Interceding versus the RH bill

From the Facebook page of Pro-Life Philippines comes this document, the second declaration of the Intercessors for the Philippines versus the RH bill. The first was in August (see Three Evangelical / Protestant groups versus the RH bill ): 

A MANIFESTO:

INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES’ (IFP) STAND ON THE RH BILL

WHEREAS, pending in the Senate and House of Representatives are two measures that aim to formulate a national policy on responsible parenthood, reproductive rights and health and population and development, popularly known as the “RH Bill”;

WHEREAS, INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP) understands and respects the policy objective of the RH Bill that the State must recognize, guarantee and promote the human rights of all persons, the right to sustainable human development, the right to health, which include reproductive health, the right to education and information with respect to these matters, and the right to choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethical and cultural beliefs in carrying out the demands of responsible parenthood;

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines has clearly established fundamental principles regarding the recognition, protection of the sanctity and inviolability of family life as a basic social institution, the sacredness of human life including the life of the unborn from conception, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of children for civic efficiency and the development of moral character and the equality of a woman and man before the law; 

WHEREAS, enshrined in these basic constitutional principles are tenets, values and teachings in the Holy Bible that serve as vital parameters and compelling guideposts towards promoting and pursuing the aforestated policy objectives, which Bangon Pilipinas Party asserts should be faithfully and reverently read through in all the provisions of and constitute the framework upon which the RH Bill should be anchored;

WHEREAS, INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP) unequivocally upholds the aforestated constitutional principles and its biblical basis and condemns the killing of the life of the unborn, the promotion of immorality, the weakening of the institution of marriage, and the derogation of the natural and primary parental rights and duties in the rearing of children for civic efficiency and moral development;

WHEREAS, it is imperative that the RH Bill must conform to the spirit and letter of these fundamental principles, which embody the religious heritage of the Filipino in order to protect and promote the welfare of the people under the rule of law, and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace;

WHEREFORE, after diligent study and prayerful deliberation while imploring the aid of Almighty God for guidance and wisdom, INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP) hereby respectfully submits to the Government and the Filipino people this Manifesto. 

INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP) declares its position regarding the RH Bill, and affirms its commitment to the principles and policies of the Constitution adopting and preserving sacred Biblical tenets, values and teachings, as follows: 

a. Life begins at conception, that is upon fertilization of the sperm and the egg;

b. Life of the unborn at conception must be protected by the State as guaranteed by the Constitution;

c. Any attempt to intercept or prevent the viability of the fertilized egg by any drug or device as by preventing its implantation in the uterus of the mother violates the Constitution;

d. We reject and condemn all forms of killing, abortion and the use of abortifacients and other similar drugs or devices;

e. Teaching children sex is naturally and primarily vested on the parents and it is not in keeping with these constitutional principles for the State to teach the subject to young children within the Grade 5 Level age group. Sexuality education to be supported by the State should be in the context of marriage, and should begin at the natural age of puberty which is by High School;

f. Gender equality as guaranteed by the Constitution refers to equality of woman and man as ordained in our laws consistently with biblical tenets, values and teachings and marriage should remain between a husband and a wife;

g. The exercise of faith and freedom of conscience must not be proscribed. Freedom of religion and expression is protected by the Constitution, including the right to criticize any law in a manner that would not undermine, deprive, impair or otherwise unduly interfere with the rights and duties of others;

h. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in rearing children according to their religious beliefs, ethical and cultural orientations is guaranteed by the Constitution and that all forms of threat or endangerment in carrying out this right and duty must be assiduously safeguarded.

i. The right to life of those already born is not different from the right to life of the unborn, which require equal protection under the law. Furthermore, it is not a right to merely survive or exist but involves guarantees by the State as to the quality of life itself.

j. Church or religious teachings set the high standards for our society’s moral and ethical values. These include, among other things, love and respect for God and fellowman, the sacredness and value of human life, the sanctity of marriage and family and the natural and primary right and duty of parents in rearing the child, which should be safeguarded from any threat or danger with the full support of government. 

THEREFORE, INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP) respectfully implores Government, particularly the President and the members of the Legislature, to uphold and defend the foregoing fundamental principles, values and tenets in and during the deliberation of the RH Bill, with prayer for Almighty God’s most merciful and abundant blessings upon our land and its people. 

INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC.

BY:

BISHOP DANIEL A. BALAIS

NATIONAL CHAIRMAN

INTERCESSORS FOR THE PHILIPPINES INC. (IFP)

"Far from empowering us as women, the RH bill promotes our objectification." - Open letter by pro-life women on the RH bill

Let the Women Speak

WE are women who believe that the Reproductive Health bill, in all its past and present forms, is detrimental to us, our sex, our marriages, and our families.

WE are Catholics and non-Catholics. We are women of faith, and we are also women of reason.

WE believe in true women’s health. We believe in respecting our bodies and the natural processes with which we have been gifted.

Far from empowering us as women, the RH bill promotes our objectification. It does not address the causes of exploitation and violence against women at their roots. It does not solve the problem of men seeing us as mere sources of pleasure. It does not promote our inherent dignity as human beings worthy of respect. State-funded, state-guaranteed access to contraception only empowers those who wish to take advantage of us without having to worry about consequences.

WE do not believe in artificial birth control. Birth control does not come free. As taxpayers we will be paying for it, and as women we will be suffering its effects on our bodies. We will not tolerate the deliberate dismissal of scholarly research that shows contraception’s deleterious effects. We will not tolerate the trampling of our Constitution that says life must be protected at all stages from conception to natural death. We will not tolerate the imposition of governmental contraceptive programs meant to control the population and to brainwash our youth. We do not want the long-term effects of the sexual revolution brought about by a contraceptive mentality.

Granting that the secular government is not beholden to the Catholic or Christian faith, attempting to speak for us women via a socialist agenda destroys the very fiber of democratic breath we have as a people. Doing this undermines our freedom to adhere to something Good, Moral and Ethical. Recognizing our “reproductive” rights as women should not include FORCING us to discard our right to freely believe in morality and goodness and if we choose to, our religious tenets and doctrines.

No one speaks for all of us on these issues. We stand with the Catholic bishops and all leaders, religious and otherwise, who recognize the truth of life-affirming teachings with regard to sex, marriage and family. We call on President Aquino and our Representatives in Congress to heed the voice of all Filipino women, not just the loudest ones. We call on all our leaders to continue to allow us to freely witness to our faiths and beliefs in all their fullness.

Please send your name, address and occupation to the person who sent you this message, or to thefilipinos4life@gmail.com or to thefilipinosforlife@gmail.com. Thank you!

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

A full list of the signatories so far can be found HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Defend the Truth - Letter for Life


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

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

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

Why the underlying principles of the RH bill are inherently flawed

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

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

Anti-sustainable growth

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

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

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

New resources

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

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

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

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

Premarital sex, abortion

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

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

False sense of security

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

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

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

Secularist ideology

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

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

Obama administration

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

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

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

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

Taking away funds for poor

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

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

Improve basic education

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

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

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

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

Suspect surveys

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

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

Wish list

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

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

Provoking moral crisis

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

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

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

Need for virtue

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

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

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

Partial text of the August 29, 2012 statement of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines - a qualified rejection of the RH bill

What is the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines? According to its official website:

CEAP is the national association of Catholic educational institutions in the Philippines. Founded in 1941, it now has 1,252 members, which include universities and colleges offering academic and continuing education programs that are at par with foreign schools in the USA and Europe. Majority, however, of its members numbering around 700 are mission schools offering basic education to the country's poor and the marginalized. 

CEAP is a voluntary organization which operates through regional educational associations located in the 16 regions of the country. It represents the interest of Catholic educational institutions in national and international fora, fosters unity of action with other organizations in educational matters, and assists members, particularly those in mission areas, to achieve common and specific aims.

Therefore, the CEAP represents far more academics and teachers than the "Ateneo 192" plus the pro-RH professors in De La Salle University who are now said to be circulating at least two petitions imitating the Ateneo professors in their rebellion versus the bishops. While I don't make the claim that everyone else who teaches in CEAP-affiliated institutions of higher education is anti-RH bill, the declaration published yesterday (August 29, 2012) by CEAP would not have been possible without a significant number of administrators, professors or teachers in these institutions being actually opposed to the RH bill. As I point out further below, it is equally true that the statement also bears the marks of a strong pro-RH bill lobby.

Although the text as we have it does not explicitly refer to the Ateneo 192, the references to Ex Corde Ecclesiae and to the bishops' desire to 'dialogue' with those who object to the CBCP's stance on the RH bill  (a dialogue that has been offered only to the Ateneo dissenters) make it clear that this statement was written with an eye to the continuing controversy caused by the pro-RH teachers. 

From the blog of Fr. Joel Tabora (CEAP, PH Bishops and the RH Bill):

CEAP supports the bishops in their opposition to any law which contains provisions for abortifacient control of birth. Killing of human life is absolutely proscribed. It is prohibited by the Philippine Constitution which protects life from the moment of conception. It is also prohibited by the Fifth Commandment. It supports the bishops in their opposition to any provisions of law that force any Catholic believer to act against his/her conscience in the discharge of his/her duties as a doctor, health worker, employer or employee. It supports the bishops in their opposition to any provision that usurps the right of parents to take full responsibility for sexual education of their children.

CEAP supports the bishops in their official teaching, binding on all believers, concerning the dignity of the human life, the need to “choose life” and to support a culture of life, the sacredness of sexuality, the unity in principle of the unitive (“for love”) and procreative finalities of acts of sexuality, recognizing God to be the author of life. It supports the bishops in their pointing to the danger of human love being eroded into lust and the danger of “moral corruption” in reducing life’s choices for a meaningful life to choices for superficial pleasure, even though in all of these issues there is ongoing theological reflection (esp. in Catholic Universities and Catholic theological faculties).

Unfortunately, the CEAP statement also gives space to statements that de facto gives cover to those academics in Catholic schools who invoke academic freedom and pluralism in order to support the RH bill. 

CEAP supports the bishops in their dialogue with objectors to this teaching, preserving in their schools “the institutional fidelity of the Catholic Universities to the Christian message…” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 27).

CEAP supports the bishops in contributing to the discussion on the demands of the common good in a plural society on the basis of which legislation and new legislation or revisions of legislation are deemed imperative.

Here one must carefully distinguish between:

The authority of the bishops binding believers to obedience in faith to a Catholic moral order;

and

The authority of discerning reason within the civil (profane) society, especially in discernment articulating demands of the common good or social justice, binding on reasonable persons based on compelling rationality.

Within a Catholic University “whose privileged task is to unite existentially by intellectual efforts two orders of reality that too infrequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the knowledge of already knowing the font of truth’” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 1), academic freedom is guaranteed by the Church: “The Church, accepting ‘the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences,’ recognizes the academic freedom of scholars in each discipline in accordance with its principles and proper methods and within the confines of the truth and the common good” (ibid 29).

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.

For the record: UP for Life's statement versus the RH bill

(Originally published on May 7, 2012):


UP4L Statement

For the record: NCR Youth Ministry Statement Against the RH Bill

NCR Youth Ministry Statement Against RH Bill

For the record: Students Choose Life statement versus the RH bill

Originally published on May 7, 2012Students Choose Life Stand on the Rh Bill

For the record: Catholic youth from Iloilo versus the RH bill

(Published May 4, 2012 but one in spirit with the statements published on May 7, 2012 by pro-life youth groups):


RH BILL STATEMENT of the Vicariate of St. Peter-Archdiocese of Jaro

Youth Manifesto for Life and versus the RH Bill: "In solidarity, we declare our opposition to the RH Bill. This is our voice. This is our vote."

For the background to this Manifesto, see the following CBCP for Life article: Youth alliance rejects RH bill, declares support for pro-life solons. 

Our Voice Our Vote Youth Manifesto

UP Student Catholic Action versus the RH Bill

UP Student Catholic Action Stand on RH Bill 

A call for Truth, Freedom, Justice and Love 

As both houses of the Philippine Congress convene for the resumption of sessions, our (75 years of) undaunted vigilance as (the University of the Philippines Student Catholic Action) calls us to proclaim and defend the values attacked by the Reproductive Health Bill in its various facets. 

WE CALL FOR TRUTH. Let the fiction of Reproductive Health needs be exposed for the fabrication that it is. Let there be an end to the safe sex myth that covers up the harms caused by contraceptives, ranging from carcinogenic to abortifacient effects. Let the underlying fear-mongering due to the population explosion hoax be stopped. Let the scientific, medical, economic, demographic, and constitutional facts – that life begins at conception, that our population size is an asset, that our state enshrines protection of the unborn, that not people but corruption and improper government priorities are the main causes of our economic problems – bring finality once and for all to the verbal engineering used to decorate the redundant population control deception. 

WE CALL FOR FREEDOM. Let the liberty that is enshrined in the constitution and which is fundamental in every human being be respected and protected. Let parents have, by virtue of their being proper guardians, the primary and decisive role in the formation of their children, free from unwanted intrusion of sex agendas integrated in school formation by the state. Let couples be not constrained from receiving marriage licenses shall they not comply with reception of contraceptive instruction that may be against their personal beliefs. Let homes decide and not be meddled with in determining their ideal family size. Let schools, especially the religious ones, be not compelled to teach mandatory contraceptive ‘education’ to students. Let medical practitioners, in line with their conscience and promises declared in the Hippocratic Oath, be not coerced into performing or prescribing contraceptive procedures which may result to medical complications of patients. Let employers be not burdened, even if unwilfully, with entitling their employees with contraceptive services. Let the state, rather than penalizing with imprisonments and fines and crippling the rights of its citizens be guided by the principle of Subsidiarity, and not usurp powers and judgments rightfully delegated to parents, students, couples, families, schools, employers, and healthcare practitioners. 

WE CALL FOR JUSTICE. Let human rights be guaranteed for all people, especially the most small, the helpless, and the very young – for that a human being is the size of a pinprick does not take away his or her humanity, and never would be a justification for the injustice of abortifacient murder of most innocent lives. Let distributive justice guide the proper appropriation of resources where such is most needed – education, agricultural reform, employment generation, health – and not for the mere satisfaction of lust through contraceptives which are after all widely available. 

WE CALL FOR LOVE. Let us look at the Filipino as a person of potential and not as a population problem. Let us see every offspring as a blessing to be nurtured and not exterminated. Let us reclaim the sexual faculty for its beautiful nature of procreation and union, and not of mere recreation, that is perverted by the contraceptive culture of the misnomer ‘safe’ or ‘protective’ intercourse. As members of UPSCA, we irrevocably stand for the ultimate foundation of Human Rights – that is the Truth that men are created in the image and likeness of the Almighty. We pray that this dignity be upheld and be not compromised for the sake of purporting economic development. May Love propel us to the realization that through safeguarding Life and Freedom, we practice the virtue of Justice to ourselves and to our fellowmen. Urged on by the beacons of Truth, Freedom, Justice, and Love, we call for the immediate disposal of the Reproductive Health Bills and the prioritization of the pro-life bills HB 19 of Rep. Roilo Golez titled “An Act Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child” , SB 2497 of Sen. Juan Ponce-Enrile titled “Protection of the Unborn Child Act”, and HB 3667 of Rep. Amado Bagatsing titled “New Anti-Abortion Act of 2010”. Let us not compromise Life and Human Dignity with undaunted liberalism, unsound freethinking, and unbridled modernization. 

NO TO RH BILL! 

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS! 

UP STUDENT CATHOLIC ACTION- Diliman

Student Catholic Action of the Philippines versus the RH Bill

SCAP+Position+on+RH+Bill

Singles for Christ statement versus the RH Bill

From the website of SFC Global:

We Say `Yes` to Our Future Families, `No` to the RH Bill 

April 26, 2012

Dear fellow Filipinos: 

With the Congress` upcoming opening session, CFC Singles for Christ urgently renews its stand against the RH Bill and its commitment to life. 

The forces that are pushing to have the RH Bill passed into law are blind to the impact of similar bills in other countries. While appealing to a sense of “progressiveness” and modernity, the bill directly attacks values central to the Filipino family and specifically, to womanhood. 

We propose to our fellowmen and to our legislators: 

1.) Champion family planning methods that strengthen Filipino marriages. Contraception destroys the bond of love and trust between couples. Aside from this seemingly intangible effect, research shows that contraceptives cause cancer, irregular bleeding, and depression, among others. At heightened risk to women, the RH Bill ishardly “empowering women” nor is it really looking after “maternal health.” As future mothers and fathers, Singles for Christ, we believe natural family planning methods show true respect and honor, not just for the human body, but for the human person. 

2.) Uphold the right to life of the most powerless person, the unborn. Singles for Christ believes that total human liberation should not be limited to human persons who are able to articulate their own aspirations, but extends to the tiniest human being, whom the RH Bill proposes we should all be “empowered” to annihilate at will. 

3.) Use government funding for poverty alleviation not for contraception. As a community dedicated to working with the poor, we believe that state funding should be given to more pressing national concerns like poverty and corruption and NOT to institutionalize contraceptives as “essential medicines”, as if pregnancy were a disease. 

We may not be parents at present, but we have a huge stake in the future state of the Filipino family. It is for our yet to be born children that we oppose the RH Bill. Again, CFC Singles for Christ reiterates that it has been and will always be on the side of life, and decidedly against the RH Bill. We humbly enjoin our legislators to uphold the interests of their unborn constituents and work so that the best choices are given to the Filipino people. 

Michael Ariola 

International Coordinator 

CFC Singles for Christ

Tagbilaranons in Metro Manila against the RH Bill

Tagbilaran Association in Metro Manila against RH bill 
By Ben Cal
March 11, 2012

MANILA, March 11 (PNA) – The Tagbilaran Association in Metro Manila (TAMM) has thrown its full support to the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in the campaign against the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

Does the RH bill defy God? An open letter

This was published on page A-7 of the January 4, 2012 issue of Business Mirror.

Note: the paper "The Right to Life - The Greatest of All Rights" which is referred to at the beginning of this article can be found HERE.


Does the Rh Bill Defy God


(I haven't included this document's comprehensive list of references in this post.)

What we've been saying all along: foreign money funds pro-RH activities

A pro-lifer's speculation on what the people in this anti-Catholic protest might actually have been thinking. 

An article published on December 2 of this year by Philippine Daily Inquirer brought to a wider audience some of the details of a state of affairs that has been known for a long time to the pro-life movement, and which many activists of the "pro-RH camp" have been denying without success. I am, of course, referring to the continued infusion into our country of money from foreign countries and institutions, earmarked for the propagation of the RH Bill and of other similar bills that espouse the Culture of Death and the anti-values of sexual anarchy.

In particular, the Inquirer article "No delay but RH bill won't be passed this year - Enrile" showed that the pro-RH camp has been practicing the age-old tactic of corrupt politicians: the "hakot" (paid) crowd:

Early this year, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) received P4.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund to push for the passage of the RH bill before the end of 2011. Dr. Junice Melgar, RHAN secretary general, admitted that her group solicited the amount because it “has no ongoing funding.” 

Based on RHAN’s budget proposal, the amount was to be spent on activities such as “education and mobilization” program. One item worth P2,837,500 was to go to organize “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 

The group scheduled the “peak” of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of “at least 5,000 people.” Each participant was supposed to receive P350

In response to this report, Filipinos for Life has published an official statement delving in greater detail and with many proofs into the foreign funding that has been propping up numerous anti-life initiatives in the Philippines:

Official Statement: Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

***

CBCP for Life also published the following article regarding the Filipinos for Life statement linked above:

Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists 

MANILA, Dec. 2, 2011–Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed. 

Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow. 

“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable war chest from pro-abortion groups,” it said. 

Documents revealed the following financial grants for RH lobby groups: 

* $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);

* $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);

* $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;

* $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);

* $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);

* $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and

* $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009). 

This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said. 

F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs. 

“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L pointed out. 

Where are the millions going? 

Meanwhile, the Philippine Daily Inquirer today ran a story containing a more detailed breakdown of RHAN’s budget earmarked for a more aggressive push for RH. According to the article, the millions in pesos provided by the UNFPA were to be spent on “education and mobilization.” Based on the same document, nearly P3 million was allocated for “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.” 

“The group scheduled the ‘peak’ of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of ‘at least 5,000 people.’ Each participant was supposed to receive P350,” the article further stated. 

F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it. 

“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said. (CBCP for Life)