PiNaysaAmerika's take on the RH Bill:
RH BILL - It is a big business -facts and questions.
This is an archive for open letters and declarations, illustrations, treatises, opinion pieces, interviews and videos that support the orthodox Catholic position on the so-called "Reproductive Health Law" passed by the Philippine Legislature and signed into law in December 2012. (NB: Inclusion of a given piece in this blog-archive neither necessarily signifies the blog owner's agreement with all of its assertions, nor does it mean that he endorses it as completely accurate or precise.)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Using the rhetoric of the pro-RH side against the RH bill: Antonio Montalvan's latest salvo
By Antonio J. Montalvan II
Kris-Crossing Mindanao
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:49:00 02/21/2011
GIVE A chance to choice before saying anything disparaging about the consolidated “reproductive health” bill that has already passed the scrutiny of the committee on appropriations of the House of Representatives. That was what somebody said among the minority downbeat letters I get every time I write about pro-life issues.
The operative word, however, seems to be the word “before,” which in reality already suffers as a non-sequitur. And that is because “choice” is actually existent. Couples can easily buy condoms over the counter. That goes true with pills. Sterilization, which is an injectable administered to women every three months, can be demanded for free at any government health center.
So where is the need for a “reproductive health” bill? Good question, but I continue to enclose that term in quotation marks. Is it really a health need that puts human vigor and well-being as its primary target? Well, we are fixated with scientific surveys. Why can’t we just stick to the facts?
In this day and age of passion for the environment, when many are going natural and organic, artificial means of contraception appear to be an anachronism. Let science speak.
Among many is a five-year study done by the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom where half of the male fish in lowland English rivers are “developing female characteristics because of pollution.” The BBC, a cable television favorite alongside CNN, reported that “Scientists blame the pollution on a ‘potent’ form of estrogen found in urine from women using the contraceptive pill, which may be flushed through sewage works and into rivers.” In 2002, the United Kingdom declared hormonal birth control a type of pollution.
Biodiversity activists may wish to take a deeper look at the evidence. In the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Oncology—the name alone is already indicative of what it does—a research team discovered that fish caught inside the water they were testing “may be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.”
Why should we be concerned with that? Right to life advocates behind the study aver: “Think about the water you drink. Think about the fish you eat. Could your own drinking water be infested with high levels of estrogen? What kind of effects would take place if we drink water containing high levels of estrogen and eat these contaminated fish?”
What is the democratic choice that “reproductive health” advocates now say must be legislated? First, it is this. It is a choice for women who take the birth control pill, patch and other birth control products who put themselves at risk. What kind of choice is that? Science has already confirmed that the pill can cause a woman to develop deep vein thrombosis which can block the blood supply to the heart or brain, resulting in a heart attack, stroke or death. The clot could also travel to the lungs, which then could result in a pulmonary embolism or death.
Second, science has already established that the birth control pill, patch, intra-uterine device and similar birth control products also work as abortifacients by thinning the uterine lining and making it impossible for the newly conceived child to implant and grow. Even the Physician’s Desk Reference or PDR, the most frequently used reference book by American physicians, and the US Food and Drug Administration which requires drug manufacturers the so-called “professional labeling,” both claim birth control pills have an abortive mechanism by “introducing changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation” of a newly fertilized human being.
Third, the hormones in the contraceptives are partially absorbed by the body of the woman who consumes them. The residue ends up in our wastewater, which causes hazards to the environment and ultimately to those who consume the water. It goes without saying that it is like bringing cancer direct to the dinner table.
These studies have been replicated by researchers in the South Platte River and Boulder Creek in Colorado as well as in Puget Sound in Washington State in the last 10 years. Similar studies at University of California-Long Beach, the US Geological Survey study done at the Potomac River, the Canadian Rivers Institute at the University of New Brunswick, all say in unison: estrogens cannot be completely broken down by sewage treatment. Yet here we are in the Philippines completely oblivious to what the evidence says. We must be out of touch with the rest of the 21st-century world.
Consider these from the consolidated “reproductive health” bill: “The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors.”
A section of that proposed bill specifically identifies “modern” artificial birth control methods and devices that the Philippine government ought to subsidize and their access legally enforced, as namely, “hormonal contraceptives,” “intrauterine devices,” “injectables,” and “others” because they are arguably “medically safe and effective, pro-poor and affordable, rights-based.”
Pray tell us—unless we are as dense as not to understand the fine print—where is the ethics there? Where, oh where, are the human rights? Where is the sustainability to human development?
Surely it should not take sophisticated legalese to complicate the answers.
(Comments to antonmonta@gmail.com)
Friday, February 18, 2011
23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill
I would like to bring your attention to the following document on Scribd: a compilation of 23 critiques and articles written in the past few years against a previous version of the RH Bill. Despite the minor changes in the RH Bill from 2008 to the present, the points made in these studies retain their relevance.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
A thorough presentation of the objections to the RH Bill
Fr. Joaquin Ferrer SVD, Ph.D is a full-time Associate Professor at the Faculty of Business Administration, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan. He has just finished a scholarly paper, 30 pages long, rigorously analyzing House Bill 96, the best-known version of the Reproductive Health Bill before its consolidation. Nevertheless, the points raised in this article remain valid even with the advent of the consolidated bill.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Statement of Bro. Rolando Dizon FSC and the Good Citizenship Movement against the RH Bill
Statement of the Good Citizenship Movement on the RH Bill
The Good Citizenship Movement strongly rejects the Reproductive Health Bill on the following grounds:
Once it becomes law –
1) It will turn mothers’ wombs into killing fields because the contraceptive devices and substances it promotes are abortifacient or abortive in nature (Lagman HB 96: Sec. 2, par. 3 and Sec. 4 – 15), per the authoritative Randy Alcorn documentation and admissions of pharmaceutical manufacturers [please see attachment].
This bill is unconstitutional in that it violates Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Philippine Constitution.
It also violates the natural moral law contained in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and Article 6 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 because Lagman HB 96 subverts the spirit of its preamble.
2) Children aged 10–12 shall have the legal right to satisfying sex with full access to all types of contraceptive devices and substances, and parents who stop them will be imprisoned or fined or both [please see attachment].
The bill will also legalize in effect child prostitution and pedophilia.
Worst of all, children and adolescents will become the jailers of their own parents who will refuse them their sexual “rights” supported by the new RH law. (Lagman HB 96: Sec. 22, a, a-3 & e; Sec. 3b; Sec. 4 – 1 & 19d, Sec. 23)
These are all brazen violations of Art. II, Sections 11 and 12 of the Philippine Constitution.
3) The mandatory sex education program from Gr. 5, 6 to 4th year high school obliges parents to have their children undergo it or face penalties if they refuse. Also, teachers, principals, school administrators, priests, pastors, ulamas, journalists or anyone who oppose this program or any part of the passed RH law , face the same penalties. (HB 96: Sec. 13; Sec. 22-e; Sec. 23)
Again, these are blatant violations of Art. II, Sections 11 and 12 of the Philippine Constitution and Art. 26-1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Art. 29-c of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.
These three valid grounds are compelling enough to reject the RH Bill with fullness of conviction and finality. Any attempt, therefore, to force the passage of this unjust and immoral bill into law is clearly a legal hocus pocus because it will be a maneuver to “smuggle” into a law a constitutionally flawed bill. On this account, every Filipino citizen will have every right and duty to disobey it should this unconstitutional bill become law.
Finally, having rejected the RH Bill, the Good Citizenship Movement strongly endorses the Golez HB 13 and the Enrile SB 2497 because these uphold and protect the life and the rights of the unborn child as mandated by the Philippine Constitution and the abovementioned UN declarations on the preservation and protection of authentic human rights.
Only by defending and protecting human life in its most helpless state, when yet unborn, and in safeguarding the natural rights of parents over their children will our nation discover the first true and sure step to authentic human development.
It is with much hope and prayer, therefore, that the Good Citizenship Movement respectfully calls on all the members of Congress and the Senate to consider and heed the wise words of a great man of law:
“Every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal, that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that man acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
- Alexander Hamilton,The Federalist
(Sgd.)
Bro. Rolando Dizon FSC
Chairman
Good Citizenship Movement
Bro. Rolando Dizon FSC
Chairman
Good Citizenship Movement
References cited in Statement of Good Citizenship Movement on Lagman HB 96:
1) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 2, par. 3:
“The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors…”
HB 96: Sec. 4-15: Modern Methods of Family Planning - refers to safe, effective and legal methods to prevent pregnancy such as the pill, intra- uterine device (IUD), injectables, condom, ligation, vasectomy and modern Natural family planning methods which include mucus, Billings, ovulation, lactational amenorrhea, basal body temperature, and Standard Days methods.
Philippine Constitution - Art. II, 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 equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…
Note: Randy Alcorn’s “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?” is a separate attachment. (You can read this book here. -- CAP)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
UN Convention of the Rights of the Child: Art. 6: States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
Preamble of the Rights of the Child: ….”the child, by reason of his physical and and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth”,
2) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 22 Prohibited Acts – The following acts are prohibited:
a: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
a-3: Refuse to extend health care services…..on account of the person’s ……AGE!..... (capitalization and underscoring supplied)
Sec. 3. Guiding Principles – This Act declares the following as guiding principles:
Sec. 3-b: Respect for, protection and fulfilment of reproductive health and rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents and children as well. (underscoring and italization supplied)
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. – For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
Sec. 4-1: Adolescence – refers to a life stage of persons aged 10 to 19.
Sec. 4-19: Reproductive Health Care – the access to a full range of methods, techniques, facilities and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems. It also includes sexual health……The elements of reproductive health care include:
d) adolescent and youth reproductive health;
Sec. 23: Penalties – Any commission of the foregoing prohibited acts or violation of this Act shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both.
Philippine Constitution: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). 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 (Art. II, Section 12).
3) Lagman HB 96: Sec. 13 – Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education …….starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School…
Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects and shall include, but not be limited to, the following topics:
d. Children’s and women’s rights;
Sec. 22. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited:
22-e: ANY person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.(Capitalization and underscoring supplied).
Sec. 23: Penalties – Any commission of the foregoing prohibited acts or Violation of this Act shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both.
Please see above cited articles of the Philippine Constitution.
UN Declaration of Human Rights Art. 26-1: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
UN Convention of the Rights of the Child Art. 29-c: “1. State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to…..(c) the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own.” .
Friday, February 11, 2011
Prayer Rally on February 13, 2011 at PICC
A prayer rally for the defense of life against the RH Bill dubbed "Filipinos! Unite for Life" will be held at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Sunday, February 13, 2011.
Monday, February 7, 2011
World Youth Alliance Statement on the RH Bill
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 violates international human rights to freedom of conscience, thought and belief that are enshrined in Philippine law. These rights are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and CEDAW, all of which have been ratified into Philippine law.
The following passages in the current bill violate freedom of conscience, thought and belief, and include punitive measures for those who oppose these rights:
RH bill. SEC. 7, Ln. 9-10
RH bill. SEC. 8, Para. 2, Ln. 26-29
RH bill. SEC. 12, Ln. 25
RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 4-5
RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln 10-11, (a)
RH bill. SEC. 16, Ln. 27
RH bill. SEC. 17
RH bill. SEC. 18
RH bill. SEC. 20, Ln. 24-25
RH bill. SEC 22
RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(1)
RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(2)
RH bill. SEC. 28(a)(3) Ln. 5-9
The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011 will be presented to the Appropriations Committee on the morning of Feb 8th, 2011. If passed in this committee, the bill will be referred to the Committee on Rules, which will schedule the bill for plenary voting.
It is critical for individuals to act now by contacting their Congressional Representative to ask them to protect basic human rights by voting against this bill. Only a vote against this bill will protect these basic human rights in Philippine law.
To find your Congressional representative’s contact information, go to this link:
Jose C. Sison on how to respond to the RH Bill
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison
Updated February 07, 2011 12:00 AM
In last Friday’s column (Reaching another crossroad), the CBCP has clearly shown in its pastoral letter that contrary to what its advocates are claiming, the RH bill does not really promote reproductive health, does not reduce but increases the rate of abortion, does not really prevent HIV/AIDS, empowers women with ownership of their own bodies which are really God’s gift subject to God’s will, and is not necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape poverty. Thus in the light of these false premises, the Bishops were forced to express their strong objections to:
1. The non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills intended for the common good and the good of individuals.
2. The anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.
3. The efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.
4. The overall trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.
5. The use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.
6. The compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children especially in the area of sexuality which is a sacred gift of God.
Obviously, these objections of the Bishops stem from their firm convictions which they also expressed in their pastoral letter as follows:
a) Deep concern about the plight of the poor, especially of suffering women who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside the country or by recourse to a livelihood that is less than decent.
b) Defense of human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.
c) Belief in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning that requires character building involving sacrifice, self-discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.
d) Belief that we are only stewards of our own bodies and that responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through our conscience.
e) Belief that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.
f) Belief in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith which is one more reason to denounce the RH bill as it imposes sanctions and penalties in violation of this freedom and right.
Admittedly, the government has called for a dialogue with the Bishops to enable them to convey and express these views. Sadly however, the dialogue only “revealed how far apart” their respective positions are. Besides, while the dialogue is still ongoing, the Congressional Committee on Family Life already approved and endorsed to the Lower House a consolidated version of the various bills now entitled “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development and for Other Purposes” containing the same objectionable features of the original RH bill. So instead of further “building false hopes”, the CBCP just decided to issue the pastoral letter containing their unanimous moral judgment to “reject the RH agenda and to choose life”. In doing so, the Bishops did not only draw up what they object to and what they stand for. They also appealed for more concrete actions as they called:
• For a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless human life being formed or being conceived.
• For our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people.
• For other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.
• For our government to address effectively the real issues of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, social inequities, and lack of access to education and the benefits of development.
• For the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for their education and the building of more and better infrastructures for development.
The bishops thus echoed the challenge prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and called upon “all people of goodwill who share our conviction” …to “pray together, reason together, decide together, act together always to the end that truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values”.
This is a great challenge indeed. But we must accept and respond to it as we did during EDSA I. And one of the most feasible and immediately implementable actions that can be done in response to this challenge is of the course to organize massive prayer rallies similar to that organized in the late ’90s which foiled the plan of some ambitious politicians to extend their stay in power by amending the constitution. This time the prayer rallies will be imploring the help of the Divine Providence to stop Congress from enacting that anti-life and anti-family RH bill.
Another doable move that can be done immediately is to lobby for and support House Bill No. 13 entitled an “Act Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child and for Other Purposes”. This bill actually seeks to implement the Constitutional Provision in Article II Section 12 mandating the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. It is based on the truism that the right to life is the most fundamental of rights from which all other rights are derived and without which other rights including women’s right to reproductive health are meaningless. Due to space limitations, HB 13 shall be discussed in a subsequent article.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Draft of the Consolidated RH Bill
Thanks to the new blog Filipinos for Life, the latest draft of the consolidated RH Bill is now available here.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Are we importing rice because of overpopulation?
Manny Amador has an essay explaining why past rice shortages (and the need to import) were not necessarily caused by “runaway population growth”.
New CBCP Pastoral Letter versus the RH bill
A summary by Jose Sison of this pastoral letter can be found here.
A video-summary of the pastoral letter can be found here
A plan of action on the basis of this letter can be found here.
A video-summary of the pastoral letter can be found here
A plan of action on the basis of this letter can be found here.
CHOOSING LIFE, REJECTING THE RH BILL
(A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
Our Filipino Brothers and Sisters:
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). 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 (Art. II, Section 12).
Background
We begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. We do so because we intend to write you on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings.
We are at a crossroads as a nation. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill, the Reproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death.
At the outset we thank the government for affording us an opportunity to express our views in friendly dialogue. Sadly our dialogue has simply revealed how far apart our respective positions are. Therefore, instead of building false hopes, we wish at the present time to draw up clearly what we object to and what we stand for.
Moral Choices at the Crossroads -- at EDSA I and Now
Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment on political leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity.
Today we come to a new national crossroads and we now have to make a similar moral choice. Our President rallied the country with the election cry, “Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap.” As religious leaders we believe that there is a greater form of corruption, namely, moral corruption which s really the root of all corruption. On the present issue, it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill.
This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill.
Commonly Shared Human and Cultural Values – Two Fundamental Principles
Far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial.
Simply stated the RH Bill does not respect moral sense that is central to Filipino cultures. It is the product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose, according to the spirit of the age. Some it accepts, others it does not accept. Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society.
Our position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God:
(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.
(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.
What We Specifically Object to in the RH Bill
Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health.
Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. “Safe sex” to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.
Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda.
Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called “new truth” is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow God’s will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life.
Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines
In the light of the above, we express our clear objections:
- We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good.
- We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.
- We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.
- We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.
- We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.
- We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God.
What We Stand For
On this matter of proposed RH bills, these are our firm convictions:
- We are deeply concerned about the plight of the many poor, especially of suffering women, who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside of our country, or have recourse to a livelihood less than decent.
- We are pro-life. We must defend human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.
- We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.
- We believe that we are only stewards of our own bodies. Responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through conscience.
- We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.
- We believe in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith. The sanctions and penalties embodied in the proposed RH bill are one more reason for us to denounce it.
Our Calls
As religious leaders we have deeply and prayerfully reflected on this burning issue. We have unanimously made the moral judgment – to reject the RH agenda and to choose life.
1. We call for a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless, namely, human life being formed or being conceived. The cheapness with which many seem to consider human life is a great bane to our religious-oriented nation.
2. We call upon our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people. We thank our legislators who have filed bills to defend human life from the moment of conception and call upon all other legislators to join their ranks.
3. We thank the great multitude of lay people all over the country, and particularly the dedicated groups who made their presence felt in the halls of Congress, to defend and promote our position. We call upon other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.
4. We call on our government to address effectively the real causes of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, lack of access to education and the benefits of development, social inequities.
5. We call for the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for education, and the building of more and better infrastructures necessary for development.
6. We echo the challenge we prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and call upon all people of good will who share our conviction: “…let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values.
We commend our efforts against the RH bill (or the Responsible Parenthood bill – its new name) to the blessing of our almighty and loving God, from whom all life comes and for whom it is destined.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
+Nereo P. Odchimar, D.D.
Bishop of Tandag
President, CBCP
January 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
"It really looks like the Congressional locomotive is now being used to speed up (the RH Bill's) passage."
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)
Updated January 17, 2011 12:00 AM
Like it or not, most of the members of Congress do not observe regular office hours. Nor do they report for work regularly every working day. Only their lowly staff members punch time cards and report for work regularly. It is accepted and common knowledge that plenary sessions or committee hearings are often delayed or postponed for failure to muster a quorum. Hence it comes as something odd and a big surprise to learn that the Congressional Committee hearing the RH bill is working and meeting even on a Sunday!
I tried to contain my surprise by thinking that maybe we just have a more conscientious and dedicated bunch of legislators now. But when I further learned that those attending the hearing are mostly pro-RH bill advocates, my surprise turned into suspicion and alarm. At the risk of being branded a paranoid, I really cannot help but conclude that there is an attempt to pass off this Sunday gathering as part of the required number of public hearings before the bill is endorsed to the entire House for deliberation. It really looks like the Congressional locomotive is now being used to speed up its passage.
The bill is becoming more controversial precisely because its sponsors apparently have no intention to consider and remove its objectionable portions by using all sorts of tactics to insure its passage. Lately, they have even used (or plagiarized?) the phrase “responsible parenthood” as part of its title. Hence it is now also known as the “responsible parenthood” bill. Obviously this is an attempt to appease Church people.
Indeed “responsible parenthood” is a phrase that has long been used by the Church in her apostolate on family life. The meaning of this phrase as part of the Church teaching has already been clearly set forth by the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) citing the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, as follows:
“The profound link between the conjugal union and the gift of life gives married couples a vocation to give life, as long as they can responsibly care for the children they beget. Hence responsible parenthood calls for an understanding of the reproductive processes of the spouses’ bodies, including the women’s fertility cycle. And as with any passion (anger, fear, love for food, desire for more etc.), the sexual drive should be placed under control of the intellect and the will, through the very exercise of virtues rendering the sexual faculties truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons.
Responsible parenthood further involves the decision either (1) to generously raise a numerous family if the couple is capable of doing so, or (2) if there are more serious reasons (health, economic, social, psychological, etc) not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely.
Thus, responsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do. The sexual union is appropriate only within the context of marital love, which must always be faithful, permanent, and exclusive between one man and one woman who is open to the gift of new life.
Responsible parenthood also has nothing to do with encouraging or coercing couples, whether directly or indirectly to have only one or two children. It is not a population control program. Neither the government nor the Church may tell couples how many children to have, for the decision to have either a small or a large family rests on the couple themselves”.
Unless it has already been substantially changed, the main features of the RH bill as originally conceived and worded by its authors and advocates particularly the foreign funded Philippine Legislative Council on Population Development (PLCPD), are diametrically opposed to this real concept of “responsible parenthood” as originally conceived by the Church.
The bill appropriates millions or even billions of public funds to finance the purchase of contraceptives and procurement of other artificial devices so that couples can use them to have “safe and satisfying sex”; safe in the sense that one can engage in it without getting pregnant and satisfying in the sense that one can enjoy it because of lack of fear of having a baby. In other words, the real purpose of the bill is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not to promote responsible parenthood. Responsible parenthood in its true sense does not contemplate the use of artificial contraceptives.
Of course the bill admittedly gives couples the freedom to choose or not to choose these contraceptives and devices. But since they are made available without any cost or inconvenience, hardship and sacrifice, couples will naturally choose them. So what is actually “free” here is not the choice but the artificial contraceptives and devices.
Another deception in the bill is that it is supposedly intended to promote reproductive health; to prevent the increasing death rate of mother and/or child during birth or immediately thereafter. In effect, it considers pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented instead of improving the medical services available to mother and child; instead of simply providing more modern facilities for maternal health and child care. The DOH can do this even without any enabling Act. Indeed the billion peso public funds intended for the purchase of contraceptives and devices can be put to better use for these purposes.
The bill is also inconsistent with the real concept of responsible parenthood because it provides incentives to couples to have only one or two children. This is indirect coercion intended to control our population at a time when our total fertility rate is already declining.
The advocates and sponsors of this bill should therefore refrain from using “responsible parenthood” to describe the bill if its contents are substantially the same. Otherwise it will be a grand deception that will only enrich the manufacturers of these artificial contraceptives and promote the agenda of first world countries to maintain the status quo by keeping us a third world and under-developed country so that they can continue to exploit our human and natural resources. And if our leaders and legislators fall for this grand deception, then it is time…to pray harder that heaven help our country.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Oratio Imperata for the Respect of All Human Life
I've read, and been told, and seen for myself, that this prayer continues to be IGNORED in a number of Masses in the Archdiocese of Manila and elsewhere. I am therefore posting this prayer and ask that this blog's readers recite it as part of their private prayers. Let us be united with the bishops of our country in spiritual combat against the Reproductive Health Bill.
10 December 2010
TO: ALL THE PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MANILA
RE: ORATIO IMPERATA FOR THE RESPECT OF ALL HUMAN LIFE
Dear Monsignori, Father, Brothers and Sisters:
Greetings in the Lord!
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has forwarded the attached Oratio Imperata for the Respect of all Human Life. May we request that the said prayer be recited by your parish community after the Post-Communion Prayer in all Masses starting this Third Sunday of Advent until future notice. We have also provided the Tagalog translation of the oratio.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
(signed)
REV. FR. GENARO O. DIWA
Director
Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission, Manila
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORATIO IMPERATA FOR THE RESPECT OF ALL HUMAN LIFE
God, our loving Father,
Creator and lover of all life,
You fashioned in your own image and likeness every human person.
Give us the strength and courage
to defend and protect human life from conception to natural death.
We pray for your divine healing, comfort and peace
for all affected by past abortions.
Help us serve actively in alleviating the sufferings and troubles
of all women with pregnancy problems.
We pray that all our leaders and legislators
may be guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit
to act responsibly on this critical present issue.
Mary, our loving Mother, to you we entrust the cause of life.
We make our prayer through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Saint Rosa of Lima, pray for us.
Saint Lorenzo Ruiz, pray for us.
ORATIO IMPERATA PARA SA PAGGALANG SA BUHAY NG TAO
Ama naming mapagmahal,
Ikaw ang lumikha at nagmamahal sa lahat ng buhay.
Nilikha at hinubog mo ang bawat tao na iyong kawangis at kalarawan.
Pagkalooban mo kami ng lakas at tapang
upang ipagtanggol at pangalagaan ang buhay ng tao
mula sa sinapupunan hanggang sa kusang pagpanaw nito.
Nagsusumamo kami sa iyo para sa iyong awa,
lakas at kapayapaan
sa lahat ng nasangkot sa “abortion.”
Tulutan mong maging handa kami
upang tulungan na maibsan ang kapighatian
at hirap ng mga kababaihang dumadanas
ng tindi ng suliranin sanhi ng kanilang pagdadalang-tao.
Ipinapananalangin din namin ang aming mga pinuno at mambabatas,
upang sila’y gabayan ng biyaya ng Espiritu Santo
na manindigan ayon sa pananampalataya sa Iyo
sa pagharap nila sa usaping ito.
Mahal na Birhen, aming maibiging Ina,
ipinagkakatiwala naming sa iyo ang mga mithiin naming para sa buhay.
Hinihiling naming ito sa pamamagitan ni Hesu-Kristong aming Panginoon. Amen
Mahal na Birhen ng Guadalupe. Ipanalangin mo kami.
Santa Rosa ng Lima. Ipinalangin mo kami.
San Lorenzo Ruiz. Ipanalangin mo kami.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
"The way to the RH Bill is certainly not paved with good intentions"
Kris-Crossing Mindanao
By Antonio J. Montalvan II
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:04:00 01/10/2011
WERE THEY on life-or-death tenterhooks? Reports have it that the committee on population of the House of Representatives met by themselves last Jan. 2. Nothing extraordinary there, except when you begin to recall that Jan. 2 was a Sunday and was still within the New Year’s Eve hangover period. Perhaps they were just hardworking. But then we are told that those in attendance were only the pro-RH Bill committee members and their pro-RH Bill NGO counterparts who acted as “citizens’ representatives.” The alleged intent was to put that meeting on record as the third and final “public hearing” on the Reproductive Health Bill, and then railroad it for plenary agenda.
If truth is stranger than fiction, then we are in for an illegal, unconstitutional act. Informed of this development, a vehemently opposing Roilo Golez reportedly vowed to make the railroading impossible. Before the House adjourned for the holidays, Golez was second on a list of 20 interpellators with his interpellation still in progress.
The bill’s supporters have repeatedly claimed, like a broken record, that the RH Bill is not pro-abortion and contraceptives are not abortifacients. With a possible railroading maneuver, the public is now brought to the canyon’s edge. An informed choice from life and death issues emanating from contraceptive use has to be imminent.
As that midnight committee meeting was surreptitiously taking place, the journal Contraception released its January 2011 issue on 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49 who were surveyed every two years from 1997 to 2007. Researchers found that within that period the number of women in contraceptive use increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. But there was more that truly puzzled the researchers, who paradoxically had aimed to gather information about contraceptive use in order to reduce the number of abortions. Over that period, the country’s abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49.
That is not odd. Over the years since the 1950s, both scientific studies and abortion advocates themselves (such as Alfred Kinsey, Beckworth Whitehouse and Christopher Tietze) have pointed out the connection between abortion and contraception. In 1979, Malcolm Potts, then medical director of International Planned Parenthood Federation, had admitted that “as people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”
Also admitting that connection, the US Supreme Court said in its 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” the justices wrote.
Documented scientific fact has long recognized that since almost all so-called contraceptives routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in “unplanned pregnancies,” abortions have become a social requirement to take care of such “accidents.” Among many studies, the Guttmacher Institute’s report “Contraception Counts” (2006) showed NO correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates. “Seventy-two percent of low-income teens who cohabitate and rely on condoms will become pregnant within a year, and protection rates against STDs are even worse. We have one million unplanned pregnancies in the US every year due to contraceptive failure, half of which result in abortion.”
With sexual activity rising from greater contraceptive use, abortion thus has become part of the “safety” constellation, a contraceptive in itself. Hence the pattern all over the world is to legalize contraception first, then legalize abortion later. When contraception fails tremendously, women start looking for illegal abortion; so then it has to be legalized. We have said in the past that they are Siamese twins.
Is the pill an abortifacient? The common defense is to say that it is not because it only prevents ovulation. That is not even a half-truth, however, for additionally, it has two other actions. It thickens the genital tract’s cervical mucus, rendering it more viscous so as to inhibit sperm penetration. But thirdly, it thins the lining of the uterus known as the endometrium, impairing implantation of the newly fertilized egg, effectively killing the new human being that already has its own set of genetic codes. That is the same action an intra-uterine device (IUD) does. If that is not abortion, what is?
Pills are composed of hormonal steroids and chemicals that have been known to cause deep vein thrombosis in women, a blood clot that forms in the vein which can block the blood supply to the heart or brain, resulting in a heart attack, stroke or death. The clot may also travel to the lungs, causing pulmonary embolism or death. It has been estimated that 25,000 lawsuits could take place in the US due to one brand alone of a birth control pill.
Normally the New Year ushers in good tidings. In this case, however, RH Bill proponents have just prescribed us a death sentence, via a reprehensible means of cultural, political and constitutional imposition. The way to the RH Bill is certainly not paved with good intentions.
* * *
Comments to antonmonta@gmail.com
Sunday, January 9, 2011
"The more people you have, the more power you wield"
SHOOTING STRAIGHT By Bobit S. Avila (The Philippine Star)
Updated January 08, 2011 12:00 AM
Next week is already the Sinulog Week for Cebu (how time flies, indeed) and I asked Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama to be my special guest on our talk show “Straight from the Sky” so we did the taping in the new mayor’s office in Cebu City, which is now located at the ground floor of the executive building. During the term of then Mayor Tomas Osmeña, his office was at the top floor of this edifice and one can see the stark differences in the management style of the two Cebu City mayors.
When we started the interview, Mayor Rama gave me a pleasant surprise when he publicly declared that he was against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. While the issue of the RH bill is being waged in Congress, some local government officials already intimated which side they are taking. In the case of former Cebu City mayor, now Rep. Tomas Osmeña, he never categorically stated that he was for or against the RH bill, but he clearly said that he would distribute condoms to the poor. So more or less, you have an idea of where his thoughts are on this issue.
In making that public declaration, Mayor Rama joins the ranks of Rep. Pablo “Pabling” Garcia and former Rep. Raul del Mar who were the pillars in this fight against the RH bill. I reckon that the case of Mayor Rama is akin to the case of Rep. Pabling Garcia, who comes from a large family. Mike Rama, too, comes from a large family and he said, “My parents would say that by God’s grace, we were able to raise a good family and obedient children and we all succeeded in life.”
With Cebu celebrating the fiesta of Señor Sto. Niño next week, the declaration of Mayor Rama is quite timely and a great boost to the pro-life movement which is hell-bent on stopping that evil called the RH bill which is being forced upon our unwary people all in the name of following what’s happening in Western countries which are now suffering a serious decline in their respective populations.
For the articles about the RH bill that we’ve written at the start of this new year, we have a lot of comments from our readers. Here are a couple of them:
From Dioscoro Vallejos (atty_vallejos @yahoo.com): “Population control says it all. The more people you have, the more power you wield. That is why foreign governments are pouring money into population control programs in the underdeveloped countries. The Philippines’ growing population is power into the future. That is really it. Even now, by necessity and not by discernment, our OFWs are opening paths to the conquering power of our population.
“England, Japan, China and the US need us. The more Filipinos we deploy to these countries, the more powerful the Philippines will become. Filipinos will be necessary in policy-making and maintaining concerns of these developed countries. So, it is plainly stupid to control our population when our burgeoning population is our sole asset well into the future. We Filipinos will conquer the world economy by necessity. We will be one of the biggest number of people running the world!
“So why control the rapid growth of our greatest asset? Can’t people see? The South Koreans, growing too many in their own country, have been deliberately deployed to the Philippines, for their growing population to survive. Filipinos are most welcome in most developed countries because of our education and affinity to the English language. Why support the RH bill? The reason against it is not moral. The RH bill is the instrument of the foreign governments to subjugate us, making us number less, so we won’t overrun them. This is the real reason.”
From elon.sison@gmail.com: “Yes, Bobit, Thank you for your column. As I told Senator Mechai of Thailand during a Senate hearing last year – our country is not poor! It is rich in both natural and human resources. We are not overpopulated! We are underdeveloped!! We need our children to be educated and become skilled so our vast natural resources can become more productive. According to Senator Mechai in reply to my comment, because their birth rate has been only .5 since 2005, they will welcome Filipinos to their country who will work there and pay taxes so they will be able to support their aging population. See what I mean?
“The RH bill is a misnomer. The lobbyists only want us to buy from pharmaceuticals abroad the contraceptive pills (also abortifacient really), which cannot be sold anymore in their own country. If we wish mothers and babies to be healthy, let us have more public lying-in clinics and skilled midwives and health centers with developmental pediatricians who can advise pregnant women to eat more malunggay and tulya so that their babies can be breastfed as long as possible and not bottle-fed. The RH bill should be called Maternal and Child Care and concern itself with mothers and children, not men who want safe sex with women!” Thanks guys for your very positive comments.
* * *
For e-mail responses to this article, write to vsbobita@mozcom.com or vsbobita@gmail.com. Avila’s columns can be accessed through www.philstar.com.
Friday, January 7, 2011
A bishop explains the RH Bill to students
The following was published on page B4 of CBCP Monitor, Vol. 14 No. 25, December 6 - 31, 2010.
Pastoral Dialogue with Students on ‘Reproductive Health’
Pastoral Dialogue with Students on ‘Reproductive Health’
By: Bishop Ruperto Cruz Santos
“The little children were being to Jesus in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spokes sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, ‘let the children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs’. And he laid his hands on them…” (Mt 19:13-15)
TWICE a month we make pastoral visits to the different public and private High Schools in our Diocese with the Marian Missionaries of the Holy Cross, who are our Diocesan Campus and Youth ministers. Prior to these pastoral visits, the priests of the vicariates, together with the Marian Missionaries where the national High Schools are located make the Sacrament of Confession available to the students.
The pastoral visit of the Bishop includes the following activities: Praying of the Holy Rosary, celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and a Question and Answer with the Bishop. On a pastoral visit the question and answer were on the “Reproductive Health” issue. I share them with you.
Students: We read and hear many things, sometimes conflicting, about the so-called Reproductive Health. Can you please tell us what this is all about?
Bishop: Reproductive Health provides that the use of contraceptive and sterilization means and agents be made available to all. This contraception involves abortifacients, which prevent the initial development of pregnancy even after fertilization. The Reproductive Health Bill authorized artificial birth control, the use of birth control pills and means taken by women. So the objective is population control; to reduce the number of children in a family to only two children.
Students: What does the State say?
Bishop: The State through the Constitution states in Article II, Section 12 that the “State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from contraception.”
Students: What does the Church teach?
Bishop: The Church teaches the Life is sacred. Life is precious. Life is person. And person is good. From the book of Genesis we read, “God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good”. (1-31). Life is good. And life is to be protected and defended.
The Vatican II apostolic constitution ‘Gaudium et Spes’ clearly affirms that “from the moment of its conception, life must be safeguarded with greatest care…abortion and other infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (51). A life in womb should be taken as a blessing. It is God’s mystery of love. It is God’s gift of love. That life has a right to our protection and guidance. We are morally responsible for them. We are accountable to God for whatever will happen to them.
Pope Pius XII, speaking to midwives in 1951, confirmed “each man receives his life directly from God, not from his parents, or from the society or from government. Hence, there is no man or human authority that can show or exercise a valid juridical authority to decide by his will, directly and deliberately on the life of an innocent man.”
Pope Paul VI, addressing the Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of England on October 3, 1964, reiterated this when he said, “innocent human life, in whatever condition it is found, is to be secure from the very first moments of its existence from any deliberate attack. This is a fundamental right of the human person, which is of general value in the Christian concept of life; and hence as valid for the still hidden life within the womb of the mother as for the life of the already born and developing outside her…” Our Church considers human life precious. Human life must be protected. Her basic natural moral rights must be promoted. Remember, for God no one is useless. Everyone is important. All are special to Him.
Student: What should we believe?
Bishop: Life is a gift; much more, life is a grace. God values our life. He wants us to live, to be alive; and not only to live, but God desires us to live humanly and with full dignity. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons described it best when he preached, “God’s greatest glory is man fully alive.” Can you now understand that God wants us to give life, preserve life and protect life, and not to extinguish life or to kill life?
Students: I know from my catechism class about the fifth commandment. It says “you shall not kill” (Exodus 20, 13; Deuteronomy 5, 17). We also know that the abortion is killing. To kill is a sin. And abortion is a sin. How about those who practice or promote abortifacient ways and means?
Bishop: Abortion is not being condemned only now. It has been condemned since apostolic times. Didache, the first book of the early Christian Church, say it very clearly, “you shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” (II, 2). God values our life. Our Church protects and promotes life. The two early councils of the Church held in Elvira and Ancyra in 314 issued canons on protecting and safeguarding human life. These Canons states that anyone who procures abortion automatically incurs the penalty of excommunication.
Abortion is a moral evil. And with it is a canonical penalty of Excommunication to those who do abortion and who encourage and assist abortion (ref. canon 1398 CIC)
Students: What would be your advice for married couples, especially the mothers?
Bishop: To be a mother is a gracious and responsible option for life. The prophet Isaiah asks, “Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb?” (49, 37) Rarely do we see a mother who does not feel unconditional affection and selfless devotion toward her child. Jesus describes His love for Israel in terms of a mother’s feeling for her young: “How many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings” (Matthew 23, 37). Yes, being a mother entails sacrifices. It is, in fact, hardly possible to talk about motherhood without mentioning suffering. Motherhood is also synonymous with self-giving. It is in self-sacrifice that a mother finds meaning in her motherhood. Like a mother, let us be ready for self-sacrifice; be more disciplined and have self-control. This is my advice: we should not base our decisions on choice but on what our conscience dictates. Yes, we are free but let us remember that we are also morally bound to act according to our formed conscience. We should always be guided by God’s “way, and truth and the life” (John 14, 6). God should always be a part of any decision we make!
Students: We are grateful to you Bishop for your pastoral visits. We hope to see you again and continue to ask you more questions.
Bishop: Why not visit me in my residence? I will be more than happy to welcome you and we can continue our dialogues. Before we part, let us pray first:
Prayer:
O almighty God, our merciful Father
You are our Creator. You are our author of our life and source of all goodness.
We come to You.
We truly promise to decide and do things: not on the basis of what we want, nor of what others desire, not solely for our personal benefits
Not for our own advantage, not for any profit or prestige but for your greater glory, for the common good of all, and especially for our personal sanctification.
Thank you so much, O almighty God, merciful father for creating us, and for giving us a gracious chance to live.
We sincerely resolve to respect life and to protect life.
We have received Your priceless gift of life,
Your precious gift of life.
We humbly pray we may never cease to cherish all these
Amen.
(This reflection is a compilation of the questions and answers from different schools in Diocese of Balanga in Bataan, such as Bataan Peninsula State University in Balanga, PUP in Mariveles, National high schools in Luacan (Dinalupihan) in Samal, in Cabcaben and Private schools such as Tomas del Rosario College in Balanga.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)