Will the RH Bill really enjoy the "presumption of constitutionality"?

Senator Santiago's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

Wilfredo Jose

Miriam's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

The Reproductive Health Act (Sponsorship speech part 2)

The meat of Senator Miriam Santiago's RH Sponsorship speech (Parts 2 and 3) rests in claiming that the enactment of the RH bill will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. According to her since there is no clear constitutional prohibition, the passage of the bill would amount to a "legislative construction" of Article 2 Section 12 which is at the heart of the constitutionality issue.

I am not about to argue Senator Santiago's legal opinion point by point, for that is well beyond my reach. I would just like to point out that at least three legal luminaries do not share her legal constructions, and in fact flatly goes against them.

Read the rest of the article HERE. 

Willy Jose responds to Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on Conscience and the RH Bill

Miriam's "encyclical": The primacy of conscience says the RH bill is great and all the Popes were wrong after all

by Wilfredo Jose

Senator Miriam Santiago delivers Part 1 of her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill.

In so many words, Santiago attempts here to justify her dissent of a key teaching of the Catholic Church. Mainly, she cites the primacy of conscience as the primary justification for her support of artificial contraceptives.

She hinges her dissent on a "historically conditioned", "liberal progressive", personal appreciation of Vatican II. With her selective quotes of Vatican II passages and piecemeal excerpts from encyclical sources, she might indeed present a seemingly acceptable case to the gullible reader. Such is the case that adroit lawyers are wont to present their cases. It is commonly perceived that lawyers can easily portray the innocent as guilty or vice-versa with the crafty turn of words and selective citations. This reminds me of the joke commonly told about lawyers. You can always tell when they are not telling the truth: their lips are moving.

Senator Santiago's idea of progressive theology is that where one does not have to follow KEY traditional Catholic teachings. In this particular case, her dissent ranges herself against the constant, perennial teaching of the Catholic Church against contraception - from the earliest Church Fathers all the way to our present Pope Benedict XVI.

She rejects Humanae Vitae with her explication on the supremacy of her personal conscience. Even as she makes her case for "progressive theology" that sees "fellowships" held together in essentials by their "recognition of papal primacy", her research fails to uncover the fact that her supposed recognition of papal primacy falls flatly in stark contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI clearly says. It was on the very occasion of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, that Pope Benedict XVI clearly spells it out: "The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does NOT change. Quite the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more relevant and stimulates reflection on the intrinsic values it possesses.". Clearly, Miriam Santiago's "primacy of conscience" is at odds with her "recognition of papal primacy" on the moral issue of contraceptives. Even as she liberally references Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, she conveniently fails to note that the same document speaks of the "right conscience" guided by the "objective norms of morality". Senator Santiago on the other hand clearly proposes moral relativism: "what may have been perceived as morally wrong in one set of circumstances would be regarded as morally justifiable in another situation." In other words her definition of morality is: it depends on your own fallible conscience, period.

Here, one who values primacy of conscience should now carefully discern ("after proper study, reflection, and prayer" as Santiago recommends) who is right in this instance: Senator Miriam Santiago or Pope Benedict XVI with the whole weight of Catholic Tradition behind him? I take it to mean that when Senator Santiago says "after proper study", we don't confine our study to her speech alone for that would be far, far from proper. For starters, the early Church Fathers had much to say that Santiago contradicts. Pope Pius XI had much to say likewise. Pope Paul VI of course, as well as the Magisterium throughout the ages. One has to wonder what "historical" theology Miriam is referring to.

Particularly offensive is the part where Senator Santiago downplays the authority of the priests and bishops in emphasizing her dissent. She states: "The priest is not a special person, just because he performs strictly cultic tasks, such as presiding at the Eucharist and administering the sacraments.".To Santiago, the source, summit and very apex of our Catholic faith is reduced to a strictly cultic task that a priest presides over. This is not an attack on the identity of priests anymore, who has been ordained - not of their own power - to pronounce: do this in memory of me. It is an appalling, stunning irreverence of Christ himself - something I never expected even from the dissonant senator. It is a very sad and pathetic testament as to how far she has veered away from the faith.

Even as we should pray for her conversion, the thought most disconcerting is the likely possibility that her piece could be able to sway a considerable number of the flock to her own misdirected way of thinking. That is the very intention of her speech, make no mistake about it. It goes beyond just having the RH bill passed. It seeks to undermine the very fabric of the Catholic Magisterium for it leads us to follow our own conscience regardless. Jesus himself has some grave warnings in leading believers into sin in Mat 18:16 - whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Incidentally, in today's scripture the first reading portrays the namesake of the feisty senator: Miriam the brother of Moses and Aaron. (Nm 12:1-13). Moses' sister Miriam was equally feisty as she and Aaron questioned the divinely-inspired, primary authority of Moses and criticized him roundly: "Is it through Moses alone that the LORD speaks? Does he not speak through us also?". The Lord took grievous offense that his anointed leader was grossly disrespected. The narrative goes... "so angry was the LORD against them that when he departed, and the cloud withdrew from the tent, and...there was Miriam, a snow-white leper!"

We do not know whether Senator Santiago realizes she is practically asking to be turned into a leper or to be thrown to the depth of the seas with a millstone tied around her neck. Miriam the sister of Moses actually suffered only seven days, with the intercession of Moses. Senator Miriam Santiago looks pretty incorrigible but if only she would undergo a similar conversion experience, there is probably hope. Perhaps it would do good for Senator Miriam to be afflicted with leprotic lesions all over her body, while she is sent adrift on a tiny barge in the midst of the ocean, with a millstone around her neck, no food and water, and only a copy of Gaudium et Spes to read over and over again until she gets it right.

A redundant bill - 2

See also the following article: A redundant bill

Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Willy Jose
(Published on June 7, 2011)

Earlier today, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill. In essence, she spells out 5 supposedly earth-shaking points up front of what the Senate version of the RH bill is all about. To cut it to the chaste, the 5 points she enumerated are as follows: 1) REDUNDANT; 2) REDUNDANT; 3) REDUNDANT; 4) REDUNDANT; and 5) REDUNDANT. However, she should be credited with a feel-passionate , heart-tugging sponsorship speech, but at the end of her melodramatic, long-winded speech there is only one conclusion to the discerning listener. Please bear with me for repeating it again for the umpteenth time : REDUNDANT.

Angsioco: letting the cat out of the bag

Angsioco versus unborn

Willy Jose

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.

Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Congress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:

''A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights. Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides."

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She bolsters her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb.”

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. EQUAL Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.

First Response to Fr. Bernas on " A War of Religions"

From Wilfredo Jose's blog Random Thoughts and Musings:

A war of religions(?)

[and my comments]

A war of religions

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted 05/02/2011

THE CONTROVERSY over the RH Bill is becoming or has become a war of religions. Pitted against each other are, on the one hand, “good” Catholics, and, on the other, the Iglesia ni Cristo, Protestant denominations, Muslims and “bad” Catholics. By “bad Catholics” I mean the kind of Catholics whom “good” priests supported by their “good” bishop consider unworthy to enter a Catholic church. And since I myself do not see the various issues as clear black against white, I have been urged by some “good” Catholics to leave the church before I say anything more on the issue. It is a sad day for the Catholic church which I love.

[I don't approve of the word "bad" Catholics either. It is too negative and judgmental upon the person. I would rather use the term "dissenting" Catholics, which more objectively defines the action. However, dissenting Catholics would generally fall into two categories, one who dissents out of lack of catechetical formation, and one who dissents willfully, with full knowledge and consent. I would leave it to the readers if the last category of Catholics means "bad".]

When I heard about the priest who told those who accept the RH Bill to leave the church, two passages from the New Testament came to mind. I refer, first, to the driving of money changers out of the temple premises. Jesus fashioned a whip out of cords, and drove the “bad guys” out of the premises. But unlike the driven out “bad Catholics,” the “bad guys” in the New Testament story were not there to pray; they were there to make money. And they were not even in the inner portion of the Temple. Jesus had every right to say that his Father’s house was not meant to be a marketplace.

[I never heard of that sermon of the priest "who told those who accept the RH Bill to leave the church". It is probably worthwhile to appreciate the sermon in its entirety, and understand the message in its whole context. I am note sure if the priest in question likened Catholic pro-RH supporters to money changers at the temple. For one thing, the money changers displeased Jesus. On the other hand I wonder if pro-RH Catholics do not displease Jesus for disobeying His Church.]

Another incident is the story of the woman caught in adultery. She was dragged before Our Lord by “good” people. And the Mosaic law was clear: a woman caught in adultery must be stoned. “Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,” Jesus said. And he bent down to scribble on the ground, to scribble perhaps the names of the accusers. One by one the “good” guys slunk away.

[I always hear of this passage whenever talk about tolerance occurs in religious circles. I notice time and again that the last statement of Jesus in that story is almost always left out: Go and sin no more.]

The moral of the story is, which I like to tell those who ask me why I continue to teach “bad guys” in the Ateneo Law School: Christ came to save sinners, even defenders of the RH Bill.

[Right. But what exactly do you teach them, Father? Rather, what understanding to they internalize and how do they act upon it after imbibing your teachings? How many of your students come out of your classes convinced or otherwise that the RH bill should be opposed?]

The debate on the RH Bill started in 2008, or perhaps even earlier, but it was interrupted by concern about the coming elections. When the debate resumed in 2009, it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. I believe that the complexity of the issues presented by the bill is the reason that, while some priests and bishops have been vocal against the bill, others have largely remained silent. And I often wonder how many of them have bothered to study the Bill.

Since 2009, the proposal in the House has undergone some very substantial changes. The original proponents of the Bill have agreed to tone down or eliminate some of the provisions being objected to. Let me enumerate some.

The original bill said that local government units should “give priority to family planning work.” What is now being proposed is that local government units will “help implement this Act.”

With regard to mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education, the proposal now says “Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.” Moreover, the provision on the ideal family size has been deleted.

Deleted also is the section on employers’ responsibility on reproductive health which merely amplifies what is already provided for in the Labor Code.

Likewise deleted was the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. Instead, the proposal is for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal. This would mean a prohibition of contraceptive methods that are abortifacient once they have been scientifically identified. This is what the government did after Postinor was identified as abortifacient.

[Father, the allowance of contraceptive methods that are "in general safe and legal"? The deletions and rewordings does not give us any comfort. It is not any secret that the pro-RH legislators have insisted on their own definition of what is "safe and legal". For example, it is common knowledge that they insist that life starts at implantation, not at fertilization that science as well as the Catholic doctrine asserts unequivocally. The core issue of the Church's disagreement with the RH bill stays, even with the amendments.]

Will these proposed changes, even if all of them become part of the law, put an end to the debate? Definitely it will not. Very much at the heart of the debate is the teaching on methods of family planning. I do not see the Catholic Church or the other churches yielding on this issue. In the light of this insoluble division, how then should the debate be conducted?

The Catholic Social Teaching on this may be found in what the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) under the CBCP states: “The public defense of gospel values, especially when carried into the arena of public policy formulation, whether through the advocacy of lay leaders or the moral suasion by pastors, is not without limit ... It needs emphasizing, that, although pastors have the liberty to participate in policy debate and formulation, that liberty must not be exercised to the detriment of the religious freedom of non-communicants, or even of dissenting communicants. This is a clear implication of Vatican II’s ‘Dignitatis humanae.’ This is not just a matter of prudence; it is a matter of justice.”

Of special application to a country where Catholics are a majority is the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church, which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” This, too, is the teaching of “Dignitatis Humanae.” (No. 6)

[The Catholic Church have not yielded the absolute truths contained in Divine revelation as well as Holy tradition. The reason is straightforward: the Church does not reverse the truth nor does it have the power to do so. Its mission in the temporal sphere is to reveal the truth and propagate it. This does not mean we can not or should not collaborate with people of good will from all walks of faith in the pursuit of common good. In doing so, the Church does not and should not coerce. Father is right there, but perhaps he focuses too much on the latter in his comments on Dignitatis Humanae. While Fr Bernas excerpted select passages to make his point come across, I am afraid he does not do justice to the entire document. The same doctrinal declaration also states: (emphasis mine)

"The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood- having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. All is to be taken into account - the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.".

NOTE: "never-be it understood- having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel". In other words the principle of religious tolerance does not mean that we surrender our faith. "All is to be taken account". I trust Fr Bernas did not intend to convey otherwise, but his article may be read to imply that we surrender our faith. He is a widely-read constitutionalist, a popular columnist in a popular newspaper, and most of all: a priest. I foresee the pro-RH side gleefully pouncing on Fr Bernas' article to attack the anti-RH side. I foresee the anti-RH Catholics do double-time in their defense of the Catholic position. I fear that the flames of the 'religious war' (assuming there is one), may further be fanned contrary to the good Father's intentions. Lastly, for the faithful and casual reader, it might spell a disaster in pastoral care.]

Noynoy's five-point position on responsible parenthood: Willy Jose's response

The five-point position on responsible parenthood of PNoy

The five-point position on responsible parenthood of President Benigno S. Aquino III:

[and my comments] -- by Wilfredo Jose

1. I am against abortion.

[This is a thoroughly misused and abused statement. If he is against abortion, then all his statements must be unequivocally consistent with this position. One cannot say he is against abortion yet be in favor of promoting abortifacient contraceptives, under the guise of "choice". Mr President, state your CLEAR position against abortifacients, otherwise your claim does not have any credibility]

2. I am in favor of giving couples the right to choose how best to manage their families so that in the end, their welfare and that of their children are best served.

[Nobody is in a position to 'give' rights that we are entitled to in the first place, certainly not the president. Universal, unalienable rights are implicitly conferred upon mankind by its Creator, and that includes the right to manage our families. When the president says he is in favor of "giving the right to choose", he is in no position to give it, nor is he in a position to take it away. He does not have any right to give rights, for as president - he is just supposed to recognize them.]

3. The State must respect each individual’s right to follow his or her conscience and religious convictions on matters and issues pertaining to the unity of the family and the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death.

[God is the giver of the fundamental human right to religious liberty. God is the giver of life. When people say they are for abortion or contraception and at the same time recognize the sacredness of human life in ALL its stages, they must understand what it means and how to act accordingly.]

4. In a situation where couples, especially the poor and disadvantaged ones, are in no position to make an informed judgment, the State has the responsibility to so provide.

[The responsibility to provide and informed judgment must come with a realization that the truth in its bare glory must be made known. To peddle unthruths - such as contraceptives recognize the sacredness of human life in all its stages - is a total mockery of cultivating informed judgment.]

5. In the range of options and information provided to couples, natural family planning and modern methods shall be presented as equally available.

[What modern methods? Under the premise that "those modern methods" contain abortifacients, then his last point completely negates all the four points above, and likewise goes against the fundamental law of the land. All these statements are not only unconsitutional, worse, they are unCatholic as well.]

Let us pray for our president.

A redundant bill

On the redundancy of the RH Bill
by Willy Jose

A quick run thru of the DOH budget under GAA 2011 shows that there are already budgeted items that are supposed to cater to Maternal and Child Health as well as population development. These programs are already a mandate of the DOH under its Population Commission and Family Health Offices.

Some items as follows:

New Appropriations: Health Care Assistance: 3,539,809,000

Implementation of the Doctors to the Barrios and Rural Health Practice Program: 123,284,000

Commission on Population Programs: 290,660,000

Public Health Development Program: 117,797,000

Health Facilities Enhancement Program: 7,116,387,000

Service Delivery Programs: Family Health and Responsible Parenting: 731,349,000

Health Promotion: 153,978,000

TOTAL: (PESOS) 12,073,264,000

In addition, under Special Provisions, it is specified among other things:

- Allocation for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programs of Hospitals. Five percent (5%) of the total amount appropriated for MOOE of all hospitals shall be allocated and used for specific programs/projects/activities for disease prevention and health promotion, including programs for itinerant family planning teams.

- Health Facilities Enhancement Program. The amount appropriated herein for Health Facilities Enhancement Program under A.III.b.6.c shall be used to enhance the capacity of primary health care facilities (Barangay Health Stations, Rural Health Centers) in the delivery of health services, upgrading of government hospital facilities from Level 1 to Level 2 and from Level 2 to Level 3, and augment the existing budgetary requirements of nationally funded hospitals in accordance with existing laws.

Thus we conclude that the DOH is at least funded by 12.07 Billion pesos which is already at its disposal to attend to family planning programs, child health, maternal health to include prenatal care, delivery attendance, and postnatal care. EVERYONE is concerned with improvements in those areas, and it is preposterous to claim that only the pro-RH bill advocates are concerned about them. The fact is that the DOH is already in a position do so much without requiring the introduction of new legislation. The mandate and structures are there, and as in any government agency - the challenge would be in the areas of efficiency, focus, administrative integrity, and of course: funding. If funding is the only problem, then the executive and legislative bodies are likewise already in a position to address those funding issues in a prudent and judicious manner. This goes without saying that any new legislative acts are not guaranteed of funding either - as our experience shows where many Republic Acts are passed but their implementation remain suspended due to budgetary constraints. Our experience also shows that a major factor that holds down our progress as a nation - over many, many years - is the dearth of administrative integrity on so many levels.

SOURCES
http://www.doh.gov.ph/faq/show/454.html
http://www.popcom.gov.ph/
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?pid=8&xid=28&id=1364

The First Temptation and being pro-RH Bill

From Random Thoughts and Musings:

I was rereading the book "Jesus of Nazareth" and I got to a post last year which quotes the Pope partially, as he writes about the first temptation of Jesus.

"At the heart of all temptations is the act of pushing God aside because we perceive him as secondary, if not actually superfluous and annoying, in comparison with all the apparently far more urgent matters that fill our lives. Constructing a world by our own lights, without reference to God, building on our own foundations, refusing to acknowledge the reality of anything beyond the political and material, while setting God aside as an illusion - that is the temptation that threatens us in many varied forms. Moral posturing is part and parcel of temptation. It does not invite us directly to do evil, no - that would be far too blatant. It pretends to show us a better way, where we throw ourselves into the work of actually making the world a better place. What is real is what is right there in front of us: power and bread. By comparison, the things of God fade into unreality, into a secondary world that no one really needs."

I will devote the rest of this post to a comment (insightful as usual) by TE. It seems a fitting follow-up tothe previous post. Pro-RH bill Catholics would do well to read it.

/

The Pope's absolutely right. That's exactly what's happening. It's time we all open our eyes and see what really is at stake here.

The pro-condom crowd is trying to sell their side by painting it all in rosy optimistic colors. They have tons of statistics and are brazen enough to promise great benefits including families becoming financially better off. But what are they really selling? Uncertainty. All the rosy promises are just that - possibilities. They cannot really prove that all of their rosy predictions will come to pass. They are asking people to take a gamble. Of course they won't say it that way - they'll call it taking an intelligent stand based on irrefutable medical statistics.

As the Pope said, "it pretends to show us a better way,..."

The contras try hard to disprove the pro's arguments and refute their statistics by presenting their own set of counter statistics. Those passionate enough will paint a tough pessimistic picture to counter the rosy ones. They have fallen into the same trap as the pros - they are arguing for another set of uncertainties and are asking people to bet on another horse.

The contras have to open their eyes. The Church has already ruled on these issues so why engage in debate over it? To a Catholic the issue is closed. The Church's stand is clear and you might even say it's become part of the repository of truth. The Church's position is guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no uncertainty in this. The Holy Spirit is not an ambigious thing susceptible to statistical measures. The Holy Spirit is sure and its guidance is truth.

As Catholics, why should we opt for betting on uncertainties when we are already gifted with something certain? Why exchange something sure for something that isn't?

From a certain perspective Monsod's article is perhaps even more dangerous. It reads logical, balanced and fair. But it also re-opens the issue. This we have to guard against. If you take it seriously you would find yourself weighing the pros and cons of the issue. When that happens you would have opened again what the Church had closed. And that position raises a bunch of uncomfortable secondary questions like "Would I still be a good Catholic if I don't readily accept the Church's position and engage in debate over this?" Let us not be faithless - not just in the sense of not being true to our commitment to Christ but also in the sense of being lacking in faith.

As the Pope said, "the act of pushing God aside...we perceive Him as secondary."

The battlefield is not condoms and contraceptives. It's the Truth we hold, our values and beliefs. That is what is at stake. The real issue is not what the debaters are spouting about. They would have you bark up the wrong tree while secretly attacking what you truly hold dear. Let's not be deceived.

It's not about the optimists half-full glass nor the pessimist's half-empty one. The glass is actually full, it's just of a different size. Don't empty it by trading a sure thing for uncertain ones.

/

To add to that, an excerpt from Humanae Vitae:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation.

Is the Church to blame for maternal deaths?

From Willy Jose's Random Thoughts and Musings:

The major cause of maternal deaths, really.

Group to bishops: Deal maternal deaths issue 

MANILA, Philippines – A women’s group backing the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill called on the Catholic bishops to deal on the issue of maternal deaths in the wake of their opposition in the hotly-debated bill.

In a statement, the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) hit the Catholic bishops for issuing statements protesting the bill but none on arresting maternal deaths. 

“Our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services,” said DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco.

“The nation loses if we do nothing and allow the death of 11 mothers every day, due to pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications,” she added.

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die,” she pointed out.

The statement came after the CBCP vowed to relentlessly fight against the passage of the measure, even urging President Benigno Aquino III to veto the bill if it pass in Congress.

/

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) stubborn rejection of the RH bill is a major reason why women die”.

Really?? What a preposterous claim. This kind of sneaky argument has been going around for a quite a while and I guess there must be a law penalizing "malicious disinformation", irony intended.

Official DOH figures (here) shows that the leading cause of maternal mortality is post-partum hemorrhage, followed by retained placenta, eclampsia, etc. Nowhere in the top 10 causes does it even remotely say that the CBCP's stubborn rejection of the RH bill is the major reason (!)

Ah, I see. Direct inference. IF contraceptives were freely available, then these mortality deaths WILL BE avoided (GUARANTEED!) because ALL those who suffered maternal deaths, in the first place, had unwanted pregnancies (yes, all of them) AND they sought out absolutely EFFECTIVE and SAFE contraceptives which were inaccessible, AND the root causal and direct culprit being the CBCP's stubborn opposition to the RH bill. It is giving me a migraine just trying to wrap my head around this convoluted cause-and-effect analysis.

A pregnancy happens because two people engage in sex, irresponsible or otherwise. The AFP, NBI, KofC, CWL, and CBCP for that matter, is not a causal that these people decide to engage in sex. Health complications arise out of pregnancy simply because of a lack of professional medical care. The DFA, DOH, AirForce, DSWP, and CBCP for that matter, is not a direct causal if there is a lack of maternal care. Wait...maybe the DOH is. Maternal and Child health is already an existing mandate of the DOH, and it must see to it to the best of its ability that there are accredited medical professionals that provides care to pregnant women.

In relation to this, there is this study made by NCSB-NSO (circa 2002) investigating the "Factors Affecting Maternal Health Utilization in the Philippines". According to NSO statisticians Elaine B. Rogan and Virginia R. Olveña:

"The use of professional assistance during delivery is generally low for the Philippines. Only sixty percent of women who delivered in the last five years preceding the survey were assisted by a health professional for their most recent pregnancy while seventy percent of women received postnatal care. Utilization of maternal care is lowest in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only eighty-five percent for prenatal care, twenty-one percent received professional delivery assistance and forty-eight percent obtained postnatal care. Meanwhile, the National Capital Region (NCR) accounts for the highest percentage of maternal health utilization with ninety-seven percent for both prenatal and delivery care and seventy-six percent for postnatal services..."

The study concludes in part:

"The quality of health care remains wanting in many areas. Some health facilities have deteriorated and poor quality services exists. Low quality drugs and medicines are present in the market. These have been attributed partly to the weak enforcement of health regulations..."

So it appears there is severe lack of accredited health professionals, and that utilization of maternal health services is very, very low (only at an average of 60%). It means 40% of pregnant women were not attended to during their deliveries, the high figure attributable to the rural areas.

And that, my dear DSWP Chairwoman Elizabeth Angsioco, is what should get your goat when you say "our group alone have lost quite a number of poor women due to lack of access to reproductive health services". Eksakto yun. If there was a law right now which penalizes "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation...", you could be in trouble...

AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE

DEBUNKING THE OVERPOPULATION MYTH

3 ONLINE BOOKS AND 22 ARTICLES
DEBUNKING THE OVERPOPULATION MYTH:

(ALSO, SASSONE'S "HANDBOOK ON POPULATION" CLASSIC
AGAINST POPULATION CONTROL INCLUDED AS WORD FILE ATTACHMENT)


1. THE POPULATION IMPLOSION.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0029.html

2. THE POPULATION DUD.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0035.html

3. THE GLOBAL BABY BUST.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0044.htm

4. THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE 2: PEOPLE, MATERIALS AND ENVIRONMENT.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

5. POWER AND POPULATION IN ASIA
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6298


6. DRUNKEN NATION: RUSSIA'S DEPOPULATION BOMB.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2009-Spring/full-Eberstadt.html


7. RUSSIA'S GREAT LEAP DOWNWARDS.
http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2009/17/eberstadt&shah.php

8. WORLD POPULATION COLLAPSE: LESSONS FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/gas/gas_01populationcollapse.html

9. OVERPOPULATION?
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kas/kas_01overpopulation.html

10. THE KISSINGER REPORT- 2004 A RETROSPECTIVE ON NSSM 200.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/Kissinger_Report_2004.pdf

11. TOO MANY PEOPLE?
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0001.html

12. TOO MANY PEOPLE? NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0012.html

13. THE BOMB THAT FIZZLED.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0013.html

14. THE BARRENNESS OF SUCCESS.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0026.html

15. THE POPULATION BOMB THAT FIZZLED.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0028.html

16. OUR VANISHING ULTIMATE RESOURCE.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0046.htm

17. ECOLOGY AND POPULATION.
PART 1: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_03ecology1.html
PART 2: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_03ecology2.html

18. PHILIPPINES' PRO-LIFE OPTION VINDICATED.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_06rpdemographics.html

19. A NEW PARADIGM FOR DEMOGRAPHY.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_09newparadigm.html

20. WHERE HAVE ALL THE CHILDREN GONE?
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0039.html

21. FOUR SURPRISES IN GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHY
http://www.actualidadeconomica-peru.com/anteriores/ae_2004/octubre/art_oct_07.pdf

22. SCARCITY OR ABUNDANCE? A DEBATE ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/

23. IT'S (PAST) TIME TO END POPULATION CONTROL.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3123&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=662520

24. OUR DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER....40 YEARS AFTER HUMANAE VITAE.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8298&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=662520

25. EXCERPTS FROM STEVEN MOSHER'S LATEST BOOK AGAINST POPULATION CONTROL (2008), IN FIVE PARTS:
PART 1: http://www.pop.org/content/white-pestilence-808
PART 2: http://www.pop.org/content/malthusian-delusion-816
PART 3: http://www.pop.org/content/chinese-model-817
PART 4: http://www.pop.org/content/case-nigeria-818
PART 5: http://www.pop.org/content/human-rights-reproductive-wrongs-819

H/t Willy Jose

On the 14 Ateneo Professors -- an essay in two parts

On the 14 Ateneo Professors (originally a two-part essay) by Wilfredo Jose. This is a continuation of On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality and the Truth.

Part 1 (labeled Part 3 in the original blog post)

ODD SITUATION

I think there are many ways that the 14 professors could have expressed their personal opinions without dragging the Ateneo name with it. In the light of Fr Nebres assertion on point #5 — It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity., these professors must realize that they find themselves in an odd situation (specially the Theology professor) where they may be required to teach something in class that do not conform to their "well-formed conscience". Their position is simply not compatible with the institution they work for. As they search their "well-formed conscience" on how to act in this tricky situation that poses a dilemma to their professional integrity, it certainly must lead them to seriously think of teaching elsewhere, where they won’t cause an embarrassment to themselves and to the school officials.

EMBARRASSMENT

Put yourself in the shoes of the theology professor. Just look at a likely situation where you are directed by the University to read and explain to your class an official statement that upholds the Church’s opposition to the bill. Refer to item #5 above in Fr Nebres’ statement again. The statement you are supposed to explain and uphold happens to run counter to your "well-formed conscience". Your class is aware about your contrary position. If you read and explain the official position, you compromise your moral and professional integrity. On the other hand if you refuse, you open yourself to a reasonable charge of insubordination, as you realize that you are being paid by the University to teach according to its standards. And before you invoke academic freedom, it must be made clear here that a professor is also an employee. There is a substantial difference between a secular university and a Catholic university. A theology professor in a Catholic school cannot take a position in faith or ethics that is contrary to the magisterial teaching any more than you could espouse as fact in a secular university that one and one is three. Check out Fr Charles Curran’s celebrated case here. Either way, it is embarrassing for the dissenting professors, not because of the opinions they took, but because of the tight fix they put themselves into.

***

Part 2 (labeled Part 4 in the original blog post)

Actually the title of this post should have read: On the 69 Ateneo professors, as it was reported here that 55 Ateneo professors have joined the fray. This post contains the comments of reader TE in the last thread. Here goes...

***

I was finally able to read the whole paper by the professors. The paper contains a statistic-heavy discussion on the women who had abortions. My understanding of the discussion was that the major cause was economic. Not knowing how to plan pregnancies seems to be a small contributing cause but the major reason is economic. They simply could not afford more children. However, the professors chose to make the conclusion that:

"Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. The fact is, our women are having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap between desired fertility (2.5 children) and actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive health services (NSO and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 NDHS)."

It seems to me that the conclusion is not consistent with the discussion that went before it. It also seems to me that if we look at this whole thing as a process, abortion comes at the end of the process with pregnancy right before it. The implied solutions seems to focus on the results of the process rather than on the causes of it. The statistics they presented do not bear out the conclusion - they point to a cause much earlier in the process: economics and the faulty decision-making that allowed couples to choose to have sex in the first place. I can't help thinking that if families were economically well off, having more children than the national average would not be a problem, regardless of whether they have access to information and the means to do effective family planning. In later pages, the professors repeat this in the following: "The inability of women in the poorest quintile to achieve the number of children they want stems from their high unmet need for family planning, which, at 26.7 percent, is more than twice as high as the unmet need of women in the richest quintile, at 12.3 percent (ibid.)." And again several pages later "In summary, poor households typically have more children than they aspired to have, as a result of a high unmet need for family planning."

I believe there is a danger here to simplify the problem and jump to an erroneous conclusion. It is all too easy to think that the problem is one of providing information and the know-how to planning. I believe a more fundamental issue lies in the individual value system and the way people make their decisions. You can't teach an old dog new tricks as the Americans would say. You can bombard people with family planning techniques and provide them with tons of information but if their value system, how they set priorities and how they make decisions are still the same, they will still make the same choices they did before. As Socrates said: "If you do what you always did, you get what always got." And the definition of insanity is when you do what always did, over and over, but expect different results.

Statistics-wise the program would look good - hospitals for every 500,000 people, mobile vans to spread the news, thousands of training programs. But the key to behavioural change remains the same: the internal value systems and decision makig process in people. How does the RH bill propose to legislate this? Punishing conscientious objectors will not do it.

A few pages later the professors came up with this: "the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose." They present a very good case for choice. And indeed, the right to choose is meaningful only when one has the power to do it. But does this mean the professors do not consider the unborn child to have any such rights because they obviously cannot voice their choice? In fact, the whole paper does not have a single sentence anywhere on the rights of the unborn.

This next one struck me as a bit weird. I have highlighted the "offending phrase" below. "Poverty is a multi-faceted phenomenon caused by inter-related factors: the weak and boom-and-bust cycle of economic growth; inequities in the distribution of income and assets and in the access to social services; bad governance and corruption; the lack of priority accorded to agriculture including agrarian reform; the limited coverage of safety nets and targeted poverty reduction programs; and armed conflict." How does unequal access to social services cause poverty?

The professors proclaim their stand thus: "We therefore support the RH Bill because we believe that it will help the poor develop and expand their capabilities, so as to lead more worthwhile lives befitting their dignity and destiny as human beings...To recapitulate, the RH Bill does not only safeguard life by seeking to avert abortions and maternal and infant deaths. It also promotes quality of life, by enabling couples, especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to become healthy and productive members of our society." The highighting is mine. I do not discount the possibility that the thread of logic has completely escaped me but how does the bill DO all that? It seems to me that the capabilities to lead a more worthwhile life means more than just being able to plan families, use contraceptives and know a hell of a lot about sex, STIs and reproductive hygiene. It takes more than hospitals and vans and adult education. It also takes the cultivation of life-affirming values, discipline and a spiritually guided belief system. Or do they know something I don't?

Will the bill really enable couples to limit their children? My read of the whole thing is that the most the bill can do is help to create the conditions for couples to make an informed choice. The enablement comes from an internal change in priorities and values. It seems to me the sentences above claim benefits of the bill that MAY result IF the bill is effective. Given the government's record, I have grave doubts on how effective the bill will be implemented.

Serious professors they may be but I found a bit of humor in this one: "Comparatively, protection was higher among the males (27.5%) than the females (14.8%), rendering the latter extremely vulnerable to unplanned pregnancy (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3)." Do you any idea what kind of males they're talking about?

To be fair, I think parts of the bill are beneficial. I think the Church opposes only certain provisions of the bill NOT ALL of it. Problem is you can't pass some parts and not pass others. I also believe the bill proposes solutions that address the results while making only provisions to address the causes. It does not address at all the economic causes. It does not address the fundamental problem of values formation and the correction of internal process such as decision making and priority setting. I personally know some poor people, former tenant farmers, who did not go beyond the 3rd grade but were able to keep their family small. They didn't know whit what family planning is and haven't encountered the word contraceptive their entire lives. But they have good heads on their shoulders and exhibit a probably higher discipline. I suspect the method they used is simple abstinence and are now in their sixties with 2 grown children.On the whole the professors did not convince me that as a Catholic I can support the bill in GOOD CONSCIENCE. There are open issues which still impinge on the conscience such the rights of the unborn, the curtailment of freedom and the discriminatory provisions regarding conscientious objectors. By giving their support the professors are saying they are accepting these limits on our freedoms. Given the track record of the government, they will probably be more effective in enforcing these limits than in implementing the "benificial" provisions of the bill. Values are ignored. The bill would rather train a couple how to avoid a pregnancy than to instill in them the values of discipline and responsibility. Its like closing the barn when all the horses have gone. This impinge on my conscience because I can see that the bill proposes for us to pay with our freedoms a solution that addresses an effect, a result while the causes are ignored. Would you sacrifice your freedom to pay for alleviating a symptom?

***

My postscript: Ever wonder how much its going to cost us taxpayers? TE does the math here.

On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality and the Truth

On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality, and the Truth
By: Wilfredo Jose
October 25, 2008

I once had an argument with my previous boss over a computerized system that we planned on developing. I needed funding for the planned system that will be designed for on-line monitoring of parts shortages. My proposed system will quickly highlight what components are delaying the production lines.

He asked: ”Why do we want to spend our money and energies tracking those shortages? Why not prevent them in the first place?”

He had a very good point there. Be proactive, strike at the root cause, and not at symptoms of problems. My boss had this effective method of asking a succession of “whys” until we got to the root of the problem.

I suddenly remembered this encounter with my old boss as I read the statements of the 14 Ateneo professors who came out with a position paper supporting HB5043. Among other things, they said that giving women access to other “medically safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods would prevent “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies, which are the root cause of induced abortions.”

So according to the professors, “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” are the root cause of induced abortions. But what is the root cause of “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies”?

“We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods...”

Ah, if there is one word that my old boss hates, it is the word “impossible”. Obviously, the professors are referring to NFP and I wonder what are their presumptions by claiming that women find it impossible. I take it that these professors are more steeped than us ordinary mortals in scientific, facts-based analysis that substantiates their statements empirically. Does their studies/references (assuming they cited an NFP study) conclude that it is impossible to predict infertile periods? Is a system designed into nature itself, impossible? A study of NFP in China (check out this link), says otherwise, and in fact concludes: “The BOM (NFP) is simple and easy to comprehend; almost all the women, including the illiterate, can successfully learn the method and identify their own mucus symptoms.”Impossible?

“We are thinking... of couples who see each other on an irregular basis, or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it,”

Please professors, think harder. You are implying that these couples have an irresistible urge to copulate on sight. You said you were speaking for yourselves :-), so please do not make an unfair assumption on all these couples. Furthermore, if women are trapped in abusive relationships, then these women should be counseled and assisted, as no woman deserves to endure those “abusive relationships”, where men “demand sex anytime they want it”. Do you mean we turn a blind eye to the abuse as long as those women are “protected” by contraceptives? You give them contraceptives and the abuse goes on. Is that your idea of women “protection”? Think of the larger abuses of social inequity, of corruption, disrespect for the poor, and general apathy and tolerance of abuses committed at large to society.

“Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities."

The professors seem to imply that their well-formed conscience trumps more than 2,000 years of Church history and teaching tradition. Primacy of conscience does not guarantee rightness and the objective TRUTH in ones subsequent actions. As is usually the case, when one finds himself in conflict with the Church’s teachings, the problem is with the person and not with the teaching, a direct consequence, naturally, of a selective reading(?) of Catholic (social ?) teachings.

While the professors continue to think more along the lines of “well-formed consciences”, they might consider not dragging the Ateneo name the next time they feel an irresistible urge to voice out their personal opinions. It would also do them well to read the Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church (all 361 pages, with NOT A SINGLE PAGE of it expounding on the PRIMACY of CONSCIENCE); study NFP first DILIGENTLY, without making “impossible” conclusions; rethink their concept of ROOT CAUSES; ask a succession of “WHYS” on the problems of women at hand; and investigate more deeply the real meaning of “WELL-FORMED CONSCIENCES”.

And if they want a professor to teach them through it all, I will gladly refer my old boss.He also says that some solutions are worse than the problem.