(Links) 13 Essays of Francisco Tatad Versus the RH Bill

Regardless of how one views the political career and opinions of former Senator Francisco Tatad, he remains one of Asia's most forceful exponents of orthodox Catholic teaching on human life and sexuality issues. His blog, First Things First, is rich in posts that expose the RH bill for what it is, in the clear and powerful light of the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

Retire the Reproductive Health Bill (On why the RH bill goes against the Philippine constitution.) This essay also has its own post on this blog: link.

The Gospel according to SWS (A response to the pro-RH bill SWS survey.)

A Reading from 14 Ateneo Professors (A response to the Ateneo professors who declared in favor of the RH Bill.)

Second Letter to Sen. Pia Cayetano (Describes some legal and constitutional objections to the RH bill.)

No need to be wrong on contraception (A response on moral and theological grounds to UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan's broadside against the Catholic Church over the RH Bill.)

The Truths and Half-Truths about Reproductive Health (revised version). This is a comprehensive study of the Reproductive Health Bill and is ESSENTIAL reading for all who want to know why this bill ought to be rejected. Health, demographic, economic, legal-constitutional, Church-State, philosophical and moral arguments for and objections to the RH bill are extensively discussed.

Fated to self-destruct (On the rights of the State and legal / constitutional issues vis-a-vis the RH bill.)

Time to fight for our beliefs

The New Central Economy Planners (More on economic, moral and constitutional issues vis-a-vis the RH bill.)

No Place for the RH Bill in Our Law (A shorter version of "What's Wrong with the Reproductive Health Bill.") This has its own post in this blog: link.

What's Wrong with the Reproductive Health Bill? (Briefly discusses constitutional, moral, health and demographic arguments against the RH Bill.)

Humanae Vitae was truly prophetic (On Humanae Vitae)

GMA is right on the Repro Bill (Church-State and constitutional issues discussed.)

The First Priority in Creating a Culture of Life

(Normally, posts here are directly concerned with the RH Bill. However, these two essays are so important to the pro-life movement that I have decided to post these on the blog. It is necessary that, in going against the RH bill and the contraceptive mindset, we should also capture the minds and hearts of our people by presenting them with a Christian alternative to the secular mindset so prevalent today. For this, the celebration of the sacred liturgy in all its glory is necessary.)

FIRST ESSAY: A quote from Part IV of Steve Jalvesac's "The Broken Windows in the US Catholic Church"

Excerpts from LifeSite News:

November 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It is often an overwhelming trial for a faithful ... Catholic bishop to begin the process of undoing the damage of up to 40 or more years of severe lack of leadership or even corruption in his diocese. Nevertheless, it is important for all citizens that Catholics clean up these diocesan problems.

If this were to happen Catholics would once again play a strong positive role in the culture, rather than the current situation in which Catholics are often no different than others on critical issues. Who to trust and where to begin are always the big questions for a reform-minded faithful bishop.

The "broken windows" concept could be a useful strategy for a beginning...

***

THE BROKEN WINDOWS

1. THE LITURGY. The first of the "broken windows," or signs of disorder that most often communicates a message that no one is in charge or that authority is weak and rules are made to be broken, are the abuses of the liturgy - the formal, very visible ceremonies or rites of the Church.

Why do we start with this one? Because Pope Benedict, in his wisdom, has declared it to be of the highest priority. He has seen that the sense of awe of God, the wonder of His majesty and the faith of the people have been gutted by theologians, pastors and bishops who have given very liberal, unintended interpretations to the documents of the Second Vatican Council. He commented on one occasion about the original intentions of the Council: "Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for."

It is no accident that many diocesan liturgists have since been found to be serious dissenters and an unusual percentage to be practicing homosexuals. The liturgy has power to form or to deform, to inspire or to corrupt.

The numerous abuses or broken windows on this topic range from the extreme to the more subtle, such as arbitrarily inserting inclusive language (very commonly done) or an otherwise faithful priest not giving communion at mass so that the women extraordinary ministers are not offended by having less of a role. Liturgy has often become entertainment. Probably by far the most widespread violation of Universal Church norms, by both dissident and normally faithful pastors, has been the vastly excessive use of lay Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, who are often wrongly called Ministers of Communion. Despite repeated instructions on this from Rome, pastors and bishops routinely ignore the rules and in doing so send their flocks an especially visible disorder message, that "we are determined to do things our own way" or, that they are too afraid of the feminists in their parish or diocese to do the right thing. To be fair, a lot of the pastors who try to follow this requirement are frequently not only not supported by their bishops but are often even ordered to disregard the Church discipline.

For the broken window strategy to work, not one abuse or liberty with the universal (versus the often inadequate local diocesan or even national conference) liturgical requirements, can be tolerated. Otherwise it cannot work. The priest, deacon and bishop are the teachers and witnesses of fidelity or infidelity to the people at every mass and other liturgical events. Any contradiction by them to what is clearly indicated in a faithful, Vatican approved missal or other text, sends a corrupting message to the people at that event. The message is that authority is what you decide it should be and that Catholics can ignore the order of love that has been prayerfully developed by the Church for the spiritual nurturing of the flock.

So what is a faithful bishop to do? Well, this is the most obvious of all the broken windows and one that can be manageable.

He can first make certain that in his cathedral and at all events directly arranged by his chancery, every single liturgical event would be conducted in a manner that would be approved by the Pope.

He can also do more than the basic requirements by changing the often man-centered emphasis of much of today's interior church arrangements. He can encourage those who wish to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue, as Benedict has made clear he prefers. He can ensure that the music at all events under his immediate control is truly uplifting and reverent, with many traditional hymns, which Pope Benedict has also emphasized (http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_sotlmusic_jun06.asp). And finally, he can ensure that the cathedral building itself truly inspires prayer, is clearly seen and felt as a place of Catholic worship of God and at all appropriate times facilitates silent prayer for those who come to fulfill that need.

After that is well under way the bishop could begin to regularly instruct all his priests on the importance of these changes and begin to have them implemented first by those pastors who he is confident will follow his instructions. Then, parish by parish, school by school, he should cajole and inspire imitation of his faithful example throughout the diocese. What does that have to do with Catholics voting for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians? A lot. It is all about restoring a unity of understanding of what it truly means to worship God. From that eventually follows a tendency to desire to go further and to begin to live and act as Christians in the community with resulting improvement to the culture.

There is far more that could be said on this issue, but the main thing is that repairing the many broken windows in the liturgy in most dioceses is feasible and will likely lead to considerable positive effect on the more overwhelming problems. That is how the broken window strategy works.

2. DIOCESAN LITURGICAL TEXTS AND HYMNALS It is up to the bishop to approve or disapprove liturgical texts and Mass Hymnals used in his diocese. This has been a serious source of problems for many years with rampant use of feminist, gender neutralized, politically correct and ideologically altered texts weakening the faith and fidelity of Catholics...

***

SECOND ESSAY:

The Sacred Liturgy: The Neglected Foundation to Building the Culture of Life

by Deborah Morlani

Many Mass-Going Catholics Support the Culture of Death

A recent survey from October 2008, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and completed by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, found that 79% of Catholics who regularly attend Mass are supportive of abortion to some degree, varying from all cases to at least certain cases; this despite the Catholic teaching that the intentional killing of an unborn child by abortion is always evil and that there are no exceptions to this. What these surveys reveal is a fact that many faithful Catholics are already only too aware: that many of their fellow Catholics do not conform to Church teaching and support the culture of death to some degree, be it through contracepting, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, IVF, or so on. In looking at the results of these polls, not to mention years of personal experience, the question that comes to mind is this: how can Catholics who are going to Mass every week be living and thinking in such contrast to God's moral laws, as taught by the magisterium of the Church? The pro-life message is certainly “out there” and not unknown, so where is the deficiency that allows such a situation to exist and what can we do to address it? To answer these questions we need to consider the root of the problem and the font of Catholic life.

The Liturgy Is the Source and Summit From Which All Else Flows

The Church teaches us that the sacred liturgy is the centre, or font, from which all else flows within the Church; it refers to it as her source and summit. (Sacrosanctum Concilium para. 10) It is this tenet which allowed Pope Benedict XVI, while still a Cardinal, to note that “the Church stands and falls with the liturgy” for when one understands and accepts the central place which the liturgy holds within the life of the Church and her faithful, this clearly follows and should hopefully help us to appreciate the foundational place and importance of the liturgy in a variety of questions.

Returning to the question at hand then, it would not seem a stretch to suggest that an implication of this very centrality is that the culture of life itself also stands and falls with the liturgy. Why, we shall look at momentarily, but given our understanding that the liturgy is the summit from whence all else flows, and given the consideration of the impoverished, or "falling", state of the liturgy in so many parishes, it should perhaps come as little surprise that there would be a coinciding “falling” of the culture of life – to use the image of Ratzinger.

Putting Our Own House In Order: A More Serious Look at the Liturgy by the Catholic Pro-life Movement

I would propose, particularly to those actively involved within the pro-life movement (of which all Catholics, clergy, laity, and religious, should consider themselves involved to some extent), that the sacred liturgy needs to be looked at much more seriously as a significant foundation and tool for beginning to build the culture of life among fellow Catholics. Pro-life homilies, pro-life prayer intentions and social activism generally are all important let’s be clear, but they don't address the deeper, foundational problem that lay at the root of this issue; namely, the lack of a sense of God that exists not only within our culture, but even within our parishes. Before we can ever hope to bring about a conversion of the culture to a culture of life – and we are speaking, not merely of the changing of laws, but ultimately of the need for conversion -- we must first put our own house in order. If we understand and accept the teaching of the Church as regards the central importance of the liturgy and its relationship to doctrine, then surely we must neither ignore the fact that deficiencies there will lead to deficiencies elsewhere, nor that it is also an important place to begin to assert the solution.

The Necessity of God-Centred Liturgies: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief is the law of living.)

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II taught that the root cause of the culture of death is a loss of the sense of God and, in the same vein, one will note that Pope Benedict XVI has been working quite intently to bring back the sense of transcendence and God-centredness within our liturgies; in short, to bring back a sense of God. So it is that a consistent theme emerges and also a consistent recognition of a problem within our churches today. The Holy Father knows well that if God is obscured within the sacred liturgy – the very place that is not only the source and summit of the Church, but also the heart, soul and primary point of contact for the faithful -- then it is likely to follow that God will be absent or obscured in the lives of the faithful as well. Consequently, this lack of sense of the Divine can lead to living a humanistic or self-centred existence which further leads to a lost sense of the sacredness of man; without a Creator, man becomes a mere organism in the vast universe of organisms that can be manipulated and used for any kind of fantasy by anyone who is stronger or more powerful.

It is well known that many parishes today have become more centred upon themselves as a community than being clearly centred upon God – what Ratzinger has called the “self-enclosed circle”. Many parishes are not following the authorized liturgical texts and rubrics -- often out of a misguided sense of "pastoral" creativity, or even simply out of ignorance. Nor do they sufficiently consider (let alone express) those elements which lend a sense of transcendence to the worship of God, particularly as expressed through the medium of beauty. To some these might seem rather unimportant surface considerations, but they are not. The sacred liturgy and doctrine are intertwined and the experiential dimension of the liturgy is a profound moment for catechesis and conversion. Accordingly, when there is problematic approach to the liturgy, and when unauthorized innovations are introduced, there can be a deficiency as well as a coinciding distortion of Catholic belief passed on to the faithful, and further a loss in the power of the liturgy to move the human heart and mind towards God.

By contrast, the sacred liturgy, when celebrated well and focused on God, is where the building of the culture of life begins for within the liturgy one experiences and encounters the perfection of the culture of life from the giver of life Himself, God our Creator. It is through this deep encounter with God in the liturgy that we witness and learn a perfect love that is self-giving and self-sacrificing; from that flows the possibility of conversion of heart and the reciprocal love for God in giving of our lives to Him and His Church just as Christ gave His life for us, a sacrificial reality which is perpetuated upon our altars at every Mass. From that love for God and desire to serve Him naturally flows an ability to better move outside of ourselves and love our neighbour, seeing their lives as inherently of value. Therefore, if we are to build a culture of life within our parishes and serve as leaven for our culture, the sacred liturgy must be oriented to God in all things, both interiorly and exteriorly. The liturgy must be celebrated in accord with the authorized texts and rubrics so that we might avoid obscuring Catholic doctrine or falling into a subjectivist mentality. The ceremonies must be reverent and beautiful, speaking to the worship of the Lord and the sacredness of what occurs, moving and focusing us accordingly. Finally, there should be liturgical catechesis for the faithful to help them to understand the greater meaning, focus and sacrificial reality of the Mass, emphasizing its primary end as the worship of God through the sacrifice of the Cross, including through postures and gestures, signs and symbols.

Pope Benedict XVI Leads by Example

The Pope has consistently written of and witnessed to the importance of both interior and exterior dimensions which orient the sacred liturgy toward God. He has led by example in directing how certain exterior forms contribute to a God-centered liturgy, such as through the “Benedictine altar arrangement” with a central Crucifix; his celebration of Mass ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel; the use of beautiful sacred music and vestments within the liturgy; and finally, by re-introducing kneeling for Holy Communion in his own liturgies. Moreover, the Holy Father has emphasized the importance of interiorly directing our minds and hearts toward God through mystagogical catechesis (meaning the teaching of the mysteries of the Faith) so that we can more fully know God through beauty and the sacred mysteries experienced in the liturgy and further be drawn into a more profound encounter with the Divine which can lead to a deeper conversion.

In Conclusion

To conclude, let us recall the teaching of the Church about the centrality of the liturgy and how all flows from it. Let us also follow the example of the Holy Father in addressing any crisis among Catholics first in looking at the liturgy and never neglecting it as a central part of the solution. Indeed, everything that happens within the sacred liturgy matters and all that is done to lead the faithful closer to God will ultimately work toward building the culture of life, which will necessarily come through, not simply legal means, but conversion of heart and mind to God.

Postscript: Addressing Some Common Objections

As a postscript, it would seem important to address a few common objections that arise whenever there is an attempt to assert the central importance of the liturgy in all its forms and aspects.

One objection is summarized by the sentiment that "all that really matters at Mass is that Our Lord is present in the Eucharist. These other matters are ultimately not of significant importance. They are simply nice-to-have’s or just a matter of taste.” This is a common objection that often comes up from many Catholics, and even some priests, when attempting to explain the importance of the sacred liturgy as though validity, sacramentality or Eucharistic piety is all that is of concern. Obviously they are of concern, but this view is not in accord with the Church's teaching and is based on what Ratzinger has called “abstract sacramental theology” and “reductionism”. Everything in the liturgy matters which is why the Church regulates it accordingly. In that regard, our focus cannot merely be upon validity or receiving and adoring the Blessed Sacrament, it must be deeper, and it must take more serious consideration of the Mass in all its aspects and dimensions and the implication of those aspects and dimensions. The teaching of the Church and the teaching of our Holy Father speak contrary to such an assertion.

A second objection is the suggestion that the liturgy really doesn't affect whether or not Catholics follow the Church's teachings on contraception, abortion, and so forth. This also does not follow, for if, as the Church teaches, the sacred liturgy is the source and the summit, the font, from which everything else flows, this clearly has the implication that what flows from the liturgy will also likely be manifest in the Catholic faithful who are present, for good or for ill. How could it have such importance and influence and not have such effects?

Another objection might be the suggestion that doctrinal catechesis through study, preaching and such methods is far more important in the building the culture of life than what goes on in the sacred liturgy, but this fails to consider some basic realities. First, liturgy and doctrine are inseparable; what goes on in the liturgy is catechetical in itself. It is an experiential form of catechesis, and accordingly, very powerful. Second, the liturgy is the first and primary source of catechesis as it is a living experience of the Catholic faith that draws one into an encounter with God. It is there that most Catholics come into the most prolonged and profound contact with their faith and it is through this means that they are most impacted and potentially moved, making them accordingly more disposed to receive more intellectual forms of catechesis. "By its nature, the liturgy can be pedagogically effective in helping the faithful to enter more deeply into the mystery being celebrated. That is why, in the Church's most ancient tradition, the process of Christian formation always had an experiential character."(Sacramentum Caritatis, para. 64)

A final objection might be that good liturgy doesn't guarantee that a Catholic will be pro-life and poor liturgy doesn't mean that a Catholic won't be pro-life. Of course this is true in point of fact, but while it may not be an absolute guarantee, and while exceptions can surely always be found, it does not change the fact of the central importance of the liturgy in Catholic life and faith, nor does it change the teaching of the Church on this matter.

(Link) Government Attacks Against the Family

(Link) Government Attacks Against the Family (focusing on the RH Bill and the Magna Carta for Women.) (PDF)

ALFI Key Comments on House Bill 5043

ALFI Key Comments on the House Bill 5043 (with links to PDF files of related anti-RH Bill studies.)

Several very important salient points are conspicuously missing in the article on theproposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 written by Rep. EdcelC. Lagman. We believe that it is only by presenting complete and accurate information aboutthe bill that the readers can have an informed opinion about it.

A. Access to a full range of contraceptives

The bill gives women the right to choose between natural and artificial methods of birthcontrol and guarantees access to the full range of “(h)ormonal contraceptives, intrauterinedevices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies.”It has been repeatedly pointed out in medical articles and bulletins, including the pro-contraception and pro-abortion literature from Alan Guttmacher Institute of the PlannedParenthood foundation of the U.S.1 that, contraceptive drugs and devices have two modes ofaction. They may prevent ovulation, or if ovulation takes place because of the phenomenon ofbreakthrough ovulation, they prevent uterine implantation. The use of these contraceptives,including intrauterine devices, renders the endometrium (lining of the uterus) hostile to thefertilized ovum (product of fertilization or ovulation) and prevents its implantation in theendometrium as a consequence. Deprived of shelter, the growing embryo – a precious little,defenseless human being – is thus expelled from the uterus. This is plain and simple abortion!The bill creates what otherwise is a sealed path to abortion by not only advocating, butin fact, mandating, universal access to a full range of family planning methods, techniques,devices, and services, and information thereon. While, as claimed by its proponents, the billdoes not legalize abortion, it does, in fact, promote abortion.

In addition, the bill transgresses the constitutional mandate for the State to “equallyprotect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

B. Prohibited Acts are criminally penalized

The bill imposes imprisonment and/or fine on:

1. Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:a. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary.b. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically- safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.c. Knowingly withhold information or impede dissemination thereof and/or intentionally provide incorrect information on reproductive health programs and services.d. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work: Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provided within the same facility or one which isconveniently accessible.

2. Any public official who prohibits or restricts, personally or through a subordinate, the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning.

The penal provisions bring to the fore various constitutional concerns.

Firstly, the bill makes a mockery of the “natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character” by granting to abused or pregnant minors the right to avail of “reproductive health care services” which by definition, include sterilization and ligation and a full range of techniques, services, devices, and contraceptives, without need of parental consent.

Secondly, the bill undermines the “sanctity of family life” and violates the constitutionalmandate for the State to “protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous socialinstitution” by allowing the spouse to undergo “voluntary ligation and vasectomy and otherlegal and medically-safe reproductive health care services” without the consent or authorizationof the other spouse.

Thirdly, the bill defies the “free exercise of religion” clause of the Constitution. It hasbeen said that the religion clause of the Constitution is designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others andwith the common good. It is only the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or anyother legitimate public interest compelling enough for the State to intervene that will justifyrestraint on religious freedom. The challenge of the moment is to determine and identify that‘compelling state interest’, if any, that will justify infringement of the religious freedom.

C. Huge budget appropriations

Substantial amounts appropriated in the annual General Appropriations Act for reproductive health and family planning under the DOH and POPCOM, together with tenpercent (10%) of the Gender and Development budgets of all government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities, and such additional sums as may be necessary, shall be made available for the effective and full implementation of the Act.The appropriation of billions of pesos will contribute to further economic degradation of the nation by diverting the scarce government funds to the implementation and promotion of the population control program, rather than to education and basic social services to improvethe quality of life and promote the well-being of every Filipino.

Other Key Comments in PDF Files:

PP vs. HB2753
PP VS HB 17 and HB 812
PP VS Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007 Funding
HB 5043 Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008
More Reasons to Oppose HB 5043

COUPLES for CHRIST Guide : A Simple Test Why This Bill Should Not Pass and Why We Should Not Support This Bill

COUPLES for CHRIST Guide : A Simple Test Why This Bill Should Not Pass and Why We Should Not Support This Bill

Should you support Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043? Take this simple test to find out.

Protect Our Families, Protect Our Children. Dump Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043. For more information on how you can oppose this bill go to www.cfcffl.org

1. As employers, do you agree to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to your employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that you fail to comply?

Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (read the Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)

2. As health care service providers, do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if you fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age?

(Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)

3. As a spouse, do you agree that your husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without your consent or knowledge?

(Read Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)

4. As parents, do you agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum?

Reproductive Health Education will be mandatory from Grade 5 to the end of High School (See Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b,c and d)

5. Do you agree that you should be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation”?

(See Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)
If you answered No to any of the questions above, then you are not for Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043. Read the bill.You will find more objectionable provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3), reclassifying contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23).

Protect our families. Protect our children. Dump Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043.

Why Catholics Must Oppose the Reproductive Health Bill

WHY CATHOLICS MUST OPPOSE THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL
October 31, 2008

1. Those of us who believe in the Catholic faith entrusted by Jesus to His Church must ask ourselves: Do we respect its teaching, or do we not? Do we really believe, or do we not? The Church has the authority from God to teach about faith and about morals. If it didn’t, there would be no point in having a church – any church, not just the Catholic Church. If a church does not have its teaching from God, then it is dispensing human wisdom. But we know very well that human wisdom, even human wisdom which seems quite appealing, can be wrong. History is littered with grand ideas that took the lives of millions, often including their strongest proponents. When it comes to questions of morality, we ultimately have nowhere to turn but to God, but He speaks with authority only through His Church. The sinfulness of artificial contraception was infallibly stated by Pope Pius XI in 1930 in his encyclical Casti Connubii, “On Christian Marriage.” The purpose of Pope Paul IV’s much disputed Humanae Vitae “Of Human Life,” was simply to settle the question of whether the contraceptive pill, which had not yet been invented when Casti Connubii was issued, was an artificial contraceptive or not, and also to put to rest any notion that its invention could bring about any change in the Church’s constant teaching through the centuries that artificial contraception is sinful. These facts are documented in the book Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il 1.Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II, by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., published in Vatican City by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican Publishing House, in 1986. Fr. Lio received a hand-calligraphed, personally signed note of thanks for this work from Pope John Paul II. Do we really want to substitute human wisdom for the wisdom of God?

2.The so-called Reproductive Health bill places technology at the center of human reproduction: the creation of our children, the future members of our society. Catholics believe in God and in His authority over human life and death. It is a violation of this authority to attempt to substitute technology for the human will in the procreation of human life. Yes, technology is a great gift of God – it has allowed us to conquer our environment, and offers the promise of a life without privation, and even material abundance for everyone. Yet it is a two-edged sword. Technology is also what has allowed our forests to be denuded, our fish and wildlife to be depleted, and our air to be polluted by the emissions of the machines which serve us. In other words, it has appropriate uses, and inappropriate uses. Giving it control of the sacred act of the transmission of human life, upon which the continued well-being and even existence of humanity depends, is to apply it to something where it clearly does not belong. We tamper with the creation of life at the peril of our own welfare. The Bible tells us that “my ways are not your ways – it is the Lord who speaks. Yes, the heavens are as high above earth as my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts.” If we try to substitute technology for exercise of self control of our own behavior, as this bill will attempt to do if it becomes law, it will, in the natural order of things, come back to harm our people and society grievously, as it has in every other country which has taken this path. Europe, the Anglo countries – except the U.S. with its massive immigration, Japan, China, and even the Latin countries are all on a path to demographic suicide. All because of placing technology between man and woman.

3.The Philippine Legislators Committee for Population and Development received foreign grants of 150,000 U.S. dollars from the Ford Foundation in 2003, 300,000 U.S. dollars from the Packard Foundation also in 2003, and 400,000 U.S. dollars from the Ford Foundation in 2006. If contraception is so important to our Filipino people, why was it necessary for some of our Representatives to obtain such large grants, totaling about forty-two million pesos at the current exchange rate, from U.S. foundations which have been greatly involved in suppressing the birth-rates of non-white peoples for decades, in order to support it? Will this be good for the Philippines, or for those who think that more births in non-European countries are a threat to their lifestyle?

4.We read the following in St. Luke’s account of the Passion of Jesus, as he walked the road to Calvary: “…Jesus turning to them said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, “Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed!” Then they will begin to say to the mountains, “Fall on us”; and to the hills, “Cover us.” For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?’” This passage has long been a source of mystery as to what events Jesus was referring to. The world has experienced the greatest economic boom in the history of mankind over the past six decades, yet families have far fewer children, and the wealthiest nations have the fewest. Now we are at the start of what we are told will be the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Birth rates fell significantly during the Great Depression.

(Link) RH Bill 5043 is premised on Misconceptions and Half-truths

RH Bill 5043 is premised on Misconceptions and Half-truths

This paper was inspired by a primer was written by Rev. Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD for Avenues, the Journal of San Carlos Seminary Graduate School of Theology. Copyright © 2008 by the author, a priest of the Archdiocese of Manila, assigned since January 2008 at the Holy Apostles Senior Seminary, Makati City, Philippines, and was previously an Official of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican, for five years. For consults and resources on related topics, please visit http://www.safe.ph/)

Click to download 7 page PDF document exposing RH5043 and giving clarifications.

12 Reasons Why We Oppose HB 5043

12 Reasons Why We at ALLIANCE for the FAMILY Foundation Philippines, Inc. (ALFI) OPPOSE Reproductive Health Bill 5043

1.HB 5043 is based on flawed data on population growth rates and fertility levels. It ignores the negative impact on the economy and society of an ageing population, as experienced in many developed countries. If we spend our scarce resources towards birth control, we would be promoting the undesirable outcome of depopulation.

RP’s Population Growth Rate has declined since the Year 2000 Census of 2.36%. The correct PGR is lower. UN states it at 1.8%, whilst the NSO reports 1.94% for its 2005-2010 projection. RP’s Total Fertility Rate is not 3.5. It is 2.6 (based on UN) or 3.2 (based on NSO). In a few decades, fertility rate will be at replacement level of 2.1, and will still continue its irreversible decline, leading to impoverishment of the elderly, and economic decline – which history shows will lead to further decline in fertility.

2.HB 5043 places an overwhelming emphasis on contraception at the expense of all other values, including medical care for the sick and the dying. Top 10 causes of Morbidity/Death in the Philippines lists Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Influenza and Hypertension as the highest ranking causes of death among women. There is a distortion of human values if we prioritize the prevention of procreation over saving lives.

3.HB 5043 promotes abortion. HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES ACT AS ABORTIFACIENTS. They do not prevent ovulation 100% of the time and thus, fertilization can still occur. When the fertilized ovum is prevented from implanting in the uterus because of the effect of the pill, this ovum is expelled. This is plain and simple abortion. (Note: Research shows that ovulation still occurs during pill use in 6 out of 210 menstrual cycles. Even among women who observed strict compliance with pill intake, break-through ovulation rate could be as high as 34.28 ovulations for every 100 women taking the pill for one year. Hence, there remains a grave risk of the abortion of undetected pregnancies.)

4.It is not true that widespread use of contraceptives will reduce illegal abortion and help control the spread of HIV/STD. In every single country where contraceptives became widely available, cases of abortion, teenage pregnancies, HIV/STDs increased because of the contraceptive mindset being promoted in society.

5.HB 5043, with its 2-child ideal (Section 16), will result in social stigma and discrimination against large families. The ideal family size is what parents responsibly decide. This is not to be mandated nor encouraged by the State.

6.HB 5043 legislates mandatory reproductive health and sex education from Grade V to 4th year high school (Section 12). This includes the discussion of topics on how to “prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies”, “use and application of natural and modern family planning methods”, “desired family size”, etc. Teaching youth about abstinence and, at the same time, discussing how to avoid pregnancies sends mixed messages that will, in the end, lead to serious consequences for many. It also undermines the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children and “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood”, as stated in our Constitution.

7.HB 5043 provides that any person who publicly or even privately disagrees with its premises, conclusion or implementation is subject to fine or imprisonment (Section 21.e.). It also imposes a tax burden on taxpayers, who, in the exercise of their religious conviction, are opposed to the RH bill.

8.HB 5043 seeks to classify hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables etc. as “essential medicines” (Section 10) even if they pose health risks to women. The World Health Organization has also concluded that HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES CAUSE CANCER, Warning Level 1, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

9.HB 5043 forces all health care service providers, including private doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals, to make referrals for the provision of abortifacient drugs and devices (Section 21.a.5.). Refusal will be punished by fine and/or imprisonment. This is a violation of a person’s freedom of conscience.

10. HB 5043 violates the Constitutional safeguards for life and family (Article II, Sections 12 & 13; Article XV, Sections 1 & 3). It allows anyone to avail of RH services like vasectomy or ligation without the consent of the spouse (Section 21.a.2.), thereby creating artificial conflicts between spouses and thus effectively destroying the meaning of marriage. Similarly, an abused pregnant minor may also avail of any of the “reproductive health care services” without the need of parental consent (Section 21.a.3.).

11. Poverty and hunger is not caused nor aggravated by overpopulation, but by the wrong economic policies, poor governance and systemic corruption. Numerous economic studies have shown that there is no correlation between population, the incidence of poverty and GDP growth. FAO statistics indicate that food supply in the Philippines has even outpaced population growth rate between the years 1960 to 2002.

12. Finally, HB 5043 ignores the mandate of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

Sec.12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. This provision leaves no room for the State or any of its agencies to get involved in any family planning program that promotes CONTRACEPTIVES that endanger the health of the mother and the life of the unborn from the point of conception.

A Response to Dean Raul Pangalangan on RH Bill 5403

A Response to an Academic on Reproductive H ealth Bill 5403
October 2, 2008

Dear Dean Pangalangan,

Contrary to your opening sentence in your most recent article of September 26, 2008 in your PDI column, “The clergy’s all-out war on contraceptives,” the Catholic Church makes a whole lot of sense in its condemnation of contraception. Let us go straight into the crux of the matter, the red meat, if you would permit, because all else is just gravy.

Why is the Church against contraception?

We can draw our answer from Pope Paul VI’s prophetic 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. I quote verbatim from an article from the American TFP website: Humanae Vitae: the encyclical that condemned the sexual revolution. (Emphases in bold throughout this letter are mine.)

“The encyclical clearly explains why it reaffirms the Church’s perennial doctrine: The Church cannot change God’s Law expressed in nature. The document states:

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

The encyclical is based on natural law and on Revelation, both of which manifest the will of God. The Magisterium of the Church was given the mission not only to interpret Revelation but also natural law, and it therefore addresses morals in all its aspects:

Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, 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.”

In a pastoral letter, In Obedience To Christ, written in 1991 by the late Bishop Glennon Flavin of Lincoln Nebraska, he affirms the Church’s immutable and universal teaching on contraception,

“The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder. Contraception is wrong, not because the Church says it is wrong (it was wrong before Christ established the Church); it is wrong because God Himself, through the revelation of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, has declared it to be wrong. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason, no matter how good and urgent. A good end never justifies the use of an evil means.”

Condoms fall under the category of barrier methods of artificial contraception like the IUD. It is not the same as natural methods you referred to in your article. To make my point clear, I quote from this article, Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning,

“Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”

In natural family planning, the couple takes advantage of the natural fertility/infertility cycle of the woman without artificially intervening through barrier (IUD, condoms), surgical (tubal ligation, vasectomy, abortion) and chemical (contraceptives) methods. Therefore, NFP is perfectly in conformity with natural law.

The above cited article continues,

“To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands — just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do — and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).”

Therefore aside from the above, may I add that polls or survey results have no bearing on the Church’s position. The Catholic Church’s staunch stand on moral issues is based on sound doctrine and principles and not on the prevailing whims of the misinformed public or misguided journalists. Now, my question is: Can the proponents of RH 5043 make an intrinsic evil right? I say good luck. They can rant and rave till kingdom come but I doubt if the Church would change its position on an immutable Truth. Perhaps, pagputi ng uwak, pagitim ng tagak.

You foisted on your readers the claim of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that conception begins at implantation. As a physician, I take that statement with TONS of salt. Quite to the contrary, I concur with the views of Drs. Fritz Baumgartner in his article, When Does Life Begin, and that of Richard Sosnowski of the ACOG,

“But why? Why on earth would the ACOG change its definition of conception from fertilization to implantation? The chilling answer was suggested by Dr. Richard Sosnowski of ACOG, who in his 1984 presidential address stated:

‘I do not deem it excellent to play semantic gymnastics in a profession … It is equally troublesome to me that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as the successful spermatic penetration of an ovum was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient.’ "

Regarding the PDI report on the decline of abortions in the US, its source, Agence France Presses, craftily gave the impression that the decline was solely due to contraceptive use. Let us go to the more accurate report: Guttmacher Reports Documents 30-year low in Abortion rates:

“According to the report, the decline in teen pregnancies began before the emphasis on abstinence-only education and largely is a result of more effective and widespread use of contraception. However, the report also said the decrease in the abortion rate among teens has been accompanied by an increase in teen births in part because of a greater societal acceptance of unwed mothers, increased difficulty in obtaining abortions in some parts of the country and changing attitudes toward abortion (Los Angeles Times, 9/23). Jones said, "We've made the most important progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rate, [rather] than reducing unintended pregnancy in older women."

Too bad for the advocates of the RH bill, the internet has made it more accessible for the public to glean and study documents on how the perpetrators of the contraceptive and abortion mentality suckered the American public and the rest of the world into accepting their deceptive ploy. No sir. Vigilant pro-life Filipinos will not commit the same folly.

You took Cebu Rep. Raul del Mar to task on his position against the RH bill and reminded him of his oath to uphold the Constitution that provides the separation of Church and State. The trouble is, Dean Pangalangan, the issue of artificial contraceptives and sex education is a matter of faith and morals whereby the Church and its faithful followers have a legitimate right to take a moral and principled stand. Besides, what does the Constitution say related to this issue?

The following articles and sections from the 1987 Philippine Constitution give testimony to the duty of the State to defend the family, the youth and the unborn:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” (Art. II, Sec. 12)

“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promotes its total development.” (Art. XV, Sec. 1)

“The State shall defend (1) the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.” (Art. XV, Sec. 3)

So now I ask, why is the State promoting artificial contraceptives and sex education which is against the religious convictions of Catholics faithful to Church teachings? Isn’t this unconstitutional?

I wish to discuss more but this rejoinder has gone beyond its intended length. I close with some points to ponder from this article by Fr. William Swift, On The 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae,

“Mary Eberstadt, in her brilliant article, “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae,” in the current issue of First Things, averred: “When Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, it quickly became the punch line to endless jokes, the occasion for endless mockery and disdain. Forty years later, it’s clear the joke is on us. Humanae Vitae has proved to be one of the most prophetic documents ever written.””Why does she reason in such a manner? In the encyclical Paul VI did affirm and confirm the ever-constant stand of the Church that artificial birth control is sinful, illicit and immoral.

“What did he say? If we become a society immersed in a birth control mentality there will come about:

1. A general lowering of moral standards throughout society, amongst old and young.

2. A rise in infidelity among married couples.

3. A lessening of respect for women by men.

4. A coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments”.

It is precisely this contraceptive mentality that the RH bill wants to promote among Filipinos – something I reject with all my heart, mind and soul.

Very truly yours,

Jose Maria P. Alcasid, MD

Is It Morally Licit For A Catholic Politician To Vote For A Law Favoring Artificial Contraception?

(This essay was written in 2005 in response to House Bill 3773, which embodied morally offensive legislative proposals that are reproduced by House Bill 5403. The question that is examined and answered here -- whether it is morally licit for Catholic politicians to vote for pro-contraceptive legislation -- remains as relevant in 2009 as in 2005.)

Monday, April 04, 2005

Is It Morally Licit For A Catholic Politician To Vote For A Law Favoring Artificial Contraception?

Jose Maria P. Alcasid

The burning question that Catholic legislators need to answer in face of HB 3773

House Bill 3773, also known as The Population Management and Responsible Parenthood Act of 2005 introduced in the 13th Philippine Congress by the Honorable Edcel Lagman of Albay province, has spurred much debate in the news media recently. Concerned Filipinos, both in public and private sectors, have voiced out their apprehensions regarding the proposed controversial legislation. Like an apple of discord lobbed in the arena of public opinion, the issue has now galvanized an erstwhile apathetic Filipino audience.

As one sifts through the gobbledygook of the various provisions contained in the said bill, one cannot fail but notice the broad spectrum of sweeping yet dubious revolutionary reforms detailed within. The distribution of artificial contraceptives; the call for mandatory safe sex education; the advocacy for reproductive rights that smacks of radical feminism; the promotion of a discriminatory two-child policy; the implementation of Draconian measures to punish “errant” health workers and the creation of a superfluous Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Council are just some of the provisions crammed into a single onerous and all-encompassing bill. One can only wonder how such a complex and ambitious project would be funded given the financial crisis the Philippine government has had to grapple with nowadays.

However, while manifold moral issues are involved, the controversy primarily revolves around the principal question of artificial contraception – the main thrust of the population management and responsible parenthood offensive.

And true to their mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying the Church, Catholic bishops have come out with solicitous concern to remind their flock of their Christian duty to follow the Church’s crystal clear teaching over this raging issue.[1]

The Church’s Condemnation of Contraception Is Unchangeable and Infallible [2]

The Catholic Church’s perennial moral teaching regarding artificial contraception is that it is intrinsically evil. Hence, the Church has always condemned contraception even for prophylactic or therapeutic purposes. Through the Church’s traditional Magisterium, the most recent popes, from Pius XI (1922-1939) to John Paul II, have invariably taught this doctrine despite growing opposition from dissident and liberal Catholics.

Basing themselves on natural law established by God when He created man and woman, these popes teach that the primary purpose of the sexual act is procreation. Hence, any attempt to separate the sexual act from its natural effect – procreation – violates nature itself and comprises a grave sin. The unitive aspect of the conjugal act – love between the spouses – and its procreative nature constitute a coherent whole that should never be separated.

The popes have always denounced contraceptive use – both chemical (e.g. oral contraceptives) and mechanical (e.g. the condom) – as gravely illicit whether the intention is specifically to avoid offspring or to avoid the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

In his pastoral letter In Obedience to Christ: A Pastoral Letter to Catholic Couples and Physicians on the Issue of Contraception, Bishop Glennon P. Flavin, then bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska in the United States, shed light on the matter,The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder…. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason[3]

This Church teaching condemning contraception is infallible through the ordinary pontifical Magisterium of the Church, that is to say, the common and constant teaching of the Popes.[4]

Had the Church been remiss in Her duty to teach the Truth in all its integrity, She would not be infallible. Neither would She be an adequate instrument for salvation, since She would have led the faithful to sin, to the non-observance of the natural and revealed moral law.[5]

As for the condemnation of contraception by Pope Paul VI in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968), some theologians state that it is infallible not only by the continuity of the ordinary Magisterium but also by papal infallibility itself.[6]

Catholics Must Affirm Their Faith In Their Public Lives

In face of this truth, Catholic legislators can no longer feign ignorance and give short shrift to these consistent and limpid pronouncements of the Vicars of Christ. As public figures, they have a moral obligation to uphold good morals and serve as role models for their constituents to emulate.

Filipino lawmakers should wisely follow the lead of American Catholic senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who made the following revealing statement in an interview,

"In order for Catholic politicians to be faithful to moral teachings, they must be held accountable. Their elite status in society should not let others be dissuaded from criticizing them if they behave in an unprincipled way. The only way that immoral politicians will change is if the public has the courage to confront them. Only then, will these politicians be forced to act morally….

In addition to being leaders in society, politicians are a reflection of society. Politicians have a duty to hold fast to moral principles in order to govern effectively".[7]

Thus, we must take our Catholic politicians to task by cautioning and reminding them to act responsibly and morally in their capacity as duly elected legislators in face of proposed HB 3773.

The Plague of Secularism and Turo-Turo Catholicism

Among Our LegislatorsHowever, imbued by the secularist spirit of our times, one finds certain Catholics who subscribe to a cafeteria Catholicism wherein they pick and choose from what they see as a dogmatic smorgasbord whatsoever doctrines and precepts that suit their personal beliefs and lifestyle. I dare adopt this description and incorporate it into local parlance as turo-turo Catholicism.

We often hear secularists argue that the Church must refrain from moral declarations that have repercussions in public life. Like a broken record, they parrot the oft-repeated yet already stale accusation of the Church meddling in public affairs and exerting undue pressure on voters during elections. This is nothing short of outrageous. Since to say that the Church may not make moral pronouncements that have political consequences is to say that the Church cannot promote morality or have jurisdiction over faith and morals. To a greater or lesser degree, every law has a moral dimension and no moral principle fails to somehow influence law.

Following The Dictates Of Conscience

Those who choose to go against the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception find a false sense of security in rationalizing that they only follow the dictates of their conscience. The philosophical premise that fuels this pseudo-morality purports that objective moral norms do not exist and the individual choice should determine human behavior.

Truly, man must follow his conscience. Nevertheless, this does not imply that each and every individual may freely choose whatever he well pleases. Conscience is not the source of morality. The objective norm of morality is God’s law known to us through our rational nature and by divine revelation. Therefore, though our conscience perceives the natural moral law and makes it present to us in order to guide us in our action, it does not create this law.[8]

In January 2003, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a statement addressed directly to politicians concerning the issue of abortion. Since artificial contraceptives have an abortifacient effect one can rightly apply this pronouncement accordingly to the case in point.[9] [10]

In part, it stated: Catholic politicians “have the right and duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals….“

…By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible.”[11]

Opening The Floodgates To A Moral Tsunami

Much is at stake should the proponents of HB 3773 succeed in legislating this bill into law. Above all, a grave responsibility rests upon the shoulders of our Catholic lawmakers. While the Filipino people have given them the mandate to rule, our legislators, in turn, must act judiciously and responsibly. It would be a defining moment wherein their true mettle would be made manifest.

Many foresee the passage of this bill as a groundbreaking step towards opening the floodgates to a virtual moral tsunami of abortion, sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexual rights and same sex marriage. Those concerned cannot cross their arms complacently and simply watch our nation go to ruin.

Some argue that Catholic nations like Spain and Italy have now legalized contraception, abortion and divorce and that the Philippines should follow suit. However, the folly of these nations is not the standard of Christian morality.

Such faulty reasoning is not a valid reason for the Philippines to climb into the bandwagon of impiety and moral depravity. If our nation must swim against the tide of worldwide consensus for God’s sake, then so be it! It will to the Filipino nation’s glory to stand up for its Catholic Faith.[12]

To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected

Let us call upon our lawmakers to make a serious examination of conscience before they cast their vote in favor of House Bill 3773 because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of millions of Filipinos. We, as faithful Catholics, have the obligation and duty to resist them to their faces if they tread obstinately along the ruinous path of error especially in face of the crystalline and immutable teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

Their destiny is in their hands. They are free to choose. But once they cast their vote, it will be etched forever in the Book of Life. And when they face the Supreme Legislator on Judgment Day, there will be no room for debate or excuses. For then and there, the whole Filipino nation shall be called to the witness stand.

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) and inspirer of various other autonomous TFP’s across the globe, described the gravity of our earthly life with candid simplicity,

Whether we like it or not, we are all writing our biography. And on the Day of Judgment, the book will be opened and read.[13]

As we celebrate the feast of the Solemnity of the Annunciation (Monday, April 04, 2005) - the joyous occasion when the Word became Flesh in the sacred cloister of Mary Most Holy’s virginal womb - let us beseech her maternal and solicitous counsel to enlighten our most honorable legislators in their crucial task of deciding the fate of HB 3773. May she appease the Divine Wrath and call upon His Divine Mercy to have compassion on the Filipino nation whom He blessed with the light of the True Faith. May she strengthen her devoted sons and daughters in their unremitting resolve to uphold the Laws of her Divine Son and thus attract a plenitude of graces for the entire suffering Filipino nation.

Footnotes:

[1] On February 18, 2005, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) came out with a pastoral letter against HB 3773 and the Department of Health’s (DOH) Ligtas Buntis program.

[2] This section adopts and quotes almost verbatim (including footnotes) from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property’s (TFP) statement, Can the Church’s Infallible Doctrine Change? authored by Luis S. Solimeo and Raymond E. Drake. Please log on to http://www.tfp.org/ to access the whole document.

[3]Bishop Glennon P. Flavin, In Obedience to Christ: A Pastoral Letter to Catholic Couples and Physicians on the Issue of Contraception, at www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/FLAVIN.HTM.

[4]In his study on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Fr. M. R. Gagnebet, O.P., summarizes the continuity of the supreme Magisterium of the Church on this matter: “Obviously the Pope intended to resolve a controversy which questions the time-honoured teaching of theologians approved by the Magisterium. On the same topic, Pius XII specifically stated, in the Encyclical Humani Generis (D. Sch. 3885), ‘this question is no longer open to the free discussion of theologians.’ Furthermore, Paul VI is not innovating in this matter. Without wishing to go further back into history, from the time of Pius VI, the teaching of the Holy See has never varied in this matter. In a particularly solemn manner, Pius XI propounded it in the Encyclical Casti Connubii; Pius XII, as well as John XXIII, taught it consistently. The council [Vatican II] did not touch this question set aside for the Sovereign Pontiff, but affirmed its underlying principle: ‘...sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 51). Finally, the document in which the Pope expounds his teaching is an Encyclical; it is an authentic interpretation of the natural law which declares the use of marriage which is conformable to the law and that which is not.” “The Authority of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae,” at www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM.

[5]Cf. Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “Contraception: Fatal to the Faith,” at www.catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp.

[6] Cf. Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., book review of: Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II, by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, l986), at www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html; Fr. Joseph H. Ryder, S.J., “Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae as an Infallible Definition of Doctrine,” Social Justice Review, at www.socialjusticereview.org/articles/humanae_vitae.php.

[7]Taken from ZENIT’s interview of Senator Rick Santorum, Catholic senator from Pennsylvania. “Senator Santorum On Being Catholic And A Politician” -Zenit.org 2003

[8] “Catholics Must Affirm Their Faith In Their Public Lives”, Crusade Magazine, Sept. - Oct. 2004, p.10-11.

[9]Colliton WF. Birth control pill: abortifacient and contraceptive. Linacre Quarterly. November 1999:26-36.

[10] Alcorn R. Does the birth control pill cause abortions? (5th Edition) Eternal Perspective Ministries. 2000.

[11] “Doctinal note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in the Political Life,” Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. January 13, 2003.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (last accessed March 30, 2005.)

[12] “Whosoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father, Who is in heaven” (Matt 10:33). “For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me, and of My words; of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in His majesty, and that of His Father, and of the holy Angels” (Luke 9:26).

[13] Roberto de Mattei, Crusader of the Twentieth Century: Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, (Gracewing Fowler Wright Books, Leominster, Herefordshire, 1998), p. x.

No place for the RH bill in our law

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


No place for the RH bill in our law
By Francisco S. Tatad


THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH bill in the House of Representatives is being presented as a health bill and an antipoverty bill at the same time. It is neither. It is not what its authors say it is; it is everything they say it is not. It is an ideological attack on human life, the family, and our social and cultural values.


The bill rests on a flawed premise; it is unnecessary, unconstitutional, oppressive of religious belief and destructive of public morals and family values. Its enactment into law will only deepen the already frightening ignorance about the real issues. It should be rejected.


1. Flawed premise

Our population growth rate (National Statistics Office) is 2.04 percent, total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.02. The CIA World Factbook has lower figures -- growth rate, 1.728 percent; TFR, 3.00.


Our population density is 277 per square km. GDP per capita (PPP) is $3,400. Fifty other countries have a much lower density, yet their per capita is also much lower. Thirty-six countries are more densely populated, yet their GDP per capita is also much higher. Are the few then always richer, the many always poorer? Not at all.


Our median age is 23 years. In 139 other countries it is as high as 45.5 years (Monaco). This means a Filipino has more productive years ahead of him than his counterpart in the rich countries where the graying and dying population is no longer being replaced because of negative birth rates.


Our long-term future is bright, because of a vibrant and dynamic population.

2. Unnecessary

Women who say they should be free to contracept (regardless of what the moral law or science says) are not being prevented from doing so, as witness the 50-percent contraceptive prevalence rate. It is a free market. But as we are not a welfare state, taxpayers have no duty to provide the contraceptives to try and cure pregnancy, which is not a disease.


The State’s duty is to protect women from real diseases. At least 80 women die every day from heart diseases, 63 from vascular diseases, 51 from cancer, 45 from pneumonia, 23 from tuberculosis, 22 from diabetes; 16 from lower chronic respiratory diseases. Why are our lawmakers not demanding free medicines and services for all those afflicted?


Indeed, maternal death could be brought down to zero just by providing adequate basic and emergency obstetrics-care facilities and skilled medical services to women. The local officials of Gattaran, Cagayan and Sorsogon City have shown this. Why do our lawmakers insist on stuffing our women with contraceptives and abortifacients instead?


In 2005, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization concluded that oral contraceptives cause breast, liver and cervical cancer. Shouldn’t our lawmakers demand that contraceptives be banned or at least labeled as “cancer-causing,” or “dangerous to women’s health”? Why do they want them classified as “essential medicines” instead?


3. Unconstitutional

a.) The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Yet the bill seems to assume we are a centrally planned economy or a totalitarian State, which controls the private lives of its citizens. Truth is, there are certain activities of man as man where the individual is completely autonomous from the State.
Just as the State may not tell a politician or a journalist how or when to think, write or speak, it may not enter the bedroom and tell married couples how or when to practice marital love.


b.) Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution says: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”


The use of “sanctity” makes State obedience to God’s laws not only a solemn teaching of the Church, but also an express constitutional mandate. Now, when the State binds itself to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception,” it necessarily binds itself not to do anything to prevent even one married woman from conceiving. A state-funded contraceptive program is an abomination.


4. Oppressive of religious belief


The bill seeks to tell the Catholic majority not to listen to the Church and to listen to anti-Catholic politicians instead. It seeks to establish a program which Catholic taxpayers will fund in order to attack a doctrine of their faith. Is there a worse despotism? Would the same people do the same thing to the followers of Islam or some politically active religious pressure group?


The pro-RH lobby claims surveys have shown that most Catholic women want to use contraception, regardless of what the Church says about it. It is a desperate attempt to show that right or wrong can now be reduced to what you like or dislike. The truth is never the result of surveys. Contraception is wrong not because the Church has banned it; the Church has banned it because it is wrong. No amount of surveys can change that.


5. Destructive of public morals


The bill seeks to impose a hedonistic sex-oriented lifestyle that aims to reduce the conjugal act to a mere exchange of physical sensations between two individuals and marriage to a purely contraceptive partnership.


Not only is it hedonistic, it is above all eugenicist. It seeks to eliminate the poor and the “socially unfit.” While it neither mandates a two-child family nor legalizes abortion, it prepares the ground for both.


In 1974, the US National Security Study Memorandum 200, titled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,” launched the two-child family as a global population policy to be achieved by 2000. But “no country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion,” said that document.


Now you know what’s next, and where it’s all coming from.


(Former Sen. Francisco S. Tatad represents the Asia-Pacific on the Governing Boards of the International Right to Life Federation, Cincinnati, Ohio and the World Youth Alliance, New York, NY. Comments to http://franciscotatad.blogspot.com)

Reckless and Irresponsible

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

Reckless and irresponsible

By Jo Imbong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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