the air to applaud courageous Pro-Life congressmen 

who voted "No" to the RH Bill (Photo courtesy of CBCP for Life)

December 13, 2012 was the day democracy died (again) in our country.  And it is ironic that it was the very son of the hero who once restored democracy in our land, who actually put it to death.  This is even scarier because at least when Martial Law was declared 40 years ago, people were aware of the dictatorship, but now it is a silent one.  What's worse, some people-- many of them probably unsuspecting-- even celebrated it.  It is such a pity that they did not know they were not really celebrating the passage of the RH Bill, but the resurrection of Marcos.

I am against the RH Bill and although I felt sad that it was passed on second reading, what made me sadder was the process by which it was passed.  "Sad" is actually an understatement as I was already on the verge of tears out of anger as I witnessed how the Pro-RH people railroaded the bill at the House of Representatives in the wee hours of the night.  Aside from the public knowledge that our congressmen were bribed with P280 million worth of pork barrel by PNoy, we also learned while the five-hour nominal voting was going on, that Malacanang sent Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda, Secretary Ricky Carandang, and Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, to pressure the congressmen to either vote yes to RH Bill or just go home and abstain from voting.  This is nothing but sheer corruption and abuse AND misuse of authority.

One of my Facebook friends tried to justify this, saying that what Malacañang did was just the same as what the Church is doing to the congressmen as She "threatens" them with the Catholic Vote.  However, this is an illogical analogy.  LOBBYING and BRIBING are two different things.  On one hand, the Church (composed of both lay and religious people) came to the House of Representatives as ordinary citizens exercising their right to lobby, and they stayed on the second and third floor galleries of the Batasan Building.  On the other hand, these people from Malacañang were operating inside the South Lounge of the building, looking for congressmen to send home as the fight between the votes became very close, as reported by the Inquirer.  If  Roxas, Lacierda, Carandang, and Abad came as ordinary citizens exercising their rights, they should have also stayed in the gallery where they would have been visible to all.  But wherever they stayed that night does not change the fact that they destroyed the integrity of the Philippine Government as the Executive Branch violated the independence of our legislators.  Nothing can justify that.

Contrary to what another one of my Pro-RH friends said, we are very far from a "politically mature Philippine legislative system," but we are definitely still stuck in a corrupt one.  However, I believe there is still hope-- and a huge one at that.  Considering the tally of votes: 113 allowed themselves to be bribed and dictated upon, 104 stood their ground and kept their integrity, and 3 abstained, those are 104 sparks of hope we got there!  And they could be more come Monday as the 63 absentees cast their vote on the Third Reading.

This fight is far from over.  What our congressmen need most right now is our moral support and assurance that if ever they do decide to go against the wishes of our President, they have the Filipino people to fall back on.  So be with us on Monday (December 17, 2012) either at the House of Representatives (Quezon City) or at the Senate (Pasay City) and show our love and support for our courageous legislators.  This is no longer just a fight for LIFE but a fight for our DEMOCRACY as well.  See you there!

Do the supporters of the RH bill really think that they can vanquish the Church?

From Raul Nidoy's blog Primacy of Reason:

The Catholic Church always prevails: a historic fact

The gates of hell shall never prevail against my Church, so proclaimed Jesus Christ who speaks the truth.

Christ's mystical body, his Catholic Church, always prevails against all odds thrown against it.

This is historic fact.

The Roman empire persecuted the Catholic Church and burnt Christians at the stake. A few centuries after, the Roman empire converted to Christianity and Europe became Christendom, a haven of light, building the university system, bringing about the birth of modern science, the Renaissance arts, the hospital system, international law, the human rights movement, and many other precious contributions to humankind.

Napoleon declared that he will destroy the Church, and took Pope Piux VII prisoner. After Waterloo, Pius VII returned to Rome in triumph and took care of Napoleon and his family while Napoleon was in prison.

Prussia waged a ferocious culture war on the Catholic Church in the 19th century called the Kulturkampf. By the mid-20th century, Prussia was no more. And today, Bavaria, one of the targets of the Kulturkampf, is the original home of the present Pope, Benedict XVI, who with his brilliance and simplicity is re-evangelizing the world.

Catholics suffered violent persecutions in Korea in the 19th century. Now, over the past 10 years, Catholicism is the fastest growing religion, having grown by 70%.

Anti-Catholicism has been the called the "deepest held bias" throughout the history of America and its "last acceptable prejudice". However, Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in the United States, and it has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world.

During the martial law years, Ferdinand Marcos arrested many Catholic church personnel, raided church offices, and closed down its radio stations. In 1986, Catholic priests, nuns, and laity, instigated by Cardinal Sin, led the historic EDSA revolution that toppled the dictatorship, making "people power" the world's preferred way of radical but peaceful government transition.

While the dictatorship of relativism holds sway over the land, Christians have envisaged that it will one day fall like a deck of cards. While the secular culture of death seem to advance, John Paul the Great has seen this millennium to bring about a new springtime of Christianity. This new springtime will surely come, Benedict XVI is fully convinced, if we Christians remain faithful to prayer, the sacraments, and evangelization and rediscover the beauty of praying with scripture.

God, the owner of the universe, did not come with pomp and majesty. He came as a child, whose victory lies in truth, love and humility. Thus he wins, through his Church, his body, throughout the centuries.

A sign of the times

The RH Bill is a Sign of the Times
Dr. Herbert Rosana

I AGREE THAT THE PASSAGE OF this bill if ever it is passed is a "Sign of the Times". The Philippines is actually late in the trending. The Bible has predicted that the end times will be characterized by apostasy and unbelief. In many countries especially the countries were formerly Christianity held sway, many un-Christian laws have been passed, like same sex marriage and legalizing abortions. For us Christians this is not something to be worried about. This is not the struggle between good and evil, but this are the "signs of the times". We can rest in the thought that God has given us the grace to recognize His Will and gave us the strength to give witness to this truth even in odd circumstances. Even if this RH Bill is passed, it is not something for us to worry. God is in control, only we should be grateful He has given us the strength to be faithful. That is what matters.

For those who accuse the church as digressive and medieval here is my reply: The church stands for what is moral and true. Truth and dogmas are unchanging. The mission of the church is to be faithful to the teachings of Christ. No matter what the clime and time may be, the mission of the church is to live faithfully to the call of Christ. It is not the mission of the Church to follow the trend and fads of this world. Modernity is not the norm. Fashion is not the trend. In fact the church is called to be separate and not to conform to the standards of this world, but to be conformed to the image and mind of Christ. 

For those who accuse the church as a bunch of pedophiles and child molesters here is what I can say: People do commit sins, even grievous sins. No one is exempted, even saints and angels did commit sins. The Church is made up of imperfect people all journeying towards the path of holiness. They were called to be Christians and followers of Christ not because they were holy but because they were sinners and Christ want to give them the opportunity to seek holiness. The Church as an organization is not human in origin, though human in composition. The Church is Divine in origin because the founder is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Thus the sinfulness of the members does not nullify the teachings of the church. Though is someways it can weaken the impact of the message if the bearers are sinners. But in this case I know that the Bishops and Priests leading the campaign are in good standing with the church. There are no known pedophiles leading the anti-RH rallies.

For those who claim that Vatican II Council allowed the laity or empowered the laity to espouse contraceptive mentality and to consider it as sanctioned by the Council, my response is: You have misread the Vatican II documents. You have read it with the lens of your biases and worldly advocacy to suit your agenda. Read it with the Church tradition in mind so that you will hear the right message.

Congr. Antonio Alvarez: Standing up for his faith

The following is the text of the explanation given by Congressman Antonio C. Alvarez on why he voted no to the RH bill: 

'My final vote should be in fidelity with what my Church stands for'

REP. ANTONIO C. ALVAREZ 

Speech of Rep. Antonio C. Alvarez during the nominal voting on the RH Bill on December 12, 2012

Mr. Speaker:

Three months from now, I will be marking my 27th year of uninterrupted service as an elected public official.

In formulating my final vote in this House, I drew mainly upon my experience as mayor for 12 years and provincial board member for six.

For in my years here, that has always been my way of appraising  proposals: to imagine the “implementability” of policies in a grassroots setting.

That is the best test because what I have discovered is that what is good on paper is not necessarily good in practice; what is good in the Batasan, is not always good for the barrios.

So far here are my conclusions:

All the purported things that this bill will do are already covered by a multitude of laws.

Thus, it is not a matter of legislation but implementation.

A barangay council can buy pills and even distribute them like confetti, but no barangay chairman will tell you that the same pills will cure poverty.

He will tell you instead that in the hierarchy of his constituents’ needs, schools, books, roads, water, and livelihood are far more important to them.

Sa bawat araw na ginawa ng Diyos, kadami-dami ang natatanggap kong sulat at text na humihingi ng tulong, mga resolutions na nakikiusap ng pondo, pero ni minsan hindi po ako nakatanggap ng sulat na humihingi sa akin ng condom o pilduras o IUD.

In many areas of my District, the best form of contraception is not the one that is unsheathed, but one that is switched on—and that is electricity.

There are good provisions in this bill, I admit, like the improvement of health facilities, but these are mere reiterations of what a government must do, so whether a government is pro-, anti-, or deadma on RH, it is duty-bound to provide these services.

So whether a woman is carrying a baby on purpose or by accident, through artificial insemination or by immaculate conception, she deserves to have access to the best medical care which should be provided—without the need for an RH bill.

Mr. Speaker:

I vote NO to this measure, and Mr. Speaker, please allow me to cite my last reason for it is also the most important reason for me.

I know that a lawmaker’s religious beliefs must not solely guide his vote.

But I will take the risk of allowing my final vote as a congressman to be shaped in part by the teachings of my Church, not because I believe that they are infallible, but because my final act should be in fidelity with what my Church stands for.

This is also an act of solidarity with my Church as it has come under attack as regressive, as archaic, and as antiquated.

But its past and its present belie this slander.

This is the Church that fought against tyranny, ousted a dictatorship, struggled against repression, and defended human rights.

This is the Church which continues to educate our young, heal our sick, shelter our homeless, and comfort our poor.  

This is a Church that treats people as the most important resource of a community. Unlike those pushing for this bill who treat them as liability.  Let us never forget that the most precious capital of all is HUMAN CAPITAL.

This is the Church whose teachings form our social glue, provide our moral anchor, and whose celebrations, including Christmas, strengthen our bond as a community.

So pray, tell me my friends, with this heritage and record how can I vote against it?

I vote NO to this measure.

Plagiarism Controversy - Nagtatanong lang po

Currently being shared over Facebook:

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?

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)

"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.

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.

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

GMA, the Catholic Bishops, and the Amnesia of the Philippine Media

In the course of the debates on the RH bill since the inauguration of President Benigno S. Aquino III, one accusation that the Philippine media has liked to repeat is that the CBCP is and has always been in cahoots with GMA, and that the bishops did not condemn her alleged corruption and never did anything to oppose her. How quickly amnesia kicks in for much of the mainstream media!

By way of response, I would like to post here a part of an essay that I circulated among some Catholic groups on January 2, 2008 regarding the attitudes shown by some of the bishops towards the November 29, 2007 mutiny in Makati. I'm not even including here the more numerous harshly anti-GMA statements made by a number of Catholic bishops from 2005 to 2010. While I do not deny that some bishops supported GMA and that some bishops turned to government agencies for help with programs for their flock, this cannot erase the words and actions of those bishops -- including, at one point, the President of the CBCP -- who were against GMA. 

Regardless of how one views the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and regardless of the soundness of the case for her forcible ouster before the end of her term as President, there can and should be no denying that some bishops were by no means GMA supporters, and went so far as to call for her ouster, either in implicit or explicit terms. By way of contrast, not one bishop has called for President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III to be overthrown because of his support for the RH bill. 

Background:  The support of Philippine Catholic bishops for the Peninsula Mutiny

The events at the Manila Peninsula last November 29, 2007 demonstrated, among other things, that there continues to be a section of the Catholic Church in the Philippines that believes in the necessity of an uprising or a revolution in order to remove the current Philippine government and install a revolutionary government to be led (according to Bishop Antonio Tobias of Novaliches) by the Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. Furthermore, this pro-revolutionary section enjoys the support of some members of the episcopate of the Catholic Church in the Philippines .

On keeping the Church out of the bedroom

An article written earlier this year by Teresa Tunay OCDS

'Ma, keep out of my bed!'

Quite a number of parents I know who have a good relationship with their children throw their hands up in frustration when it comes to the issue of the RH Bill.  A dear friend sounds weary telling me, “Hay naku, that subject is taboo in our home!  Mia is pro-RH.  She’s 22, studies at UP, and tells me, ‘Ma, you can tell me anything you want except go against RH.  Case closed!’ Imagine!  It makes me sooo sad!”

Another mother who is so passionately against RH Bill declined my offer of a pro-life car sticker, saying, “We have only one family car; my son will never use that sticker!”  She says that her 23-year old single, pro-RH son once and for all squelched her pro-life explanations with, “Ma, keep out of my bed!”  

Both mothers are devoted and practising Catholics, faithful to Church teachings, raised their children well, and have the sympathy and support of their husbands—typical of the happy middle class Filipino family.  And now, in their frustration, both are asking themselves, “Where did we go wrong?  They used to be such nice, obedient kids!” 

When a couple of my own nieces, in their late 20s, openly told me they were for the passage of the RH Bill, all I replied was, “Your are intelligent girls.  If you knew everything about that bill, you yourselves would fight it.”  They countered, “What’s wrong with giving maternal health services to poor people?”  Then the husband of one asked, “What else is there to know?”  I said, “Just think—if that bill were so perfect, why is it taking years to be passed?”  Long story short, he asked that I email him all background information I have about it.

So why would otherwise good and intelligent young people support such a damaging and misleading bill?  How do proponents of the bill lure to their camp well-meaning celebrities like Lea Salonga who herself admitted on TV during a debate that she does not contracept because she’d rather “leave it to God”, nor does she take the pill because “it’s bad for my voice”?  By the way, she was cut off the air at that point.

Young, supposedly smart people who openly and even loudly support the RH bill’s passage do so because they are misinformed—they are given limited information (usually about the “good side” of the bill) to tug at their heartstrings and make them believe they are doing the Filipino people some service by fighting anti-RH folks.

Others who tolerate RH Bill’s passage merely pick up information from the media—where the louder voices, as we know, are more commonly and easily heard and believed.  Few are convinced that the issue is important enough for them to read the bill, to follow the interpellation sessions, or to obtain more information from people in the know.

Worse, there is a malicious misinformation campaign aimed at establishing in the minds of the young that the RH Bill case is simply a Catholic Church vs. State issue: CBCP vs. Noynoy, Old vs. Modern, natural family planning vs. artificial, etc.  As a result many anti-Catholics, Catholics but anti-Church, and those who think themselves “cool” and avant-garde automatically judge the RH bill as commendable and put down the Church as a bunch of old fogeys and narrow-minded hypocrites who are woefully out of touch with reality. 

Enemies of the truth scheme to discredit the Church in the eyes of the young because the Church is the only institution potent enough to expose lies, defend the truth, and perpetuate the good.  The question is: how well are we arming our young people with the love of truth?      

In desperation, they turn to blasphemy

In recent days some supporters of the RH bill have launched a blasphemous "rosary campaign" for the passage of this bill. See this:

The blasphemous "HR for RH" image

On his blog, Dr. Quirino Sugon of Ateneo De Manila University exposes this campaign for what it is:

Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) using Mary and the Holy Rosary in vain

Something diabolical is afoot: Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH) is using Mary and the Holy Rosary to promote something which is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. I think they found a  mnemonic device: RH is Roproductive Bill, so HR is Holy Rosary. HR for RH. Sounds good, right? But alas, as the Holy Rosary and the Reproductive Health Bill are opposites that can’t be mixed, in the same way as one cannot mix water and oil.

Reproductive Health Bill is for contraception, but Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Contraceptives prevent conception; conception is the failure of contraception. Had Mary practiced contraception, we would not have Christ. The contraceptive mentality says:

“Mary, you are still young. A good life still awaits you. That child will prevent you from attaining that good life. You have a boyfriend, Joseph, an honest and just man.  You are already betrothed to him.  What will he say to you when he finds out that the child is not his?  He will despise you and leave you.  What will your parents and relatives say when they found you with child and Joseph divorced you, you will be despised by all.  Worst, they will hand you over to be stoned to death, according to the law of Moses.

And even if you and your child will escape death by stoning, you will have a hard life raising that child.  A Son of God?  That’s a ridiculous title?  No one will believe that.  Surely, you don’t believe that.  A prophet maybe, but not Son of God.  There is no precedence in history that God became man.  You are just deluding yourself that you are talking to an angel.  You fast too much that you began to see things that are not there.  Slap yourself in the face.  Maybe that would awake you to your senses.

But Mary said “No” to contraceptive mentality and “yes” to God.  And in doing so, she undid the disobedience of Eve, who took the fruit of disobedience in her womb, believing that she would be like God who can define what is good and what is evil.  Mary, said, “yes,” and the whole plan of salvation unfolded starting from her Immaculate womb:

Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.

It is Mary’s openness to life that should serve as model for all women.  A married woman becomes open to life if she accepts whatever child God gives her as a gift to be treasured and cared for.  Because the child is so great a gift, a woman must prepare for such great responsibility, by not having intercourse outside of marriage.  Chastity is the path to marriage and modesty is the guardian of chastity.  As the Song of Songs says: “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and hinds of the field, do not arouse, do not stir up love, before its own time.”

For the members of the Catholics for Reproductive Health (C4RH), if you still consider yourself Catholic, listen to what Pope Paul VI wrote in his encyclical Humanae Vitae:

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Filipinos for Life response to Rep. Kimi Cojuangco

From the official website of Filipinos for Life:

Official Statement: Setting the record straight 

March 21, 2012  

During interpellations Monday on the privilege speech given by Pangasinan Rep. Kimi Cojuangco, who is among the sponsors of House Bill 4244 which seeks to establish a taxpayer-funded contraceptive welfare program and mandatory sex education, the congresswoman went into a diatribe on the Catholic Church. Cojuangco was within her rights to try to convince her colleagues to vote for the measure. But the attack, which contained utter falsehoods, was uncalled for. 

Cojuangco needs a fact-checker. First of all, no massive rally has been called for March 25 to mark the “Day of the Unborn,” an international celebration promoting the dignity of human life. Rather, it was suggested by Pro-Life Philippines that pro-life groups hold “candle-lighting activities for the unborn; prayer meetings to spread the message of life and love; poster-designing contests revolving around the pro-life theme; seminars and exhibits related to pro-life issues; printing and distribution of leaflets and other information materials to encourage awareness of culture of life issues; and rallies or small public meetings to propagate the pro-life message.” 

Cojuangco accuses Catholic bishops of being a stumbling block, claiming the Philippines was still in the “dark ages.” But the bill is 80% redundant, as many provisions are already found in the 2009 Magna Carta for Women and other regulations. We do not need this bill. 

The congresswoman herself appears to be in the dark about the ill effects of artificial contraceptives which she wants to distribute to women at the expense of taxpayers. Oral contraceptive pills are classified by a WHO research unit as Group 1 carcinogens along with asbestos, arsenic, formaldehyde, and plutonium. 

Cojuangco should get her facts straight and carefully study the Church’s position on the RH bill, instead of engaging in juvenile attacks unbecoming of a legislator. 

The Church is opposed to chemical pills because these can lead to very early abortions. Medical literature have documented that aside from suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg, chemical agents in the pill have a third mechanism – terminating life by making the endometrial lining of the ovary hostile to a newly formed human being in cases where the first two mechanisms fail. 

It’s irresponsible for a lawmaker to recommend chemical contraception without disclosing its dangerous side effects and without considering the ethical and moral implications. Women deserve to know the truth about the pill. 

Cojuangco makes the erroneous and misleading claim that the family planning method accepted by the Church does not work, “Period.” 

German researcher Dr. Petra Frank-Herrmann found in 2007 that the Symptothermal Method’s effectiveness is “comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning. The Symptothermal Method involves monitoring fertility signs such as body temperature and cervical mucus secretions. It is a modern method of natural family planning endorsed by the Church, along with the Billings Ovulation Method and the Basal Body Temperature Method. 

On the contrary, artificial contraceptives, which are so widespread in countries like the US, have not reduced abortion because of significant failure rates. Cojuangco should be informed that in the US, half of women who had abortions used contraceptives in the month when they became pregnant. 

For Rep. Kimi Cojuangco to accuse the Church of meddling in state affairs is deceptive. The RH bill will trample upon individual and religious rights by forcing Catholic hospitals and doctors to provide contraceptives and sterilization services and mandating Catholic schools to teach contraception to students. Worse, Catholic taxpayers will foot the bill. 

The proponents of the bill are in fact the ones seeking to impose their own views, using taxpayers’ money, and with the coercive force of law. We call for more legislative debates on the bill, so Cojuangco and her allies would see the light.

CBCP for Life has published a report on this statement: Rep. Cojuangco told: ‘Get your facts straight’

A former Filipino anti-Catholic on young Filipino anti-Catholic netizens

From Pepe Alas' article on the appointment of Msgr. Luis Antonio Tagle as the Archbishop-elect of Manila: A famous theologian will be Manila's next Archbishop:

Catholic theologians such as the new Manila Archbishop should deftly explain that the Church’s stand against the RH Bill is not solely rooted in faith and morals alone. In the end, it all boils down to logic. And this is one of the first challenges that the latest Prince-Cardinal should tackle. 

Speaking of logic… 

Many young Filipino “intellectuals” today who love to make a punching bag out of the local Catholic Church claim to be “lovers” of ideologies and “champions” of liberalism. And that the Church is “out of logic”. They love to “philosophize” and display the many witty quips that they learn from tomes of books they claim to have read. They proclaim themselves as “the new Rizals”. They claim a hatred for mediocrity and “religious superstition”, clamoring for a more intelligent and “freethinking” Filipino. But many of them do all this for the mere heck of it, and not for the purpose of a better society. And now we have social networking. Through these new media they rant and multiply and increase, and they spend hours upon hours in front of their PCs than they do with their pet lizards because they could not get a real job nor could they maintain contact with physical friends (but to them, the words “contact” and “physical” could mean something else). Unfortunately, these kids, for all their intellectual hogwash, have already revealed their characters and self-worth by the choice of words that they use in various online forums. Wittingly or unwittingly, what these bunch of “sucks-to-be-you” kids are doing will only lead this country to anarchy. If they ever win, within a decade or two we will certainly have a transsexual president who will legitimize pole dancing as a school subject. I dare say all of this because I used to think like them — been there, done that. I’ve mingled with so many of these book-toting crybabies back in the 90s. And just thinking about it makes me supersick. 

What these “lemme-give-y’all-an-iota-of-my-superb-brain” jactanciosos claim to know about the Catholic Church is so superficial to say the least. All I can say is this: looking back at my brief anti-Catholic self, I just couldn’t believe how stupid I was (a long story that I’ll share one day). 

I’m glad that I dealt a lot with logic whenever I flip a page out of a dusty book. Gracias a Dios por este regalo de sabiduría. 

So here’s hoping that Manila’s new archbishop will also tackle the increasing number of “pseudo intellectuals” from elsewhere. Not for the Church’s sake actually, but for these proud but hapless kids’.

Remarkably enough, the author of these lines began his return to Catholicism from agnosticism as he struggled against the temptation of aborting his second child. As he relates in a blog post he made more than two years ago:

I was brought back to the Catholic fold last 2003 due mainly to personal researches about my country’s Spanish past. Along the way, I was able to discover and realize the leyenda negra (black legend) being hurled against the Spanish clergy. Ironically, I ended up defending the Spanish friars against everyone attacking them although I was still an atheist! Little by little, my “reconversion” was on its way. I soon became an agnostic. And one September night of that year, as I was pondering whether to have my wife abort our second child or not, God gave me a sign. 

You see, 2003 was the worst and arguably one of the best and memorable years of my life. I was jobless, disowned by my folks and various relatives, living in a decrepit bodega, penniless, you name it. It was during this year when I did nothing but read, write, ponder, steal books, ponder some more, dream. And since I was (surprisingly) having difficulty in getting employed, I thought that having another baby was too much (I was already then an agnostic during this time). I was goading my wife for days to give up the baby. I was giving her horrible scenarios of what might happen to us if she doesn’t accept abortion as a solution: poverty, poverty, and lotsa poverty. Finally, I was able to make her say yes. We planned of going to Quiapò to buy an infamous pill (Cytotec) to kill the fetus. 

I admit, however, that I felt uncertain and very afraid of doing it. So before committing the crime, I prayed to God for the very first time in years. While walking desolately along Chino Roces Avenue one night on my way home, I muttered, “Lord, if you are indeed real, show me a sign —any sign— that you disapprove of this abortion”. 

The sign came that very night. Upon arriving home, I talked again to my wife (without telling her that I prayed). I told her that we have to abort the fetus soon, the next day, while the it is not yet in human form (an infamous argument by “pro-choice” advocates). Quietly, she agreed. And as we slept together, I thought of my prayer – I had no idea what kind of sign I would receive… if God were ever real. After a few minutes, we drifted to sleep. 

But moments later, my wife woke me up. I was surprised — she was crying! In between sobs, she said she’d rather not have an abortion. She said she’s willing to face anything —EVERYTHING— just to keep the baby. I embraced her, and broke into tears as well. 

It was no coincidence or anything like that. It couldn’t have been any clearer: that was the sign I’ve been waiting for… 

GOD IS REAL. 

And so a few months later, a very handsome José Mario Guillermo II P. Alas —Momay— was born. And my stupid fear of poverty-ridden-days-ahead was just that: plain stupid. Because now our kids are four, and we’ve never been better than before!

Truth cannot be dependent upon "democracy"

DEMOCRACY IN THE CHURCH
Fr. Roy Cimagala

BECAUSE of some hot-button issues like the RH Bill, and now divorce, the charge is thrown into the open that the Church is dictatorial, is not democratic. I suppose, if we follow this line of thinking to the end, we will arrive at the conclusion that the Church is inhuman, is bad, and therefore should be killed, extinguished, annihilated.

Of course, this is ridiculous. This brings us to the realization that in our discussions, our passions should be held in control.

Otherwise, they would just mess up with our reasoning, exposing our biases, and leading us to all sorts of non-sequiturs, fallacies and ad hominems.

I find the charge both understandable and without basis.