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

Fr. Rolando De La Rosa OP was the Rector Magnificus of the University of Santo Tomas from 1990 to 1998 and again from 2008 to 2012. He was, at one point, Chairman of the Philippines' Commission on Higher Education. 

In Defense Of The CBCP
Through Untrue
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P
September 8, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — A Few years ago, when the former Archbishop of Jakarta visited Manila and stayed in the University of Santo Tomas, I asked him jokingly: “Your Eminence, since you are a Jesuit, why do you choose to stay in UST, and not in Ateneo?” He smiled and said: “You are very naughty. Well, to be honest, I choose to stay here and not there because I am a Catholic.” At that time, I assumed that the good Archbishop was joking.

The widely publicized opinion of the 192 Ateneo teachers that goes against the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the RH Bill reminded me of the Archbishop’s comment. Was he insinuating something?

In the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II declared categorically that every Catholic university, without ceasing to be a university, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity.” In other words, “Catholic” is not just a label given to a school. It is a badge of identity that sets it apart from other schools and which endows a university a special bond with the Catholic Church “by reason of service to unity which it is called to render to the whole Church.” It is clear from this that a Catholic university has the mission, not only to instruct, do research, and perform community service, but to maintain UNITY within the Church.

This task is quite crucial today when the faithful are torn by conflicting issues, parties, ideologies, beliefs, and causes. The principle of private judgment which John Henry Newman calls the principle of disunion when conceived in opposition to the judgment of the teaching office of the Church has been popularized by media as the norm for expressing one’s opinion. Catholic universities do not render their service to unity by allowing their members to widely publicize, in the name of academic freedom, opinions that run contrary to the official stand of the Catholic Church on controversial moral issues. Once ideas are written and published, they acquire a life of their own, regardless of the good intentions of the authors.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae continues: “One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the Catholic university to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.” More importantly, the document obliges members of the university community to manifest a personal fidelity to the Church, and this implies adherence to its teachings. Every Catholic university worth its name teaches that part of the teaching function of the bishops is precisely to make pastoral judgements on doctrinal and moral issues. It is, therefore, never enough for a Catholic university to declare its adherence to the CBCP position on the RH Bill. It must see to it that its teachers do not uphold the contrary position.

After Ateneo, teachers from another Catholic university were emboldened to do the same. They must have thought: “The bishops may denounce this bill with all their might, but we can safely ignore them. We are above any sanction. The bishops will in fact invite us to a dialogue.”

Already, one newspaper labeled this state of affairs as the separation of the Church and the academe. Just like the people who love to parrot the dictum: “separation of Church and State” to justify their contention that the Church should stay away from politics, now self-styled advocates of the RH bill use the same dictum to redefine the bishop’s teaching function in the Church. They do not want bishops to denounce, but simply adapt. They want the bishops to bow to politicians and intellectual midgets who steal religious phrases to decorate their crackpot policies.

Another columnist comes out against the RH bill

CAP Note: Those who have read her columns for the past many years would know that Carmen N. Pedrosa of the Philippine Star is by no means a "Catholic columnist", given her history of criticizing the doctrines of the Church. She used to be a supporter of the RH bill: as she stated in her August 5, 2012 column for the Philippine Star, "I was one of those who were for the RH bill in the past because I did not think that the poor should be deprived of their right to decide how many children they should have." However, the dubious means employed by some pro-RH supporters to push for the bill, as well as the mounting evidence of the damage that population control can cause to a nation's long-term demographic (and therefore economic) stability seem to have been instrumental in changing her mind on this matter.

Although Mrs. Pedrosa has expressed her mounting doubts about the RH bill in previous columns (such as her August 11, 2012 column where she already declared that "I find it difficult to support the RH bill. It is a corruption of the commonweal and in time will be destructive"), it is with this September 8, 2012 column that she firmly and completely comes out versus the bill and declares that in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

*****

The money factor in the RH bill 

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) 

Updated September 08, 2012 

The way it looks to me, there is a dead-set intent by Congress to pass the RH bill and it has less to do with the Philippine economy or religious principles and even less, for the sake of the well-being of Filipino women. The debate is being fueled by these factors and made to appear as a Church vs. State quarrel with the state taking a stand for economic reasons and the Church for religious principles. But very little has been said about money.

*      *      *

Here is why: It used to be that USAID provided the money for an international population control program. The Philippines was one of the beneficiaries of that program and it included artificial birth control, among other things. The Church’s teaching is against artificial birth control. But as religious teaching, it did not impose sanctions on personal decisions.

As far as the middle classes in the Philippines (mostly Catholic church goers) are concerned family planning is a private matter and many use artificial birth control without giving up their religion. The poor did not have that choice.

USAID funded artificial birth control. Pills, condoms and IUDS were made available to those who could not afford it.

 But in time the USAID stopped funding the program. A reliable report said “the Philippines relied on international organizations, mainly the US Agency for International Development (USAid), to fund its population control program. It gave $3.5 million annually to subsidize artificial birth control like condoms and pills.

Because of limited funding sources, USAid in time was forced “to stop supplying the Philippines with condoms in 2003, birth-control pills in 2007 and contraceptives through injections in 2008,” the report added.

The question arose whether to continue the program in the Philippines and if it was to be continued who or what would fund the program. A new policy had to be found. The solution: let each country fund its own program. If money were to be set aside for the program, a bill would have to be passed to enable the government to allocate funds for it. That is the RH bill. It has to be passed to make sure that there will be funds, local funds to continue the worldwide population control program in the Philippines. There are no two ways about it.

*      *      *

According to an article “US Aid to World Birth-Control Efforts Faces Cuts” the downsizing began in 1996. According to Steven Holmes who wrote for New York Times, the Clinton administration subsequently lifted the ban on aid for international birth control efforts that included abortion and abortion counseling. There was a struggle between the House, the Senate and the White House about the ban that “threatened to block the passage of the $12 billion foreign aid bill.”

*      *      *

So it is not quite true when US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas says that the issue of passing the RH bill does not concern the US government.

There is duplicity too among Church officials. On one hand, Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Commission on Family and Life earlier said he believed the US government had influenced President Aquino’s “abrupt decision” to support population control.

But on the other hand, CBCP media director Msgr. Pedro Quitorio said he did not believe the US government had influenced the President. Aquino committed support for population control even before he visited the US.

Given this background I do not think it is accurate to reduce the RH bill debate as a local issue between the Church vs. the Aquino government.

*      *      *

Sen. Pia Cayetano recently moved to “delete controversial provisions in the Senate version such as the section that provided the care of women who have undergone abortions” as a concession.

She also sought a change in the title of the bill, from “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development” to “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood.” 

Cayetano, as chairman of the Senate committee on health, changed the title of section 9 of the bill. Instead of family planning supplies it was to be called “essential medicines.” Hmm. She said the title would be changed to “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning supplies.”

Under the section, she added: “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the essential drugs list in accordance with existing practice.”

Senator Vic Sotto is not as stupid as some people make him out to be because his speech writer had plagiarized an article from a blog. However, flawed he put the debate on a different direction.

*      *      *

The heart of the issue is whether or not we need to pass the RH bill. It is ironic that while the Church is seen as obstructing the passage of this bill, it is in fact protecting freedom. If passed the RH bill will by nature be coercive using the power and infrastructure of the state. On the other hand, the Church’s teaching as teaching is not coercive. Catholics can take or leave it as they have..

The Church has the obligation to keep to its teachings and members who do not believe it can leave the institution. There are those who believe that the size of their families is a personal decision and that is the primary consideration.

The State will have to seek a new paradigm for helping the poor other than giving them artificial birth control. As it is, the RH bill will institutionalize state coercion focused on cutting the number of poor in the Philippines.

It is unfair not to give them the freedom of choice. I know poor families who think of children as insurance for the family’s future. They believe that the more children they have the better off the family would be when all of them have jobs and contribute to the family kitty.

*      *      *

With this perspective and in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

Maybe the government should return the problem to the USAID to find the funds to continue their population control program in the Philippines.

Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide: "Even with rising population, this is no problem in my view"

The US Catholic magazine National Catholic Register published an interview (conducted by Brian Caulfield) with Hilario Davide on July 2. Davide was Chief Justice of the Philippines from November 30, 1998 to December 20, 2005. The last 3 exchanges in the interview are very relevant to the topics covered by this blog:

From Philippines' Constitutional Framer: More People, More Glory to God

The Philippines stands out as the only nation, besides the Vatican, to prohibit divorce.

Our constitution prohibits divorce and abortion. We are anti-divorce, anti-abortion; we are pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage under the constitution. The right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception is in the Bill of Rights. But, unfortunately, at one time, the Philippine legislature enacted a bill providing for the implementation of the death penalty for some heinous crimes; but it was repealed much later because it reflected badly on the Philippines, especially among the Catholics.

Has your Catholic faith guided your public service?

I would attribute what I have accomplished to my Catholic faith. I have full confidence in the providence of God. We are told by Jesus how to love our neighbors, and we have to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It is only by the grace of God that you can say that your life has been fulfilled. Even in our family, our children and our grandchildren are brought up being taught how to pursue this life of faith and service to others.

What do you see as the future of the Philippines, which is often called poor and overpopulated?

I am very hopeful for the Philippines and her people. In a recent survey by the University of Chicago, it was demonstrated that, of all the peoples of the world, the Philippines has the greatest level of belief in God. The people’s faith in divine Providence has sustained them, in time of calamity, in time of adversity. So you can see the Filipino people as the most “smiling” in the world. … Even with rising population, this is no problem in my view. We will have more workers, more people and families to work for the greater glory of God.

Filipinos for Life response to Rep. Kimi Cojuangco

From the official website of Filipinos for Life:

Official Statement: Setting the record straight 

March 21, 2012  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teddy Locsin: Politics without religion is just power

It is about believing
SATURDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2011
TEODORO L. LOCSIN JR.

CONGRESS ended its session with birth control hanging fire, or rather hanging high and dry. It won’t be taken up until next year.

That is a pity. In my last term, when the bill was introduced, I wanted the bill brought to the floor where it could be saved or slain. The sooner dealt with the better. The House leadership thought it was best to give it the Mona Lisa treatment, and just let it lie there, and die there.

It did not. It slept like a snake. Now it is awake, dragging irreligion in its wake.

Advocates of birth control say the issue is politics and not religion, a private and not a public affair.

Why, that’s just like sex and government have no more place in a bedroom than in a chapel.

Advocates insist that religion has no place in politics, especially democratic politics, which mandates the separation of church and state. It does that, indeed, but so as to keep the state away from religion and a life informed by religion, as much religion from the way the state is run. The separation was meant, in the first place, to keep the state out of a man’s conscience, though never human conscience out of matters of state.

That was the soul of the highly religious New England polity that became the United States. Protestants fled old for New England to establish theocracies, where men were free to live strictly Protestants—or flee deeper into the wilderness to live as they pleased.

The intensely religious character of the American republic explains why it is so natural for Americans to argue so intensely about schoolroom prayer and why, despite their bias for the 1 percent who own 95 percent of the country’s wealth, conservatives win election after election in a country of mostly poor Americans.

Indeed, no religion may use the state to impose its beliefs but neither may the state impose a notion of progress—such as that the fewer Filipinos the better all around; the less life is born, the better the life of those already around—on those who do not believe it. Some things cannot be legislated, even by a Congress representing the vast majority of citizens. In the Bill of Rights, paramount is freedom of religious conscience.

Politics without religion is just power. Government without conscience is just organized crime. Public administration without morals is stealing. And politics without faith will use people for politics, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Religion is the core of the person. It tells her what she is, alive, and alive is better than not.

Religion tells him where he stands in this life; political geography just tells him where he can vote.

Religion tells people where they are going. If religion did not step into the anti-Marcos struggle and the Snap Election campaign, no case could be made for the importance of that struggle, for its merit as a subject of international interest and diplomatic action, and we would still be marching around in circles against the same government. Marcos would have been buried in state and his widow or a crony or the Army would be ruling us today. The Arab Spring in Egypt has returned the military nakedly to the helm of state.

Religion stepped into Edsa because our religion, in particular, dictates that the kind of society we live in shapes the kind of person we become, whether deserving of salvation or not. It is a Catholic as much as Muslim imperative to demand a society that respects the tenets of the dominant faith even if it should tolerate a diversity of other beliefs. For religion is the road we take through this life to the bridge that crosses over to the next—which may be hot or heavenly, depending on how seriously we lived our faith. Even secularism has its roots in religion, sprouting from the Reformation, which was not a revolution but its founders claimed a restoration of the original Christian faith.

The debates in the House missed this key point. Birth control is a thing of religious conscience and not of naked choice.

The issue is freedom, not of choice, but of belief.

The inviolable belief that the government cannot increase or reduce life, propagate or eradicate it, even if ardently held by just one citizen, should be enough, by itself, to stop the government, which may not violate her religious conscience by stepping across the line between what the government can do and what the people believe.

The debates also miss the point that belief is nothing if it does not go along with action because even just to think is already to act. Ours is a government of limited powers delegated by the people, who may not themselves venture into matters of faith, not just doctrine but ways of life informed by particular religions.

This is why we are enjoined to oppose eugenics, which is the state policy of propagating the smart and eradicating the stupid, even if we need such a policy desperately right now.

A policy that imposes condom or pill as the only alternatives is not choice but dictation. It is mental dishonesty to say a third choice is provided, for which nothing shall be paid: the nonpractice of birth control by conservative Catholics through the rhythm method or the morally superior route of sexual restraint. Not choosing one or the other, condom or pill, is not itself a choice if that choice costs nothing to the government.

It is wrong to think that the Catholic Church has never seriously thought about or practiced birth control. As early as the 10th century, churchmen worried over the souls of children born into poverty who will not get the religious instruction to be saved. Celibacy was one answer, which kept down the birthrate while achieving, through the monastic life of prayer and study, the ideal outcome of a proliferating race without increasing its numbers: The preservation of the best of what human mind has thought and human hands have wrought so that further advances in thinking and doing might be built on them. (The uniqueness of individual DNA may have eroded this argument; every child not born is another potentially new and freshly creative permutation destroyed.)

If the government believes in choice, it should hand out pesos not pills. Let people decide what to do with the money.

Only the ignorant still think that population control will be achieved by covering one organ rather than by opening another, the eyes. It was telenovelas showing small families in a flattering light that dropped the birthrate radically in Brazil, which never adopted birth control in deference to the Catholic Church, say the authors of Poor Economics.

Seeing is believing and Brazilians in the favelas watched television and believed what they saw: Life is easier, not to say elegant, when there are fewer in a family. The stylish have one child, the others have hordes of children.

You see, it is not about rubbers but rumination, which is to say thinking. It is not about choosing but believing.

Believe it is better to be fewer, and a man and a woman will find, on their own, a way to keep their family small.

Which may be a catastrophe for the few children born because statistics show that after China successfully adopted the One-Child Policy, Chinese couples spent less on their child or children than on saving up for their retirement when they would, most likely, be left to themselves in their vulnerable old age.

A bill we can't afford - literally

RH is unreasonably expensive!

By Fr. ROY CIMAGALA

October 6, 2011

NOW it can be told. And it needed Senator Lito Lapid who is supposed to be not known for his speaking prowess to get this data. The budget for the implementation of RH for the year 2012 alone is – hold your breath – P13.7B!

According to experts, that figure is even higher than the individual budgets of the departments of energy, finance, foreign affairs, justice, labor, science, tourism and trade. It’s even bigger than those proposed for the Office of the President and Congress, and the entire Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

OMG! What a waste of tax money that would be! What distorted sense of priority! And to think that the RH Bill does not even pass the preliminary smell test of morality, and the fact that many of its provisions are redundant since they are already covered in many other laws of the land!

We cannot help but suspect there’s something serious that is hidden under the beautiful features with which the RH is marketed to the public. We have to look more closely at this initiative now forcefully pushed by women senators with radical feminist agendas.

We already know that US Secretary Hillary Clinton admitted that RH by definition includes abortion. So even if our version does not include abortion yet, we can suspect that it would just be a matter of time before this evil gets legalized under RH. In fact, there are now many people in the country openly voicing their support for abortion.

We also know from some declassified document that the US has been eyeing the Philippines for quite sometime now for birth control. It’s part of the geo-political game that the US is playing.

That’s why our Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile is suspicious about the RH Bill as being not so much for reproductive health as a tool to effect birth and population control.

And under the current American leadership, there is also a strong lobby for RH not only in the US but also all over the world. In the US alone, part of the Obamacare program forces everyone to get medical insurance that includes paying for sterilization, contraception and even abortion – all against Catholic moral teaching.

This has led American bishops to call this Obamacare provision as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” It is forcing Catholics to support something that is against their religion. It is not anymore tolerating people to do what they like, even if it is against religion. It is forcing them to support what is against their religion.

The current American scene seems to be drifting toward creating a welfare state, with the government taking a bigger role in people’s lives, clearly going against the social principles of common good, solidarity and subsidiarity. It is not only spoiling people. It is forcing people to get spoiled.

And to think that the American political leaders pride themselves of being the first promoters of democracy and religious freedom and teach other countries to follow them! They have to be clear about these in their own country first.

The Philippines would be in a funny situation if it would just blindly follow the American model of RH. That is why, we need to closely monitor the proceedings of the proposed legalization of the RH Bill. This issue has gone beyond the field of group advocacy. It has become a concern for all of us.

I would suggest that the true picture of the RH Bill be shown, discussed and, if need be, debated upon in schools, parishes, offices and even in families. We have to be warned about a subtle but persistent campaign to change the concept of morality itself and to recast the social principles that should govern our national life.

We are now entering a stage of world history where the issues that we need to resolve are not anymore strictly social, economic or political in nature. They now have a fundamentally moral character and they call for a fundamentally moral resolution.

We need to stop and reverse this slippery slope to a deeper secularized world culture that tackles human affairs from a restrictive frame of economics and politics alone, and ignoring the most basic aspect of religion and our inner beliefs.

I must say that we have been had for a long time by this questionable kind of culture that tends to separate reason from faith, science from religion, our human affairs from God. The state is made to conflict with the Church.

While there is distinction, there is also inherent connection between them!

What would Cardinal Sin have said about the RH bill?

The following speech by Archbishop Socrates Villegas has been published on the blog of the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan:

Missing Cardinal Sin

Reflection by Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas during the renaming ceremony of E. Rodriguez St.(Mandaluyong City) to Jaime L. Cardinal Street, 31 August 2011

Do you still care to remember Jaime Cardinal Sin? He passed away only six years ago. How time flies! How fast we forget! He would have been eighty three years old today. I wonder if people still remember. As for me, how can I forget? I will always remember and I still miss him.

Cardinal Sin had something to say about almost everything happening to the Church and Philippine society. He did not have to go to Luneta to be heard. Even if he whispered to the wall, society somehow caught his opinion, media was swift to publish and gossipers were quick to exaggerate.

I lived with him as his secretary for eighteen years. I lived with him longer than I lived with my own parents. He taught me. He guided me. He allowed me to care for him. I knew he cared for me as much as he cared for the millions who belonged to his flock. He knew the meaning of living a dangerous life. He knew the meaning of being ready to die to protect his beloved.

What would Cardinal Sin tell us about what is going on the country now? What would Cardinal Sin do about the situation of the Church and government now? Only Cardinal Sin can answer for Cardinal Sin and only Cardinal Sin can answer like Cardinal Sin.

As I remember him and as I knew him, I offer these conjectures of a nostalgic former secretary.

I close my eyes and imagine him in the car on our way to an engagement. I imagine him say: The real battle about the reproductive health bill is not with the legislature where the debates are ongoing and where the voting will be done. The real person to wrestle with is not the President who has sadly called the bill a priority bill. The real battle is in the minds and hearts of our youth. The youth are being misled by wrong teachings. The youth are like parched dry sponge. In their thirst, they absorb all and retain them regardless of the purity of source. I pity our youth. The Church cannot impose its right and authority in this highly pluralistic society. It must be willing to join the arena of public opinion, use new methods and approaches and even jejemon vocabulary to make the message of God convincing. It is not the duty of churchmen to lobby in government offices. Our duty is to teach Christ and only Christ. Our duty is to form people’s minds and prick consciences and let those formed consciences speak up in the plaza of public opinion. This is lay empowerment. This is youth empowerment. This is the church of the people not the church of bishops.

There is a problem deeper than the anti life and anti family bills in the legislature. The blasphemous art exhibits point to a deeper and more alarming issue. The irreverent calumny thrown at religious leaders are symptoms of deeper problems. It is due to the wrong understanding of freedom and the misplaced primacy that is laid on conscience.

After EDSA 1986, we all discovered a fresh breeze of freedom in the air. Lost liberties were restored and the freedom to express was held in high esteem. Freedom is indeed a noble human right and a sublime aspiration but it not unlimited. Freedom since EDSA 1986 has been abused, terribly abused. Freedom is not absolute. The limit of freedom is love. The exercise of freedom must make us more loving. If the use of freedom violates the freedom of another, it is licentiousness; it fails to love. That freedom is lewd and obscene.

There is no absolute freedom. Freedom has limits. Its limit is truth. When freedom violates or assails truth, it can no longer be called freedom. It is debauchery and brute arrogance.

Freedom must respect the law. Freedom without respect for law is anarchy. Laws do not restrict freedom. Laws help us to live in order. When life is orderly, freedom is also safeguarded.

Our countrymen who declare themselves Catholics because they attend Catholic liturgies but disregard the commandments of God and the precepts of the Church are gravely in error. To be a Catholic, it is not enough to pray the Catholic prayers. To say you are a Catholic, you must also live as a Catholic. It is not enough to act according to conscience. Before listening to that conscience, we must first insure that the conscience is sensitive to the laws of God. Conscience is not the ultimate tribunal. The Truth that God has taught us is the highest tribunal. That Truth is in the bible. That Truth is handed to us in the teachings of the Church.

How I miss Cardinal Sin! He taught me to cherish freedom but he also warned me not to raise it to a value more than it deserves. Freedom is one of the great gifts of God to men but the greatest gift is love. Use your freedom to be more loving because “the greatest is love”. Aim for the greatest. Freedom must recognize unchanging truths. Freedom must not enchain truth. Truth is the mother of freedom and it is the height of ingratitude to enslave your mother, isn’t it?

He taught me: Follow your conscience when it speaks but make sure the ears of that conscience are ever attuned to God. When a deaf conscience speaks, ignore that voice. That is the voice of error. Knowing what is right and what is wrong is not inborn. Conscience must be formed and molded unto Christ. The duty of conscience is to listen to its God so that it may be credible when it speaks.

The legacy of Cardinal Sin is freedom. Let us understand freedom in depth. The love of Cardinal Sin was the youth and children. He taught them well. I will honor him by loving those he loved and living as he lived and believing in what he stood for.

The Philippine Constitution's Article on the Family and the Catholic principles behind it

From Bernardo Villegas' article, "Christian Roots of the Family" (emphases mine):

The very Constitution of the Philippines is exceptional in its mandating the State to strengthen the family and respect marriage as an "inviolable institution." It is also the only Constitution in the world that explicitly commands the State to protect equally the mother and the unborn baby from conception. 

Even professional organizations such as those of seafarers go out of their way to recognize the need to strengthen the link between seafarers who are away for a long period of time and their family members left behind. 

Although the family is a natural institution whose strength and sustainability can be fostered in any society regardless of creed or culture, precisely because it is based on natural law, there is little doubt that in the Philippines, it is Christian principles and tradition that contribute most to its stability. Thanks to the Catholic Church, there is no divorce in the Philippines. To give credit to whom it is due, I remember that it was the late Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma, who chaired the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution, who was most responsible for the whole article on The Family. 

It was her strong Catholic convictions that inspired her to ensure that the family would be protected in the fundamental law of the land. It will be Christianity, above all, that will help Filipinos, now and in the future, to ensure that the breakdown of the family that is so rampant even in formerly Christian societies as those in Europe will not contaminate our shores. 

There is no room for complacency, however. The very phenomenon of Filipino Overseas Workers is a threat to the stability of the family because of fathers and mothers leaving their families behind for long periods of time. Through the media of mass communication, especially television and the Internet, anti-family lifestyles are being absorbed almost by osmosis by the youth in the Philippines. 

To make matters worse, there is a vocal minority — funded and goaded by foreign groups — who are aggressively supporting legislation to introduce such anti-family measures as artificial birth control, divorce, and same-sex marriage. They are heedless of empirical studies by social scientists abroad, like Nobel laureate George Akerlof, showing that the widespread use of artificial contraceptives inevitably leads to more abortions, divorce, single mothers, and mentally troubled adolescents. 

We have to learn from the sad experiences of many European countries. Because they have abandoned their Christian principles and traditions, the institution of the family is in shambles. Pope Benedict XVI has been waging an admirable campaign to convince Europe to return to its Christian roots. In a best seller entitled Values in a Time of Upheaval, the Pope wrote: "Now I come to a second point for European identity: marriage and the family. 

Monogamous marriage, as the basic structure for the relationship between a man and a woman and as the cell for the construction of civic society, has been formed by biblical faith. It has given Europe — East and West — its specific 'face' and its specifically human character, precisely because one must struggle again and again to realize the form of fidelity and of renunciation that monogamous marriage by its very nature requires. Europe would cease to be Europe if this basic cell of its social construction were to disappear or to be changed in its essence. We are all aware of the risks confronting marriage and the family today — partly because its indissolubility is watered down by an ever easier access to divorce, and partly because of the increasing cohabitation of men and women without the legal form of marriage. 

"The paradoxical modern demand of homosexual partnerships to receive a legal form that is more or less the equivalent of marriage is a clear antithesis to this tradition. This trend departs from the entire moral history of mankind, which despite all the variety in the legal forms governing marriage — has always been aware that this is essentially a special form of the relationship of men and women, open to children and hence to the formation of a family. This is not a question of discrimination. 

Rather, we must ask what man is as man and as woman, and how we may correctly shape the relationship between them. If this relationship becomes increasingly detached from legal forms, while at the same time homosexual partnerships are increasingly viewed as equal in rank to marriage, we are on the verge of a dissolution of our concept of man, and the consequences can only be extremely grave..." 

Filipinos as individuals and the Philippines as a nation have a serious responsibility and challenge to defend the family as a natural institution and to strengthen its roots in the Christian faith. In the midst of an increasingly pagan world, we have to have the faith, fortitude, and hope of the early Christians. Just picture the pagan environment in which they had to preach the doctrine of Christ. American author Leo Trese describes it vividly in his book A Trilogy: 

"There was no sense of the dignity of human beings; two-thirds of the people were slaves, chattels of their owners. Life was cheap; a father had the right to kill his own children or his own slaves if he felt in the mood. Marriage was a mere gesture; all a husband had to do, to divorce his wife, was to put her out and close the door upon her; women were looked upon as the servants of men and tools of male pleasure." 

But the early Christians were not daunted. Thanks to them, we are now Christians and it is now our turn to bring back the doctrine of Christ to the world, including Europe from whom we received the faith. As Trese continues: "This was the world that the poor apostles were expected to convert. 

In the face of slavery, they would have to preach the inviolable dignity of the human person. In the face of pagan contempt for human life, they would have to preach God's exclusive dominion over life. In the face of easy divorce, debased womanhood and rampant lust, they would have to preach the sanctity of marriage, the true ideal of womanhood, and the obligation to continence..." Without exaggerating, Filipinos are among those in today's "time of upheaval" called to live their faith as the early Christians did. Our very human happiness depends upon it. 

For comments, my e-mail address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.

Why the State must listen to the Church

The Ethics of Public Policy

By DR. BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS

August 25, 2011

MANILA, Philippines — Whatever the outcome of the RH Bill controversy, one thing is sure: there has to be a continuing dialogue between the Government and the Catholic Bishops about public policy that has manifestly moral or doctrinal dimensions.

Whatever the extreme secularists may say, they cannot ignore the fact that the dominant religion of the country is Roman Catholicism, a major belief of which is that morality cannot be limited to private consciences of individuals but must also apply to the "things of Caesar" that are covered by the social doctrine of the Church and public morals.

Examples of public policy issues that have clearly moral dimensions are those related to the family and marriage, the regulation of private property such as agrarian reform, the setting of a just family wage, the protection of the physical environment, human trafficking, gambling, drug abuse, etc. Not only the bishops and priests but also the lay faithful have all the right to bring up moral principles in judging the legitimacy of public policy in such matters.

Here I summarize the main points concerning the relations between Church and State that have been stressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Values in a Time of Upheaval." There are seven of them:

1. The state is not itself the source of truth and morality. It cannot produce truth from its own self by means of an ideology based on people or race or class or some other entity. Nor can it produce truth via the majority. The state is not absolute. To maintain otherwise would pave the way for more Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots.

2. The goal of the state cannot consist in a freedom without defined contents. In order to establish a meaningful and viable ordering of life in society, the state requires a minimum of truth, of knowledge of the good, that cannot be manipulated.

3. Accordingly, the state must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. The moral principles of Christian faith could possibly be such guiding principles.

4. The "outside" might, in the best possible scenario, be the pure insight of reason. It would be the task of an independent philosophy to cultivate this insight and to keep watch over it. In practice, however, such a pure rational evidential quality independent of history does not exist. Metaphysical and moral reason comes into action only in a historical context.

All states have recognized and applied moral reason on the basis of antecedent religious traditions, which also provide moral education. In the Philippines, Christianity is the source of such religious traditions and moral education. For close to five centuries, the Philippines has provided a positive model of a relationship between moral knowledge based on religion and the good ordering of the state.

5. Christian faith has proved to be the most universal and rational religious culture. Even today, it offers reason the basic structure of moral insight which, if it does not actually lead to some kind of evidential quality, at least furnishes the basis of a rational moral faith without which no society can endure.

6. There should always be distinction between the Church and the State. By merging with the State, the Church would destroy both the essence of the State and its own essence.

7. The Church remains something "outside" the State, for only thus can both Church and State be what they are meant to be. Like the State, the Church too must remain in is own proper place and within its boundaries. It must respect its own being and its own freedom, precisely in order to be able to perform for the State the service that the latter requires.

The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth the moral truth that it offers to the State and that ought to become evident to the citizens of the State. This truth must be vigorous within the Church, and it must form men, for only then it will have the power to convince others and to be a force working like a leaven for all of society.

I cannot think of a better framework for the continuing dialogue of the government with the Catholic bishops and other moral leaders of the major faiths in the Philippines. But more importantly, the Catholic lay people with a well formed conscience must be very proactive in educating government officials in all the branches of government about the moral principles that they are able to arrive at with the use of their reason aided by their faith.

We can apply to ourselves these words of Pope Benedict XVI to the Europeans: "Today, at this precise hour in history, Europe and the world need the presence of the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and remains close to us in the Holy Spirit.

As Christians, we are responsible for maintaining the presence of God in our world, for it is only this presence that has the power to keep man from destroying himself." 

For comments, my e-mail address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.

Bishop Leonardo Medroso versus the RH Bill: The Church respects the State's autonomy but cannot be indifferent to immoral laws

Bishop Leonardo Medroso of Tagbilaran has written this year a number of articles versus the RH Bill. However, these have gained very little attention, and I myself saw these only over the past weekend. Here is his article explaining why the Church is duty-bound to raise its voice versus the RH Bill. His other articles versus the RH Bill are:

Morality, the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church (June 9, 2011)

Voice of the Laity and the RH Bill (June 3, 2011)

Voice of Theology and the RH Bill (May 20, 2011)

RH Bill and Christian Family Life (May 14, 2011)
Holy Week, CBCP and the RH Bill (April 15, 2011)

Voice of the Church and the RH Bill
Msgr. Leonardo Medroso
Roman Catholic Bishop of Tagbilaran, Bohol.
Originally posted on the bishop's blog on May 26, 2011

The voice of the teaching Church, strongly opposing the RH Bill and warning the people of its effects to morality, can be heard loud and clear in the issuance of the January 2011 Pastoral Letter of CBCP entitled: "Choosing Life; Rejecting RH Bill.” In so doing it passed a definitive judgment on the Reproductive Health Bill and its subsequent amended versions. The main reason for its rejection is: it is morally unacceptable.

The Church speaks from the standpoint of morality. This is after all where her competence lies. It is part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances” (CCC 2245). The Church, in order to be the genuine expert of humanity and authoritative in its assessment of man, has to listen and contemplate on the Words of God out of whom man exists, acts, and has his being – the be-all and end-all of humanity. Aside from the Bible and the Sacred Tradition, the Church has to dig deep into the study of philosophy to know man's nature and life through and through from the standpoint of natural knowledge. When, therefore, the Church made its stand against the RH Bill it was not meant to be disrespectful to the State. It was rather to state that she has to be listened to, for she has much to say about man and God given authority to talk about his integral welfare; to declare its stand and state the reasons for its posture. Hence, the pronouncements that it made regarding the RH Bill should be understood on this context.

The State has a legitimate existence of its own. The Church is aware of this reality. It acknowledges autonomy of the State to pursue its temporal purposes; it respects the sovereignty of the nation in the ordering of the temporal goods and services in the just and equitable distribution to each individual citizen and family; it collaborates in the noble task of the State government in putting up an environment of peace and justice so that the complex interactions of the different rights of the citizens may be harmonious and peaceful; it supports the State in its pursuit for developmental goals and economic growth. Hence the Church accepts the autonomy of the State to legislate laws that are according to the requirements of the common good, provisions that would respect and protect the fundamental rights of the human person, legislations that would dispense human services that are in consonance with the dignity of the persons and the natural law. Dispensation of justice to all is the legitimate ambit of the State. In fact it is its duty to promote public order, a modicum of peace and justice, a humane environment, in which individuals, families, and small communities can interact with one another, and thereby wholesomely flourish and grow.

If that is so, then why does the Church now oppose the attempt to make the RH Bill or its amended version into a law of the land?

The answer is the content of the RH Bill which is perceived by the Church as morally wrong. It is on this ground that the Church made its verdict. It states: “ 1) We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good; 2) We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills; 3) We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH Bill; 4) We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH Bill towards population control; 5) We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization; 6) We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God.”

Catholic bishop of Antipolo responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ

Published on the CBCP for Life website:

Defense of the Stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill)

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”

Puppetism

When even a hard-nosed secular journalist with many connections says this, shouldn't Malacanang perk up and listen?

From Patricio Mangubat's May 11 article on the Church's backing away from the RH "dialogue" with the Noynoy Aquino administration:

The question that everybody is asking right now is this--is the Aquino administration ready for a direct confrontation with the Catholic Church? 

Clearly, the Aquino administration wants to push the agenda of the United States insofar as reproductive health is concerned. The administration is beginning to show signs of puppetism. (Underlining mine -- CAP)

Who will win this time? Will the Aquino administration be able to withstand a very strong Church oppositionist group?

A lay Catholic's response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J.'s column "A war of religions"

This was published by Manuel Abejo on his Multiply blog:

Dear Editor,

I am very grateful for stumbling-upon the article of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "A war of religions" (posted May 2, 2011) for two (2) reasons.

The first reason is that Fr. Bernas enumerated some of the changes RH Bill proponents have made to the draft bill to allegedly make it acceptable to those opposing it. The enumerated changes are as follows:

1) Local government units will "help implement this Act", instead of "give priority to family planning work". (in Section 13 of HB4244)

2) "Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education." (in Section 16 of HB4244)

3) Deletion of the section on employers' responsibility on reproductive health. (Section 21 of HB4244)

4) Deletion of the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. It will be replaced with the proposal for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal.

These changes, I believe, are still to be declared and incorporated to the draft bill during the second-reading sessions at the House of Representatives.

I agree with Fr. Bernas that these changes are not enough to stop the opposition of the bishops of the Catholic Church to the bill. The bishops have been insisting from the very beginning that the bill is an attempt to legalize the use of artificial contraception. The bishops have been exhorting the faithful, and the nation at large, that artificial contraception is contrary to the moral law as declared by Pope Paul VI in 'Humanae Vitae'. The bishops have been reminding the nation that something immoral, or against the Ten-Commandments, cannot be legalized or be established in human laws. The bill despite the latest changes still contains provisions that promote artificial contraception and there is no way for the bishops to agree with it.

The second reason for being grateful to Fr. Bernas is his attempt to encourage both sides of the debate to view the issue in the light of religious freedom and respect for human dignity as enunciated in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCPII), the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and 'Dignitatis-Humanae'.

In my opinion, the only way for both sides to respect each other's freedom and dignity is for RH Bill not to be enacted into law at all, given that artificial contraception is immoral! It is timely to remind ourselves of the exhortation in 'Dignitatis Humanae' to political authorities that "government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will." (Dignitatis Humanae, 6)

There are other options available for the government to reduce maternal mortality other than legalizing artificial contraception.

Though I am grateful to Fr. Bernas for his article, I am also disappointed by the vagueness of his position on the RH Bill. He could be of great service to the ordinary faithful if he will be more categorical and direct in his position.

During World War II when ordinary foot-soldiers were in the midst of a gun-battle and artillery barrage, these soldiers (who were mostly young, uneducated, rural boys) greatly appreciated and were extremely grateful for the concrete, simple, and direct tactical directions of their front-line commanding officers.

I believe, we are in a great spiritual battle in this RH bill debate. The more concrete, simple, and direct our declared position in this issue, the better we can serve the simple flock we are shepherding.

Thank you for this chance to write. Should you decide to publish this letter, please show only my email address. Thank you and more power to PDI!

Author's Note:

This letter was submitted by website feedback form on May 3, 2011 (Manila time).

A lay Catholic's response to Fr. John Carroll S.J. over the RH bill

The following response is by Manuel Abejo and was posted on his Multiply account. 

Dear Rev. Fr. John J. Carroll, S.J.

I am very happy to read your Commentary at Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) entitled "'For he is our peace" (Eph. 2:14)". 

It seems to me that you are admonishing everyone to be calm and level-headed in the issue of the Reproductive Health bill (RH bill) under discussion at the Philippine House of Representatives. The way you are proposing is by forging a compromise between the two sides of the issue.

I also notice that you are alarmed by the obstinacy of the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines in insisting in the total and complete dismissal of the proposed law or bill.

With all due respect for your reverence, I wish to send you my seven (7) reactions to your commentary. These are the following:

1. ON THE APPARENT MEDDLING OF THE CHURCH IN POLITICS. I think it is only proper and note-worthy for the Philippine bishops to interfere in political exercises, such as the passing of new laws, when the spiritual welfare of the faithful is dangerously at stakes. It is their duty and responsibility to speak-out that the RH bill contains provisions that are immoral and contrary to natural law and God's will (contraception is immoral). I am convinced that this alleged meddling of the Catholic bishops is not a violation of the "separation of Church and State". Since both the Church and the State are serving one and the same society of human beings, there is bound to be some overlapping of interventions, particularly in matters of faith and morals. Indeed, the RH bill is a moral issue due to provisions on contraception embedded in it.

2. IS IT LEGALIZING CONTRACEPTIVES OR LEGALIZING CONTRACEPTION? I beg to disagree that "the bill does not legalize contraceptives". Aside from the attempt to legalize the practice of contraception, RH bill seeks to enshrine contraceptives (drugs and devices) as "Essential Medicines". Is that not an attempt to legalize contraceptives? It is true that contraceptives are already available to those who can afford. The RH bill attempts to make contraceptives even more available and free-of-charge. Moreover, RH bill attempts to legalize the human act of tampering with the divinely ordained procreative process by means of technological devices, so-called contraceptives. Thus, RH bill attempts both: the legalization of contraceptives and contraception.

3. IS RH BILL AGAINST ABORTION? Blessed Pope John Paul II has already mentioned that "the negative values inherent in the 'contraceptive mentality'-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected." (Evangelium Vitae, 13). It may be claimed that abortion is not explicitly promoted in the RH bill, but the common mentality from which the two arises makes RH bill suspect of being pro-abortion by implication. Moreover, there are valid claims that some contraceptives are abortifacient in its biochemical physiological mechanisms.

Blessed Pope John Paul II has already refuted the claim that "if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced." He wrote, "The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, 13)

4. DO WE WAIT FOR FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) TO DECLARE SOME CONTRACEPTIVES ABORTIFACIENT? In a globalized world, it is a waste of time to "reinvent the wheel". There are already valid credible and conclusive studies in other countries that some contraceptives are abortifacient. These have been banned and thrown away in these countries. The burden of proof should be in proving that these are not abortifacient in the Philippines, not the other way around. Indeed, it is a "tricky scientific question".

5. "OPT OUT" PROVISION FOR PARENTS. Sex education should be the prerogative of parents as primary educators of their children, that is, they should decide, by default, when and how to impart sex education to their children. The "opt out" provision is a violation of that parental right. The provision is based on the assumption that the state must teach sex education to children, by default. The right of parents to "opt out" could be liken to an "after-thought". Moreover, it does not take a rocket-scientist to forsee that, in implementation, very few parents will bother to choose to "opt out" their children from state-mandated sex-education, since, by experience, very few parents bother to inform themselves of their children's school activities.

6. "CONSCIENCE CLAUSES" AND OTHER FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE PROVISIONS. These are applicable only when all the desired behaviours and expected actions are licit and only differ by cultural preferences. These loses its significance and authority when the mandated action is immoral. No amount of "conscience clauses" can hide the damage that a "legalized" immoral act can inflict to society.

7. "THE FAMILY IS ALREADY AT GREAT RISK - AND NOT BECAUSE OF CONTRACEPTIVES". Indeed, the institution of the family is already at great risk even at the dawn of creation after our first parents committed original sin. The threat is rooted in the heart of every woman and man. Perhaps, interventions to strengthen families have not really identified the root cause of the problems. Blessed Pope John Paul II and the magisterium of the Catholic Church has been exhorting all the faithful that the family ought to be built upon the institution of marriage (cf. Pope John Paul II, Letter to Families, 1994) It might be possible that interventions to strengthen the union of couples in marriage have not been enough or lacking. Figures have shown that many couples in slum areas are just cohabiting or in "de-facto unions" which are not suitable substitutes to the institution of marriage. In addition to family-life education and family support services, it would be good to explore initiatives to help couples to enter into legal-marriage or, better yet, to receive the sacrament of Matrimony. It is easier said than done, I admit. But the desire and honest-to-goodness effort to undertake these solutions is already note-worthy.

Irresponsible male partners will not be cured by teaching their women partners artificial birth control. Sad to say, contraception could make the irresponsibility more worse. I hope, artificial birth control is not viewed as the "silver bullet" to kill the "were-wolves" of irresponsibility of men.

Finally, I am sad to find your commentary to reflect a certain bias towards favouring RH bill. I am afraid your position even make the division of the Filipino nation on this issue more worse.

Thank you for giving me the chance to give my feedback. I am a simple college graduate who tries hard to live an upright life. Thank you.

Fr. Julio Penacoba responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

The following letter is a response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ's latest column, entitled "My stand on the RH bill". This response has been published on the following blogs: Primacy of Reason and Jemy Gatdula. The following version includes all the italics in the version sent by Fr. Penacoba himself via email.


Fr. Julio Penacoba is a spiritual writer and a priest of Opus Dei.
.

SOME COMMENTS TO FR. BERNAS' STAND ON THE RH BILL

by Fr Julio Penacoba. frjuliop@gmail.com 1046 Dos Castillas St., Sampaloc, Manila

As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.

His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.

In my understanding, that line of argument is very valid for religious issues, that is for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules for its worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday, or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non-Catholics.

However, Fr Bernas' line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. In those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only, but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.

In my perception, Fr Bernas' position seems to treat contraception as a religious issue (a Church rule) rather than an ethical issue. For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing one's religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues.

Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169), it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.

Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, may I now quote from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the on-going debate:

All programs of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions.

RH Bill: Legitimizing Crime

Objection to RH bill based on conscience

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 17, 2011 12:00 AM 

IT’S NOT RELIGION: Yes, I am a Catholic, and proud of it. Although a sinner, I am happy that the Mother Church still embraces me as one of its children.

Regular readers of my Postscript must know by now that I am against the Reproductive Health bill (HB 4244) as it is now worded.

But my religion is not the main reason for my opposition. My objections spring largely from conscience — which tells me a grievous wrong is about to be inflicted on an unwary population by a half-baked bill being rushed through the kitchen.

Many of us feel compelled to speak up, because we see the imminence of being ensnared in an ill-conceived hodgepodge of a law that goes against not only the Constitution and the religious beliefs of the majority but also, in my case at least, of conscience.

* * *

REVIEW, REVISE: I am aware that many others are in favor of the enactment of an RH law. The best thing to do, I submit, is to pause and:

• For the House of Representatives to call back HB 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011) for further study, debate and possible amendment.

• For the Senate to call a public hearing on SB 2378 (The Reproductive Health Act), with special attention on state-sponsored methods of birth control and artificial contraceptives with abortifacient effects.

• Or better, defer action on the two bills since there is no urgency anyway. Many of the things the bills seek to do are already being done (albeit sometimes illegally).

* * *

LEGITIMIZING CRIME: The passage of HB 4244 as now worded — and for which President Noynoy Aquino has announced support — will legitimize many of the crimes being committed under the aegis of the state using taxpayers’ money.

One such offense is the violation of the constitutional mandate under Section 12 of Article II which says, “It (the state) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

Government personnel commit the crime by, among other means, the wanton distribution and use of artificial contraceptives with abortifacient effects, thereby killing the unborn human being by preventing its implantation in the womb for normal nourishment and growth.

The Congress and the President seek to legitimize that massacre of the unborn — with taxpayers footing the bloody bill.

President Aquino now blames population growth for the poverty around us while neglecting other means to mitigating the problem. Has he forgotten his campaign battlecry “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap!”?

* * *

DISCRIMINATION: It is unfortunate that Catholics who stand up to oppose the RH bills as now worded are derided and their religious beliefs ridiculed.

How come not a whimper is heard when pastors of another religious sect instruct their members to vote for candidates who — in exchange for the members’ votes — had pledged support for the sect’s advocacies and appointees to key government posts?

How come another set of laws, such as in the contracting of multiple marriages, is applied when it involves members of another religion with jihadist tendencies? Why are they entitled to have their own special laws, and in effect their own republic within our republic?

But when we Catholics and our bishops object to what we think would be a grievously faulty law, we are ridiculed and slapped with the principle of separation of the Church and the State (which does not apply)?

* * *

ABORTIFACIENT: My Postscript last Sunday called attention to Section 12, Article II, of the Constitution declaring it an obligation of the state to protect “the life of the unborn from conception.”

That piece laid out, clearly I think, that:

1. Conception refers to the moment of fertilization, or when the sperm and the ovum unite and form a distinct and individual human being.

2. Upon conception, that human being starts enjoying rights even while still in the mother’s body, including the right to life and state protection, guaranteed by no less than the Constitution.

3. Snuffing out that human life by deliberate artificial means would be killing it, or aborting it, a criminal act under existing laws.

4. Many of the artificial birth control methods and contraceptives sought to be purchased with public funds and distributed and used by the government have proven abortifacient affects that induce abortion, which is a crime.

The above train of reasoning is anchored on the premise that human life begins at conception.

* * *

CONCEPTION: On that basic question of when human life actually begins, reader Jomel Fuentes contributed this information:

The US Senate called 57 international experts, some of them from Harvard Medical School and Mayo Clinic, including Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the father of modern genetics, to answer the question of when human life actually begins.

US Senate Report 1981 states that there is “overwhelming agreement” that human life begins at fertilization, when the sperm penetrates the egg, in countless medical, biological and scientific writings. Among those cited were:

Dr. Lejeune: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Hymie Gordon, MD, FRCP, chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic: “By all criteria of modern molecular biolog . . . as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th edition, Keith L. Moore, PhD: “Human development begins at fertilization.”

These statements and findings do not come from people with any advocacy, but come from scientific research and experiments.

* * *

FOLLOWUP: Access past POSTSCRIPTs at www.manila mail.com. Like POSTSCRIPT on www.facebook.com/manilamail. Or follow @FDPascual on Twitter. E-mail feedback to mailto:fdp333@yahoo.com