Call to Prayer on July 9

ECFL Letter for the July 9 RH Law Oral Arguments

And don't forget:

Seven quotes on the RH bill

From the Facebook page of pro-life author, blogger and journalist Diana Uichanco:

”Sabi ho ng kabilang partido, kaya daw po naghihikahos ang gobyerno ay dahil walang budget for stretching. Nanggaling na mismo sa kanila ang stretching… eh di kung linagyan pa po ng pondo na pambili ng condoms at contraceptives, eh di you stretch [the budget] further. So alin po ang willing i-sacrifice ng pro-RH legislators sa budget para lang po namin maisingit ang gusto nilang pondo para sa procurement of condoms and contraceptives?

“We can even see that the budgets for education, for tertiary educational scholarships, skills training, livelihood projects, assistance for farmers, agrarian reform beneficiaries, are being cut.” – ZAMBALES REP. MITOS MAGSAYSAY

“It makes me wonder whether there is lack of freedom at present that warrants a new controversial measure that is HB 4244 just to give people a choice that they already enjoy. Certainly it is not prohibited to practice natural family planning or to abstain from sex altogether, nor is it prohibited at present to use contraceptives. Is there any existing law that prevents us from exercising freedom of choice on matters of contraception and abstinence? There is none.” – PALAWAN REP. DENNIS SOCRATES

"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.” – ED SORRETA, PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES CHAIRMAN

“The RH promoters do whatever they have to do to get these things passed — they spend their money in promotion, in getting journalists on their side, opening clinics to circumvent pro-life laws, wooing politicians who value their own power more than they do the families and culture of the nation they represent. If they can’t get what they want — which is free-of-charge and full access to contraception and abortion — passed democratically, they will use the courts or other non-democratic means to get what they want.” – STEPHEN PHELAN, HUMAN LIFE INT'L (HLI) COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

“In 1984 was the AIDS breakout in the Philippines and in Thailand at the same time. The response in the Philippines was to promote abstinence; the response of Thailand was to promote condoms. Twenty years later, the rate of AIDS infection in Thailand was 50 times higher than in the Philippines.” – CHRIS STEFANICK, CHASTITY SPEAKER

“They want us to accept from Congress what is contrary to our faith. They ask Catholics to show tolerance for their belief or non-belief, but they show complete non-tolerance for our Catholic belief.” – FORMER SENATOR, FRANCISCO TATAD

“Banal ang pag-aasawa; banal ang pagtatalik sapagka’t ito ay kalakip ng pagbibigay ng buhay na galing sa Panginoong Diyos. Hindi ito laru-laruan na ituturo sa mga bata sa paggamit ng goma, lobo o condom, para iwasan daw ang sakit? Bakit mga bata ang tuturuan ng ganitong laro? Hindi po ba ang tamang ituro sa kabataan ay ang magandang halimbawa ng matatanda at ang kahalagahan ng buhay, ang kabanalan ng pagpipigil sa sarili na ang tawag ay disiplina? Ang tawag po noong una ay kapag may pagpipigil, mayroong disiplina at paggalang at magkakaroon din ng Karakter ang tao. Ngayon ang gustong ipamulat sa kabataan ay ito: gamitin ang goma, maglaro kayo! Ganyan kabarato ang buhay ng tao ngayon.” – FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA GAUDENCIO CARDINAL ROSALES, at the March 25, 2011 pro-life rally

The RH bill: a moral time bomb

The Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan on the final passage of the RH bill in both Congress and Senate:

Let us move on

For the record: Catholic Pastoral Letters on the RH Bill, December 15 to 16, 2012

1) The Pastoral Letter of the CBCP on the RH Bill: 

Contraception is Corruption! (Signed by Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan.)

The same letter, in Filipino:

Ang Kontrasepsyon Ay Katiwalian CBCP Pastoral Statement

2) Pastoral Letter of Bishop Ramon Villena of the Diocese of Bayombong: 

We Believe in God, We Believe in Life, We Believe in Miracles.

3) Pastoral Letter of Abp. Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle on the RH Bill (after the 2nd voting). "Pahayag sa Simbanggabi, Dec. 16, 2012..."

CAP commentary: This is a different and later statement from Cardinal Tagle's statement of December 12, 2012 (See this: Statement of His Eminence, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, on the RH bill)

In the interests of fairness and accuracy, this statement by Cardinal Tagle -- which mentions the RH bill only in passing -- does not directly tell Congressmen and Senators to vote versus the RH bill. Instead, it simply tells them to "accept Jesus with joy", and reminds them that it is the Word and Wisdom of Jesus that is necessary to form consciences.

Tagle Statement

4) The Pastoral Letter that Archbishop Socrates Villegas penned specifically for his Archdiocese:

PRAISE AND REBUKE

TO BE READ IN ALL MASSES IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LINGAYEN DAGUPAN AT THE START OF THE HOMILY ON DECEMBER 16, 2012.

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

On the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, our congressmen voted on second reading the Reproductive Health Bill. The goal is to rush the passage of the Bill before the start of the Congress Christmas break. The same seems to be the goal of our senators.

I am very pleased to issue this public commendation to our representatives in Congress namely Congresswoman Gina de Venecia, Congresswoman Rachel Arenas and Congressman Leopoldo Bataoil for voting against the Reproductive Health Bill. They are our heroic and exemplary representatives in Congress. They voted to stand up for life. They voted to stand up for morality and decency. They voted as God loving government officials. We commend them for their courageous conviction and encourage you my dear Catholic faithful to support them with your prayers and make known to them your appreciation for their fidelity to our cherished Filipino Catholic values.

The Reproductive Health Bill, if passed into law in its present form, will put the moral fibre of our nation at risk. As I have said in the past, a contraceptive mentality is the mother of an abortion mentality. The wide and free accessibility of contraceptives, even to the youth, will result in the destruction of family life and in greater violence against women.

The Church is your mother protecting you from harm. If passed into law in its present form, it will not take long for the supporters of the Bill to see the irreparable harm they will bequeath to the younger generation. Those who mislead the young invoke divine punishment on themselves. Let us leave to the young a legacy of decency and morality not promiscuity and moral corruption.

+SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS

Archbishop of Lingayen Dagupan

5) The Pastoral Letter of Bishop Leo Drona:
An Open Letter to the Congressmen of the Four Districts of Laguna

Statement of His Eminence, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, on the RH bill

Statement of the Archdiocese of Manila

The vote in favour of the RH Bill in Congress is unfortunate and tragic. But we do not take it as a defeat of truth – for truth shall prevail, especially the truth about human life, marriage and the family. We thank and commend the Representatives of Congress, the Church people, organizations and citizens who worked hard and tirelessly in a variety of ways to expose the flaws of the RH bill, to form consciences and to contribute to the search for the common good. This vote leads us to further commit the Church, specifically the Archdiocese of Manila to the service of the poor, of the family, of women, of infants and children. We will work harder to promote the sanctity of human life and of the human person, the integral education of the youth, the access of the poor to social and medical services, the preservation of the true meaning of marriage, and stewardship of creation. We call on all Filipinos to work towards healing, and journey together humbly and justly as children of God.

+ LUIS ANTONIO G. CARDINAL TAGLE

Archbishop of Manila

12 December 2012


Source of image

Message of the Archbishop of Cebu to the House of Representatives

This message came out today

The Varsitarian has published an article about this statement: Cebu archbishop hits RH bill, warns vs 'contraceptive mentality'

UPDATED: Cardinal Tagle and 15 bishops: don't rush the passage of the RH bill. (Full text of the actual declaration.)

Statement of the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Manila

In their pre-Christmas gathering held on December 4, 2012, the bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Manila reflected on the discussions on the RH Bill in Congress yesterday, December 3, 2012. We are appealing to the Honorable Representatives to give ample time to the deliberations and discernment and not to unduly rush them. We also appeal to them to conduct the deliberation and decision with transparency through nominal voting and respect for the diversity of views. 

 + Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle Archbishop of Manila
 + Gabriel V. Reyes Bishop of Antipolo
 + Honesto F. Ongtioco Bishop of Cubao
 + Deogracias S. Iñiguez Bishop of Kalookan
 + Jose F. Oliveros Bishop of Malolos
 + Antonio R. Tobias Bishop of Novaliches
 + Jesse E. Mercado Bishop of Parañaque
 + Mylo Hubert C. Vergara Bishop of Pasig
 + Leo M. Drona Bishop of San Pablo
 + Leopoldo S. Tumulak Bishop of the Military Ordinariate
 + Pedro D. Arigo Vicar Apostolic Puerto Princesa
 + Edgardo S. Juanich Vicar Apostolic of Taytay
 + Francisco M. de Leon Auxiliary Bishop of Antipolo
 + Bernardino C. Cortez Auxiliary Bishop of Manila
 + Broderick S. Pabillo Auxiliary Bishop of Manila
 Fr. George A. Morales Diocesan Administrator of Imus

***

From CBCP News:

Cardinal Tagle: Don’t rush RH bill

MANILA, Dec. 4, 2012— The head of Manila’s Roman Catholic Church has joined calls for lawmakers not to rush the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill.

In a statement, Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle and 15 other bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Manila said that there is a need to discuss the proposed legislation thoroughly.

“We are appealing to the Honorable Representatives to give ample time to deliberations and discernment and not to unduly rush them,” part of the statement reads.

In their pre-Christmas gathering held on Tuesday the bishops reflected on the discussions on the population control measure in Congress yesterday.

Antipolo Bishop Gabriel Reyes said they agree that the bill will promote harm than its supposed benefits to the country.

“They should not hurry up the bill because it is the future of Filipinos that is at stake here,” said Reyes who also chairs the CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL)

Transparency 

The church leaders also called for transparency if the controversial measure will be put into a vote.

“We are appealing to them to conduct the deliberation and decision with transparency through nominal voting and respect for the diversity of views,” they said.

According to Reyes, the people have the right to know the position of their respective representatives on the RH bill.

And if the lawmakers would continue with the “viva voce” scheme of voting, he said it only means the issue will affect their election chances next year.

“They know that they will have a problem in the coming elections if they voted for RH bill because there are so many people who are against it,” he said.

Among the signatories of the statement are Bishops Honesto Ongtioco of Cubao, Deogracias Iñiguez of Kalookan, Jose Oliveros of Malolos, Antonio Tobias of Novaliches, and Jesse Mercado of Parañaque.

Bishops Mylo Hubert Vergara of Pasig, Leo Drona of San Pablo, Leopoldo Tumulak of the Military Ordinariate, Pedro Arigo of Puerto Princesa, Edgardo Juanich of Taytay also signed the statement.

Auxiliary Bishops Francisco De Leon of Antipolo and Broderick Pabillo and Bernardino Cortez of Manila and Fr. George Morales, Diocesan Administrator of Imus also joined Cardinal Tagle’s appeal.

Earlier, the ECFL called on lawmakers to make known their position on the RH bill instead of hiding under the cloak of “ayes” or nays”.

Last August, lawmakers in Congress had voted to end the plenary debates on the measure through the viva voce vote. 

Denial 

Reyes belied a newspaper report quoting a member of the House majority that he attended a supposed meeting between lawmakers and some bishops on the RH bill.

The bishop also denied giving inputs to the “substitute bill” of the HB 4244.

He said Speaker Feliciano Belmonte could attest that he was not part of any meeting on the measure.

“This is a malicious misrepresentation by the anonymous member of the House majority,” Reyes said. (CBCPNews)

CBCP-ECFL statement on the voting process for the RH bill

Bp Reyes Statement on RH Voting Procedures



From CBCP for Life:

Demand nominal voting if RH bill put to a vote, says bishop

MANILA, Dec. 3, 2012—Despite the public outcry against the highly controversial population control bill, it looks like Malacanang is doing what it can to influence the legislature and speed up action on House Bill 4244, prompting Antipolo Bishop Gabriel V. Reyes to enjoin Filipinos to demand transparency from legislators should they insist on putting the measure to a vote.

“Let us demand from our Congressmen, specially the leaders of Congress, that the voting be nominal, whenever a vote on a part on the whole of the Substitute Bill of the House Bill 4244 is taken,” the bishop, who heads the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL), said in a recent statement on the voting procedure on the bill.

“It is the right of the people to know how their respective Congressmen voted on this important bill,” Reyes pointed out.

Solons averse to nominal voting?

The apparent lack of transparency in the process of legislation involving the highly controversial reproductive health (RH) bill has been noted twice particularly in the last three months.

The period of interpellations was suddenly halted at the Lower House when, on the afternoon of August 6, majority of the lawmakers voted viva voce for the termination of the debates on the bill, following their meeting with President Benigno Aquino III earlier that day. The vote had originally been scheduled for August 7.

On November 26, the House accepted – again through viva voce voting – individual amendments by way of substitute bill as the new one under consideration. Viva voce (live voice) voting refers to voting by speech – saying “aye” or “nay” (yes or no) instead of by written or printed ballot (nominal voting refers to a scheme in which lawmakers cast their votes one by one and will be allowed to explain their votes on the bill).

Seconds later, after Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia made a motion for nominal voting, ALAGAD Party-List Representative Rodante Marcoleta moved for adjournment.

Deputy Speaker Crispin Remulla hence declared session adjourned till the following day.

Social analysts and pundits have pointed out that highly controversial measures – of which the RH bill has proven to be one – ought to be dealt with in legislative proceedings not by shouting one’s preference, which viva voce essentially involves.

Reyes also issued a statement on December 2, calling on all believers to a day of prayer and fasting today to uphold the sanctity of life, as a meeting in Malacañang between President Benigno Aquino III and his allies in Congress takes place noon, followed by the expected push for the RH bill’s passage at Batasang Pambansa in the afternoon.

Pro-life and pro-family organizations from different parishes and dioceses, as well as life advocates from secular groups are expected to troop to the House of Representatives today to express their anti-RH sentiments and show their support for the anti-RH lawmakers. (CBCP for Life)

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.

More responses to the 192 pro-RH Ateneo professors

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

Aug 22, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDGARDO SORRETA

Chairman

Pro-Life philippines

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

Re-claim The Catholic Identity of the Ateneo de Manila

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

Petition Background (Preamble): 

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

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

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

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

Petition: 

August 15, 2012 

Written on the Solemnity of Our Ladyʼs Assumption

Father Jose Ramon T. Villarin, S.J

President  

and  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We therefore; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr.

Coordinator

Ateneo Latin Mass Society

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

Schools defying Church teachings may lose Catholic status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have as much right to expose the dangers and ills of the Bill as those who promote it." -- Abp. Jose Palma on the termination of debates in Congress over the RH Bill

From CBCP News:

A Matter of Fairness

CBCP Statement on the recent voting in the House of Representatives ending the debates on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill

It was not supposed to happen. The agreement was to vote on August 7, 2012, when every side would have been ready and prepared to defend its cause as in any democratic setting.

Unfortunately, in a move remarkable in its stealth and swiftness, the ruling group of the House of Representatives, on August 6, 2012, managed to force a vote that terminated the period of debates on the RH Bill. It came a full day too soon, just when “no one was looking”. Except for the cabal of schemers, people were caught off-guard by the suddenness of the execution, especially those who oppose the Bill on faith or principle.

We are dismayed by the display of naked power. We lament the unilateral disregard of prior agreement in the pursuit of selfish goals. We detest the unbridled resort to foul tactics. We denounce the brazen disregard of the basic tenets of fair play and attempt to railroad the passage of the Bill. Not least, we question the surrender of legislative discretion to an intrusive President, reminiscent of the events leading to the impeachment proceedings.

The Catholic Church and those who are similarly minded ask for nothing more than fairness. After all, we have as much right to expose the dangers and ills of the Bill as those who promote it. So much is at stake in this fight for life: protection of women’s health against harmful contraceptives; preservation of parental authority over minor children; protection of the youth against valueless sex education; wrongful discrimination of the poor; wasteful disbursement of billions of pesos for contraceptives while many of the poor die of cancer, tuberculosis, dengue and other ailments without the benefit of medicine; suppression of dissent and civil liberties through threatened imprisonment and gradual annihilation of the Philippine race through systematic reduction of maternal fertility rate.

In the face of a well-funded campaign to have the RH Bill passed as envisioned by foreign institutions, and despite the undeserved attacks it is reaping, the Catholic Church stands firm in its resolve to fight this deadly measure at every turn and no matter the cost ― all for love of God, flock, and country.

We commend the bravery and dedication of legislators who continue to resist the Bill even at the risk of retaliation from the powers-that-be.  To them go our blessing and the gratitude of the faithful. Their courageous and patriotic acts will be remembered long after the last debate had been waged and the final vote had been cast.

Finally, we urge all devoted Catholics to unite against the Bill.  Intensify your prayers and let your voices be heard and your actions seen against this deadly measure. Truth is on our side. Developed countries with dwindling population are beginning to realize the folly of population control, and some, like Singapore, regret having adopted it. Most importantly, the Bill’s anti-life features go against our Constitution, our treasured traditions and the basic teachings of the Catholic Church as enunciated years ago by Pope Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II.

For and in behalf of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,

(SGD)+ JOSE S. PALMA, D.D.

Archbishop of Cebu & President, CBCP

13 August 2012

Archbishop Jose Palma: "There is an ill portent for the nation when government does not look at its own population as a source of grace and blessing."

Statement of CBCP President Archbishop Jose S. Palma D.D. on RH Bill

Every birth is a gift from God; every new life, a blessing; every birth a cause for rejoicing and praising God who creates new life only out of love.

Our country’s positive birth rate and a population composed of mostly young people are the main players that fuel the economy. A fact that even the government itself acknowledges as it is determined to feed, educate and keep the young people healthy.

And rightly so, for even our Constitution acknowledges that human resource is a primary social and economic force.

Earlier this year, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas reported that the hard earned salaries of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) that were sent to their families for the first 11 months last year amounted to $18.3 billion, which is a 7.3 percent increase in the same period in 2010.

Filipino men and women who endure the travails of working on foreign soil play a significant role in propping up our economy.

The country’s robust population is a big boost to our economy, according to former US President Bill Clinton, local and international financial institutions and the public sector.

It is therefore quite disturbing when the country is told that having too many school children is a burden to the national budget.

Can we have enough of schooled, skilled, diligent and highly driven young people who are a driving force of economic progress?

The draconian population control policy of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill would only curtail our economic growth. The problem of countries with former robust economies is the lack of young workers for their industries and inadequate support for their aging population.

The issue on maternal deaths is a serious concern. The solution does not lie in suppressing births as provided in the RH Bill.

Providing proper and adequate maternal care could be done without passing the RH bill, but by strengthening and improving access to existing medical services.

There is an ill portent for the nation when government does not look at its own population as a source of grace and blessing.

There is a grave reason to worry when government would rather suppress population through an RH bill instead of confronting the real causes of poverty.

+ JOSE S. PALMA, DD

Archbishop of Cebu

President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

Statement on RH Bill - Bishop Palma

For the record: Bishop Broderick Pabillo et al in defense of the Church's position towards HIV-AIDS and HIV-AIDS victime

In recent days a variety of articles have appeared in the Philippine media, blaming the Catholic Church for the spread of AIDS! Why? Because, according to these reports, the Church condemns the use of condoms, and thus it can be assumed that this condemnation is obeyed by men who have sexual relations with other men! A patently illogical criticism, as practicing homosexuals are evidently not obeying the Catholic Church in the first place. 

Vital facts overlooked in editorial

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

This refers to “Overlooked epidemic” (Inquirer, 7/8/12) on the rising number of HIV/AIDS cases in the Philippines. Surprisingly, the editorial failed to focus on where the disease actually is and those most at risk. Without focus, we end up just shooting in the dark. The Church also becomes victim of the haphazard criticism that it “has not been of much help, with its continued opposition to the use of condoms.” This statement overlooks vital facts.

Worldwide, the Catholic Church provides over 25 percent of all health care for those living with HIV/AIDS. In the Philippines, the Catholic bishops have shown concern on the issue as far back as 1993 with its pastoral letter “In the Compassion of Jesus” and “Who is my Neighbor?” in 2011. The Philippine Catholic HIV & AIDS Network (PhilCHAN), under the guidance of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, is engaged in a values-based prevention campaign in schools and parishes; actively promotes voluntary counseling and HIV testing for early diagnosis and treatment, as well as behavior change; provides psycho-spiritual accompaniment to those newly diagnosed with the virus, and has set up a modest fund for livelihood support. The Church is at the frontline of the battle against AIDS, helping—and supported by many NGOs—in government efforts to combat this deadly disease. It may thus be unfair, even a sign of ignorance or prejudice, to claim that the Church has not been of much help.

On condoms, well, it does not support the widespread distribution of condoms because there is no evidence that the strategy is effective at a population-wide level. Dr. Edward Green, former director of the prestigious AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, wrote that scientific studies in the Lancet, Science and British Medical Journal confirmed that “condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa.” This can be explained by inconsistent condom use and by the phenomenon of “risk compensation” whereby an individual who thinks he is protected actually takes more risks.

The editorial surprisingly also overlooks the group most at risk of HIV, the so-called MSM, males who have sex with other males. Eighty-five percent of the new cases of HIV in the Philippines this year involve MSM. If we want to target the epidemic, we need to target the most at risk groups. The USAID report from 2001, clearly stated that “the Church is not a hindrance to the high-risk groups…. where the rise in HIV is happening…. Those men probably do not have hesitations about condoms because of their Catholic faith.” It would thus be ludicrous and rather short-sighted to blame the spread of HIV in the MSM group on the Church.

Those who blandly promote condom use as a magic panacea for the MSM group are doing our brothers a great disservice and an injustice.

—BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, bishop-advisor and CBCP-NASSA national director; DR. JAMES MCTAVISH, FMVD, MD, FRCSed, MA(Bioethics), STL; SR. PILAR VERZOSA, RGS;

JOSEPHINE IGNACIO

The urgency of pro-life advocacy

Bishop Gabriel Reyes gave this talk during the second day of the National "Philippines for Life" Congress in Cebu held from November 16 to 18 of this year. CBCP for Life has a news article summarizing the talk: Choices must be based on correct conscience, bishop reminds faithful.

The full text is taken from the website of the Diocese of Antipolo:

Pro-Life Advocacy: Its Urgency in Our Present Society

Msgr. Gabriel Reyes DD, Bishop of Antipolo

My talk will not be long. In this talk I will focus on why it is urgent that we work hard so that the House Bill 4244 or the so called Reproductive Health Bill will not be passed by Congress and the Senate. I will also explain and refute the ideas on which those who are in favor of the HB 4244 base themselves.

Before anything else I would like to remind ourselves of the broader or complete meaning of pro-life advocacy. We should defend and promote life from the womb to the tomb in all stages of life. Here I would like to quote lengthily from the encyclical letter of Blessed John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae, the Gospel of Life, No. 3”

“Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church's very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).

Bishop Leonardo Medroso: 7 billion people + Jesus Christ = still the best possible world

Faith and the World of 7 Billion Humans

Msgr. Leonardo Medroso DD

October 29, 2011

Just some days ago the 'Philippine Daily Inquirer’ carried a banner article on its front page anent the world population which is to hit 7 billion anytime these days. Relative to this is the account that while the number of children in the family has been reduced to 2.5, the infant mortality has substantially dropped and life expectancy has soared to 68 years. Released by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the statistic was received with differing reactions. Some take it as an alarming news for it augurs the threat of overpopulation with its concomitant problems in the area of economy, such as the equitable distribution of wealth and services, the creation of new jobs , housing and other necessary facilities; of the environment, such as the rise of carbon emissions, garbage management and proper disposals; of social concerns as migration of rural folks to the cities, the rising gap between the haves and the have-nots. Others take the UN report with optimism and a bit of a swagger for it bespeaks of man’s triumph on this earth: human spirit over dense matter, science over superstitions, knowledge over darkness and ignorance, modern technology over man’s limitations, confidence over the forces that ever threaten man’s life.

The true Christian welcomes the United Nations statistical data regarding population, for he is convinced that the report is a statement of fact. After all, Christian faith is about reality, flesh and blood truths. It is not a religion of the imagination, but of facts; it does not teach man what is apparently good, but what is really good. Reality is the locus of Christian faith for it is in reality where the man of faith meets his God. The God of the Christian is the God who listens to the cries of the poor, the God who deigned to take up the human flesh, and lived out his story with us, giving it up as a ransom for all.

Hence, reality has to be faced squarely. That man has survived and increased to a staggering number of 7 billion in spite of the negative factors that have so often threatened his survival, that his life span has expanded to almost 70, and that mortality rate of his children has plunged, is a good news. He has faithfully responded to what God has enjoined him to do with this world when He said: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the things that move on the earth” (Gn 1:28). The report on the reduction of the number of children in the family to 2.5 is objectively a good news. But it does not stop the man of faith to probe with the question: in what way was the number of children reduced?

The man of faith believes that the world and everything in it is a creation of God. He knows that the world did not just pop out from a big explosion, for he believes in the existence of a Transcendental One who created everything out of nothing and breathed into man’s nostril the breath of life. He knows too that this Creator of his is a personal God, a God of the living. He knows that God came into this earth and declared to His creation: “Do not be concerned for your life, what you are to eat, or for your body, what you are to wear. Consider the ravens: they do not sow, they do not reap, they have neither cellar nor barn – yet God feeds them. How much more important you are than the birds. Which of you by worrying can add a moment to his life span? … Stop worrying. The unbelievers of this world are always running after these things. Your Father knows that you need such things. Seek out instead his kingship over you, and the rest will follow in turn” (Lk 12:22-25; 29-31). The man of faith therefore walks this earth with confidence and poise no matter the forces that threaten him.

It is for this reason too that the Holy Father having perceived the many fears that have hounded modern man came out with a Letter “Porta Fidei” announcing a year long celebration of Faith by 2012. He knows that man has gone astray because of these fears that he has forgotten to hope and to love. He knows that left to himself man can easily be swamped by thousand and one existential problems and death threatening events. The proclamation of the content of Faith should bring man to a personal encounter with Christ, know His ways, understand a little his plans. Or it should bring God into the consciousness of man so that he can realize that God’s hands made him and shaped him in his mother’s womb, that God’s Law is always right, governing the world in perfect harmony.

Through the celebration of the Year of Faith we are hopeful that the world alarmed by its 7 billion citizens would soon realize that God is more powerful than all our problems. The Holy Father put it this way: “To a greater extent than in the past, faith is now being subjected to a series of questions arising from a changed mentality which, especially today, limits the field of rational certainties to that of scientific and technological discoveries. Nevertheless, the Church has never been afraid of demonstrating that there cannot be any conflict between faith and genuine science, because both, albeit via different routes, tend towards the truth” (Porta Fidei).

Christ being with us this earth of 7 billion warm bodies is still our best possible world.

The New Archbishop of Manila and the RH Bill

The Catholic Position on the RH Bill congratulates His Excellency, Luis Antonio G. Tagle DD, Bishop of Imus, on his appointment to the See of Manila as its 32nd Archbishop by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. 

On this occasion, it is important to recall that the Archbishop-elect has spoken out repeatedly versus the RH bill. This blog's posts on Archbishop-elect Tagle's statements versus the bill can be found here. 

The CBCP for Life Youtube channel has all of Archbishop-elect Tagle's videos versus the RH bill in one page: The Word Exposed - RH Bill Series. 

On the refusal of RH bill supporters to admit that their pet bill supports abortion

From Journal Online:

Missing the point

Bishop Teodoro Bacani

The arguments for or against the RH bills both in the Lower House and in the Senate continue unabated. I notice, though, that the pro-RH people in general do not get or refuse to get one of the major objections against the bill. It is this: The so-called contraceptives to be purchased and distributed by the government to the poor are not only contraceptives. They are, in fact, abortifacients.

We who oppose the RH bill do not equate contraception with abortion. We know the distinction very well. When ovulation is prevented or when fertilization is prevented, you have contraception. But when the pill, device or procedure do not only prevent ovulation or fertilization but prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum or to dislodge from the uterus the already fertilized ovum, you are already talking of abortion. Now, many of these so-called contraceptive devices (pills, IUDs, injectables, and implants) are precisely designed to prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting itself on the uterine wall. The IUD would dislodge the fertilized ovum already implanted on the uterine wall (endometrium).

This third abortifacient function of these contraceptives was not yet known when Humanae Vitae was issued in July 1968. This encyclical-letter very strongly rejected abortion. It also rejected explicitly direct contraception. It was this rejection of all direct contraception which became very controversial then and up to the present. But even those who would disagree with the Pope in his rejection of all direct contraception have no grounds for accepting direct abortion. After the encyclical, the abortifacient effect of many pills came to be known: They do not only prevent conception; they also prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Attacks on papal authority or on the binding force on Catholics of the papal teaching against contraception, therefore, are no argument in favor of the RH bill. The most objectionable part of this bill is not its promotion of contraceptive devices but its proposed dissemination by the government of contraceptive devices which are abortifacient.

To a person, all the proponents of the RH bill claim they are against abortion, and that the bill does not promote abortion. Why then do they propose in the bill the dissemination by the government of devices which are abortifacient?

Some would say that there are opinions from authoritative bodies that the contraceptive devices are not abortifacients since those bodies say that conception begins at implantation.

The answer to that is: The majority today still hold that conception happens at fertilization and not at implantation (which takes place about a week after fertilization). But even if we admit, for the sake of argument, that there is a division of opinion, there is no sound ethics that will admit the direct killing of what is at least probably a human being. When there is any serious doubt at all about the existence of a human life, it is ethically wrong to kill that life. For example, you do not shoot at what seems to be an animal hiding in the bushes if there is at least a probability that it may be a human being and not an animal. Likewise, an embalmer should not embalm a body which may still probably be alive.

This is what the proponents of the RH bill seem to ignore or are ignorant of.

Once they look at this argument in the eye, they will be left only with proposing the dissemination of condoms or spermicides or those pills which will be certified as not capable of preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum. I do not think they will relish that prospect.

But in all this matter, we should all seek divine guidance. We should pray for our enlightenment and the enlightenment of those who propose or support the bill.

More than for enlightenment, we should also pray for the courage to do what is right and not vote for a bill simply because the party bosses say so.