Announcement: Vigil for Life in the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Makati and special Mass in St. Peter's Church along Commonwealth Ave.

PRAYER VIGIL AT OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SHRINE

Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle has called for a Prayer Vigil starting with a Mass at 6:30 p.m. tonight, December 11, the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Makati City, and also of the anticipated voting on the RH Bill in the House of Representatives. The overnight vigil continues tomorrow December 12, with masses at 6 a.m., 8 a.m, 12 noon, 5 p.m., 6:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. Cardinal Tagle will celebrate the Mass at the Shrine at 12 noon. He personally invites everyone to go to the Shrine for the vigil and/or the Masses.

There will also be a Mass at St. Peter's Church, Commonwealth Ave.:

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)

A call to prayer, fasting and vigilance on December 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted Nov. 12, 2012: 

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

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

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

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

Mary and the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death

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

Culture of Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reckless and Irresponsible

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:18:00 08/16/2008

Reckless and irresponsible

By Jo Imbong

REP. EDCEL LAGMAN, THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 asserts, among others, that the bill is neither antilife nor antifamily, that contraceptives are not life-threatening and that the bill does not impose a two-child policy.

Prolife? To value human life is to respect and protect life in all its seasons. “Human life begins at fertilization.” (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. IV, Sept. 18, 1986, pp. 761, 801) hence, “the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Constitution, Article II, Section 12). Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would protect human life “from implantation.”

By that token, the zygote not yet in the mother’s womb is not protected. Pills and the IUD hinder implantation of the embryo in the uterus, thereby precipitating the embryo’s destruction. That is abortion. And yet, “every child ... needs appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).

Not life-threatening? Records are rife of perforation of the uterus and serious pelvic infections in women with IUDs that public midwives have refused to extract. The Mayo Foundation found that oral contraceptives are associated with an increase risk of breast cancer. DepoProvera increases a woman’s risk for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Oral contraceptives containing cyproterone increase risk of deep venous blood clots.

Levonorgestrel is banned in this country as the Bureau of Food and Drugs found it to be abortifacient. Life-threatening ectopic pregnancies occur in mothers long after undergoing tubal ligation, particularly those sterilized before age 30.

Contraceptives as essential medicines? Contraceptives do not treat any medical condition. Fertility is not a disease. It attests to health! The bill targets “the poor, needy and marginalized.” This is most unkind to them whose real needs are jobs, skills, education, lucrative opportunities, nutrition, and essential medicines for anemia, tuberculosis, infections and childhood diseases.

Remember, every citizen has the right to health (Art. II, Sec.15), hence, the State has a duty to protect the citizens against dangerous substances (Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec.9), and protect women in their maternal function (Art. XIII,Sec. 14).

Family friendly? The “encouragement” to have two children is manipulation both brazen and subtle. It can set the stage for a stronger application of the recommendation through legislative amendments. Spouses have a basic, original, intrinsic and inviolable right “to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood” (Art. XV, Sec. 3 [1]). This includes their right to progeny.

The bill mocks parents with fine and imprisonment in refusing to expose their children to mandatory “age-appropriate” reproductive health education starting Grade 5 outside the loving confines of home and family.

Vulnerable and malleable, our children will be taught “adolescent reproductive health” and “the full range of information on family planning methods, services and facilities” for six years. This is child abuse of the highest order. And yet, “every child has the right to be brought up in an atmosphere of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and strengthening of his character.” (Child and Youth Welfare Code)

The ... care and nurtur[ance] of the child reside first in the parents (Article II, Sec. 12, Constitution), whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. (Brantley v. Surles, 718 F. 2d. 1354,1358-59) The State did not create the family, and “the child is not a creature of the State.” (Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268, U.S. 510, 535.) That is the law of nature, and no human institution has authority to amend it.

Quality of life? The bill wants to “uplift the quality of life of the people.” Population control started in 1976 “to increase the share of each Filipino in the fruits of economic progress.” In other words -- to eliminate poverty. Has it?

The General Appropriations Act of 2008 earmarks an enormous amount for “family planning and reproductive health services,” including contraceptives. For the Department of Health it is P3.19 billion; for Popcom -- P386.5 million, quite apart from funds for other agencies of government and local government units for the same programs. Add $2.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund for population and development and reproductive health for 2008, plus $2.2 million for 2009.

Today’s average family has three children compared with seven in the ’70s. But the billions of pesos spent have not reduced poverty or benefited the poor.

If Congress passes this bill, it wagers the future of the country. Citizens have a right to resist misplaced and irresponsible exercise of authority because the good of the people is the supreme law. Salus populi est suprema lex.

The path of irresponsible legislation is a dreadful path: If an act is made legal, it will be perceived as moral. If an act is perceived as moral, it will become a norm. If it is observed by all as a norm, then it is too late. By then, you will have changed the culture. That is not simply reckless. It is the ultimate breach of public trust.

(Jo Imbong, a lawyer, is the executive secretary of the Legal office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and consultant to the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life.)