NOTE TO ALL READERS

Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.
Showing posts with label Rolando de la Rosa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rolando de la Rosa. Show all posts

Sunday, May 15, 2011

The "overpopulation" scare: a distraction from the real issues

Through Untrue
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P.
May 14, 2011, 10:23pm

MANILA, Philippines — Instead of allowing himself to be manipulated by pro-RH Bill legislators and their publicity-hungry supporters, the President would do well to question the timing and motive behind this controversy. History shows that whenever politicians need to distract a president from pursuing his political platform and solving urgent national problems, they throw a red herring at him. Usually, it is the issue of overpopulation.

This devilish tactic is conjured by legislators and politicians who want the public’s attention to shift from their gross inefficiency and mismanagement of their pork barrels and office funds to the President’s handling of this issue. With their “sabong mentality,” media practitioners fuels this controversy by pitting the President against the Catholic Church and pro-life advocates.

Aquino’s winning slogan that assured him the presidency was: “Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” It was a clear declaration that the main cause of poverty in the country is corruption. And this, he promised to eradicate. But now, RH bill proponents are effectively distracting him from pursuing this goal by diverting his attention to an old but irrelevant issue. They want him to believe that the main cause of poverty and misery in the country is the absence of legislated birth-control measures. If he believes that crap, he is in danger of plunging the country into what Peter Drucker in his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century calls “collective national suicide.”

Drucker writes that once adopted, the birth control legislation creates an irreversible mentality that is opposed to human birth. “The most important single new certainty – if only because there is no precedent for it in all of history – is the relentlessly collapsing birthrate in those countries that have implemented an aggressive birth control policy.”

World Population Monitoring 2001, an independent body that conducts research on population, declares: “The most dire predictions about the consequences of population growth have proven unfounded, and remain unlikely to occur.” In its January 1, 2000, Millennium Edition, the New York Times listed the overpopulation scare as “one of the myths of the 20th century.”

Developing countries with government-enforced birth control policies are now beset with the problem of an elderly population growing very fast with no prospect of young people to support them. This trend is manifest in other countries that only a few years back had high birth rates. Birthrates in Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and Sri Lanka are below replacement level because of stringent birth control laws.

The President would do well to concentrate on his avowed mission of eradicating corruption in government. He might also like to look into international trade and financial arrangements, which work against the country. IMF and World Bank, which claim to be working to assist poor countries, actually aggravate their situation by over-burdening them with debt payments for loans borrowed by corrupt government leaders who hardly spent this for national development.

He would better focus on how politicians and legislators spend their pork barrel; order them to pass laws that will effectively guarantee that people’s taxes are used for improving public utilities, create efficient transport facilties like commuter trains, and allocate sufficient budget for public services, especially education.

Perhaps he can also look into the amoeba-like multiplication of lottery games that the government says are intended for its social welfare projects for the poor. Despite billions of weekly lotto earnings, social welfare infrastructures and systems wallow in miserable conditions. And to think that most of the bettors are poor people!

Sunday, November 21, 2010

A Matter of Conscience

A matter of conscience
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P.
November 14, 2010, 4:32pm

MANILA, Philippines – On March 29, 1990, the Belgian Parliament approved the legalization of abortion by a majority vote. Prime Minister Wilfried Maertens, head of the ruling party, the Social Christians, had opposed the law, but they were overpowered by the Liberal and Socialist parties in the Parliament.

For this law to be ratified, however, the King had to affix his signature. King Baudouin vehemently refused, declaring that he could not, as a Roman Catholic, sign a new law permitting abortion. He would rather abdicate his throne than go against his most cherished beliefs. The Parliament was in a quandary, but the King was adamant in his position.

Anticipating the inevitable criticism of his action, King Baudouin defended himself by asserting his right to freedom of conscience. He declared: “I know by acting in this way I have not chosen an easy path and that I risk not being understood by many of my fellow citizens. To those who may be shocked by my decision, I ask them: Is it right that I am the only Belgian citizen to be forced to act against his conscience in such a crucial area? Is the freedom of conscience sacred for everyone except for the King?”

The nation faced a constitutional crisis. The Parliament did not want to lose their King, but it insisted on the ratification of the law. Prime Minister Maertens, following the provisions of their constitution, convoked the parliament on April 4, 1990, and declared the throne vacant due to the king’s incapacity to govern because of a serious problem of conscience. With the throne vacant, he presided over a Council of Ministers that ratified the controversial abortion law. The following day, the parliament promptly declared that King Baudouin could once again resume his constitutional royal powers.

Although King Baudouin invoked freedom of conscience as the main reason for his refusal to sign the abortion law, it was his uncompromising religious conviction that motivated his action. He wrote later: “If I had signed it, I would have been miserable my entire life for having betrayed the Lord.” When he died in 1993, even his most severe critics praised him for his integrity. He was willing to sacrifice his self-interest, even the monarchy, for the sake of his religious beliefs.

Many Catholics today will see in him a strong argument to their facile catch phrase: “Follow your conscience.” But King Baudouin understood this differently. He knew that conscience is not an infallible guide to moral conduct. Conscience does not ask us whether an action is morally good or bad. Rather, this question must be answered BEFORE conscience can speak. The proper formation of conscience is, therefore, extremely important. His holistic formation in Catholic doctrine and morals enabled King Baudouin to stand by what he believed in, despite the sacrifice it entailed.

Sadly, our legislators who noisily invoke freedom of conscience in support of some abhorrent provisions in the RH Bill seem oblivious to the need for the proper education of conscience. They thus mistake for conscience the voice of their self-will, self-interest, or, worse, their ignorance.