"Culture of death" health workers, responsible parenthood

31 May 2005

Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Dear Mr. Esguerra,

I am deeply saddened by the stories you recounted in your article ("Dark stories born in delivery rooms", Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 30, 2005, page A1). The health workers were definitely out of line humiliating the pregnant women. Perhaps, they were thinking that these women are so irresponsible getting pregnant when they are so poor and penniless they cannot afford to take care of their offsprings.

Does irreponsibility or ignorance of persons erases their dignity? Is it a valid reason to treat them without respect?

Assuming that these stories are true, they point to two things: 1) a certain flaw in the medical education of these health workers; and 2) a deep need to educate the poor in reponsible parenthood.

The actuations of the health workers are manifestations of how they were taught in some medical schools. They are trained to consider population issues in purely biological terms. The ethical aspect is treated lightly or not all, The issue of human life and its dignity (an ethical topic) are not tackled in their training.

These stories also indicate that many of us, especially among the poor, are ignorant about the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood and motherhood. In the article there is no mention of husbands coming to the defense of their pregnant wives. Where are their husbands? There is really a need to the educate the people in responsible parenthood. But this does not mean that we have to campaign for artificial contraception. Responsible parenthood must be understood in the way Pope Paul VI wish it to the understood. Perhaps, it is good to remind ourselves again of Pope Paul VI's words in Humanae Vitae:

"Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
"In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.
"In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
"In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
"Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
"In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church." (HV #10)

Responsible parenthood is not synonymous to contraception. Responsible parenthood is ...
1) upholding the value of Marriage as an institution;
2) looking at sex as a way to express a free, total, faithful, and fruitful love; and
3) understanding that parenthood involves both the father and the mother.

I hope that your article will generate responses from the government and civil society that will address the two (2) points I mentioned.

Conception, death and things in between

This story was taken from www.inq7.net
http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=38159

Conception, death and things in between
Posted 00:45am (Mla time) May 26, 2005
By Fr. Ferdinand Santos, Ph.D.
Inquirer News Service

Editor's Note: Published on page A13 of the May 26, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

"THE CULTURE of life" and "the culture of death" are phrases coined by the late John Paul II to describe tendencies in contemporary society that either promote life or lead to its depreciation. In his work, "The Gospel of Life," John Paul described what he saw as the biggest threat to humanity today: a monumental debasement of life through drugs, war and arms, abortion, euthanasia, destruction of the environment and the unjust distribution of wealth. These, he said are often caused and supported by economic, social and political structures that do not promote life, but actually conspire against it. Decrying this as a "culture of death," he called on everyone to promote its antithesis, a "culture of life."

This way of viewing the human condition is a radically holistic one. It sees life in its totality, not from a diminished perspective that fragments and compartmentalizes it. Hence, the promotion of a "culture of life" involves upholding the dignity of life in all its stages, from birth to death and every single stage in between. It means that while life begins at conception, its protection shouldn't end there. While it ends with natural death, its defense cannot begin only when one is near that point. And while improving the "quality of life" is important in safeguarding human dignity, it is an impoverishment of our very humanity when life's initial and terminal stages are reduced to contingencies that have no significance beyond subjective whim.

It is really unfortunate then that John Paul's comprehensive view has been broken up lately and the two phrases he coined are sometimes bandied about like slogans in defense of a more truncated understanding of life. This explains to a great extent, why Christian activism is currently split between those who believe they are promoting life but choose to focus their efforts on beginning and end-of-life issues and those who see these as of secondary importance to the more pressing middle-of-life issues of peace and social justice.

It also explains that odd statement describing John Paul II as "theologically conservative," but "liberal" on social justice issues. By this was meant that while the Pope championed social justice, he was also against abortion and the entire gamut of issues usually identified with it, a position called "paradoxical" by some, if not downright "contradictory" -- as if the rejection of social injustice and the acceptance of abortion at the same time wouldn't be.

In reality, the Catholic Church's teaching on life is neither contradictory nor paradoxical, but represents an ever-widening thrust toward coherence and consistency. The dignity of the human person, understood in its totality, demands a consistent ethic of life. This requires the creation and promotion of social structures and policies that support the total development of persons, from birth to death, and every phase in between.

To be consistent, an ethic that promotes life speaks and acts against any practice that reduces life to a mere object. This would include abortion, euthanasia, war and the death penalty, sexism and an entire range of dehumanizing issues. But it also speaks and acts on behalf of affordable education and health care, just wages, humane working conditions, social and economic security, sustainable development, peace and the promotion of community, as well as care for the environment.

The promotion of a "culture of life" demands the support of a consistent ethic, not a fragmentary version that devalues life. Such an ethic is founded on the God-given value of each person in every stage and area of life. It is the only adequate and realistic point of orientation for the creation of programs and policies that recognize and uphold the inherent dignity of the human person.

The Church's teaching on the value and sanctity of life is a "seamless garment" that cannot simply be cut up to fit specific and usually self-serving agendas. Any view that does so is ultimately self-defeating. Consider for instance the inconsistency prevalent in the First World between liberals who champion social justice but consider the right to abortion sacrosanct and conservatives who go hoarse screaming against physician-assisted suicide but have no qualms buying shoes made in Third-World sweatshops run with child labor.

Neither are these First World inconsistencies peculiar to it. The Philippines is rife with them. After all, a society where the majority of children already born malnourished will not even finish grade school and stand very little chance of leading full lives is not a society that respects life. A society where many who are poor suffer actual hunger and cannot even afford medicines they need to sustain themselves is not a society that values life. A society where an individual can simply be shot while finishing a meal in a restaurant or strangled to death in her home is not a society that protects life. A society where journalists are murdered for pursuing the truth that their profession dictates they must do is not a society that allies itself with life.

A society where the wealthy believe their responsibility to others is fulfilled once they've thrown their scraps to the poor is not a society that promotes life. A society whose civil and religious leaders pay lip service to fighting a "culture of death," all the while conniving -- knowingly or otherwise -- with one another's corruption by turning a blind eye to the other's omissions is not a society that is on the side of life. A society that claims to promote a "culture of life" despite contrary structures and policies is a fraud, a sham, and is bound to self-destruct. And no amount of pro-life rhetoric will change that.

Fr. Ferdinand Santos is a priest of the Diocese of Cubao and is a professor of philosophy and theology at Providence College in Rhode Island, USA. He has also taught at the Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University and San Carlos Seminary and served briefly as chaplain at the University of the Philippines in Diliman.


©2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

Pro-life advocate

17 May 2005

Antonio Montalvan II
Inquirer News Service

Dear Mr. Montalvan,

I wish to thank you for your article yesterday, May 16th. ("Wisdom from Guyito", PDI, page A15, May 16, 2005). It is heart warming to discover that there are writers who are pro-life.

Your praise of Guyito and its creator-cartoonist, Jess Abrera, is a big boost to pro-life groups.

Reading the readers' opinions you featured made me think that it is more pro-Filipino to oppose this anti-population and birth control agenda. Our country has more to gain by not implementing population control policies. They are wrong solutions to our socio-economic problems.

I hope other editors in PDI, like Ms. Rina Jimenez-David, will change their position in the population debate. It will be more productive and beneficial to write more about solutions that would enhance our human resources and creating a more free market economy in our country.

Once again, thank you very much, Mr. Montalvan.

Manuel Dayrit, Postinor, Emergency contraception, Rape victims

14 May 2005

Ms Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

Dear Ms. Rina Jimenez-David,

I am glad you wrote about former Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit in your May 13th,"At Large" column ("Sacrificing science and health for politics", PDI, p. A15. May 13, 2005). The way you branded Dr. Dayrit's decisions as "playing politics" really amused me. You made it appear as victims those negatively affected by his policies such as the feminist groups (WomenLead and RHAN) while the prolife groups (Gabay Pamilya and POGS) came out as oppressors. By the way, I wish to correct that it is actually Abay Pamilya, not Gabay Pamilya.

It may be "playing politics" for you, but for many readers, including me, Dr. Dayrit's actions are manifestations of how he live up to his moral standards. Your article bolstered my belief that Dr. Dayrit is pro-Filipino. I also believe that he is more pro-women than WomenLead and RHAN.

Your description of Postinor's mechanism of action of "preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum-but only within a three-day period "window" after contact" in paragraph 11 is a confirmation that Postinor is indeed abortifacient. You failed to mention that Postinor is popularly known as the "Morning after Pill".

I also share your sympathy towards rape victims. They deserve understanding, respect and care. But I strongly doubt the benefit of allowing them to take emergency contraception to discontinue unwanted pregnancy. Is the child conceived through rape or incest no less human than any other child? "Dr. David Reardon (www.afterabortion.org) points out that abortion is the very worst "solution" that we can offer to the pregnant woman at this crisis time in her life. Abortion compounds her problems. Abortion makes her an aggressor against her own innocent child and it never makes the painful memories of rape go away. If a small child were killed in the street by a negligent driver and it was later determined that the child had been conceived in rape, would the driver be held less responsible? Is that child's death less tragic?" (www.lovematters.com)

This debate between pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates on economic and practical issues can go on forever. But a meeting of minds could possibly be achieved if the discussion is shifted on the ideological level. All arguments by both sides proceed from two opposing ideologies.

The first ideology have the following characteristics:
1. Human dignity is not universal. There are people of some race, color, ethnicity, social status, etc. that do not deserve respect.
2. Sex is a contact sport. The ultimate sport of pleasure-seeking individuals.
3. A child resulting from sex is a nuisance and a threat to someone else's quality of life.

The opposing ideology, on the other hand, have the following characteristcs:
1. Human dignity is universal. Everyone deserve respect regardless of race, color, ethnicity, social status, etc. It stems from the idea that a human being is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Sex, which should be within marriage, is one way to express a free, total, faithful, and fruitful love.
3. A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

Tell me, Ms. Rina, which ideology do you subscribe to?

I hope you find my feedback worth reading and the ideas in it worth pondering upon. Pardon my grammatical and styling errors. Actually, I am making use of this feedback to practice writing. I would appreciate receiving your corrections.

Thank you for your time and best regards.

HB 3773, Responsible parenthood, Catholic Church

12 May 2005

Dear Ms. Rina Jimenez-David

I wish thank you for featuring the population issue in your May 7th "At Large" column ("David and Goliath", PDI, May 7, 2005). I understand the concern of Ms. Rhodora "Dory" Roy-Raterta to teach Filipino families responsible parenthood in order to provide adequately for the needs of their children. I must admit that her goal is very valid and commendable. But she must remind herself that "the end does not justify the means".

In teaching responsible parenthood, we cannot just use all the means available, regardless of the morality of its use. In my opinion, Filipino families must reject secularized and antinatalist family planning strategy, which put God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat. This strategy is spread by large organizations and international associations that promote abortion, sterilization, and contraception. These organizations want to impose a false lifestyle against the truth of human sexuality. Working at national or state levels, these organizations try to arouse the fear of the "threat of overpopulation" among children and young people to promote the contraceptive mentality, that is, the "anti-life" mentality. They spread false ideas about "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive rights" of young people.

Why don't she and the organization she represent, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), just concentrate on a moral family planning strategy; like the natural family planning (NFP)? NFP is easy to teach and understand. It can be used in any social context and do not require literacy. The health of mothers and infants is furthered through spacing childbirth in a natural way which harms neither the mother nor her baby. NFP do not harm the health of couples. The freedom and rights of the wife and husband are respected through this method which center around the woman and are based on the integrity of her body.

I am inclined to support the view that Filipino families must guard against solutions, whether publicly or privately supported, or at times even imposed, which are contrary to the moral law. For in keeping with man's inalienable right to marry and generate children, a decision concerning the number of children they will have depends on the right judgment of the parents and it cannot in any way be left to the judgment of public authority. But since the judgment of the parents presupposes a rightly formed conscience, it is of the utmost importance that the way be open for everyone to develop a correct and genuinely human responsibility which respects the divine law and takes into consideration the circumstances of the situation and the time. But sometimes this requires an improvement in educational and social conditions, and, above all, formation in religion or at least a complete moral training. Men should discreetly be informed, furthermore, of scientific advances in exploring methods whereby spouses can be helped in regulating the number of their children and whose safeness has been well proven and whose harmony with the moral order has been ascertained.

I was amused by Rep. Edcel Lagman's analogy of David and Goliath in describing the battle between the supporters and opposers of House Bill 3773. He considered the Catholic Church, the leading opposing group, as the Goliath. I must admit that the Catholic Church has no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose assigned to the Catholic Church is a religious one. But out of this religious mission itself come a function, a light and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law. In the moral and spiritual sense, the Catholic Church is indeed a Goliath. But in the aspect of financial or material resources, it is the other way. Rep. Edcel Lagman and his supporters are the Goliaths.

I hope you appreciate and respect the point of view of this feedback. Thank you and more power to you.

Divorce, Canonical annulment, Marriage

28 March 2005

Dear Mr. Cruz,

I wish to thank you for featuring in your column, Separate Opinion, the issue of divorce ("The proposed divorce law", Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 27, 2005). I do not normally read articles in the opinion section; but when I saw the word "divorce" in the title, it instantly caught my attention and interest. I read and re-read it several times. It is really an interesting article!

After reading your article many times, I had the chance to identify some of the things that tickled my mind at first. Please allow me to point out those things to you.

From paragraph 11 up to 15, you seem to imply that canonical annulment in the Catholic Church is similar to divorce. I beg to disagree with you. I do not think canonical annulment and divorce are the same. It may appear that both dissolve the marriage bond, but if you look more closely, the process of dissolving it is very different. The difference is in the consent mutually and freely given. May I explain myself.

In canonical annulment it must be understood that the parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent. "To be free" means: 1) not being under constraint; and 2) not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law. The Catholic Church holds the exchange of consent between spouses to be the indispensable element that makes the marriage. If consent is lacking there is no marriage. The consent consists in a human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other: "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband". This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two becoming one flesh. The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid. For this reason the Catholic Church, after an examination of the situation by competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e. that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union is discharged.

In divorce, on the other hand, there is no attempt to ascertain if there is free and mutual consent exchanged to begin with. The proceedings goes directly to the dissolution of the bond, division of conjugal properties and custody of children. You can find thousands of examples of such divorces in the US.

How can you consider the two to be the same? Please, Mr. Cruz, the two are totally different concepts.

Secondly, I fully agree with your statement in paragraph 17 when you said that what makes marriage inviolable is the love of the spouses for each other, not the compulsion of law or even the Constitution. But I was surprised to read that you consider this "love" as just a "sentiment" that could be betrayed. No wonder it is easy for you to accept divorce, since sentiment easily evaporates when people are not in the right mood and mold anymore. I beg to disagree with you in this point! For me, the "love of spouses for each other" involves a totality, in which all the element of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and fruitfulness in definitive mutual giving and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthen them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.

Thirdly, I fully agree with all the sad cases you described in paragraph 9 and 10. Such cases are real problems. I think these disordered cases we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman nor from their relations, but from a deep spiritual disorder in one or both spouses. It has something to do with their relationship with God. I am convinced that a truly effective solution to these cases should include God in the equation. In my discussions with my friends and acquaintances, it seems that these cases happen among couples who have not contracted marriage in the Catholic Church. Most of them are in live-in arrangement. So why make divorce a law that would dissolve a legal marriage bond in order to provide a solution to these cases when most of these cases do not have that legal bond in the first place? Moreover, divorce will open the flood gates of abuses the would result in more abandoned children and broken homes as experienced in the US and other countries.

I really doubt the motives of the feminist groups that are pushing for the divorce bill. I smell avarice in their agenda. Some women stand to gain more wealth and material prosperity from divorce. They can demand half of the conjugal property which the husbands may have single-handedly earned and worked for. All these at the expense of the moral and spiritual well-being of the affected children. It is pure materialism and selfishness.

Thank you, Mr. Cruz, for your time. I hope you do not mind my contradicting you in several points. The integrity of our society is at stake in this debate.

As you may have noticed already, I am not a good writer. You probably noticed a lot of grammatical and styling errors. The parts that you think are written properly are direct quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am not a lawyer. I am just a college graduate who is an avid reader of Christian ethics. I took the opportunity provided by your article to share my ideas on the divorce issue. Thank you and good day!

Homosexuality, Marriage

7 May 2005

Dear Ms. Rina Jimenez-David,

I wish to commend your for the article in your column, At Large ("New and old ways of loving", Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 May 2005). I understand that your article argues for the acceptability of homosexuality using, as a demonstration, the examples presented in two TV shows and a movie.

I share the sympathy you have toward the gay community. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

But a distinction must be made between homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Homosexual tendency can be understood as an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. These merit understanding. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are sexual acts performed by two or more persons of the same sex. Using the Bible, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.), our elders have always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not originate from a genuine love for each other as persons, but from a desire for self-gratification. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Homosexual persons are called to sexual uprightness. By acquiring the habit of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and divine grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Your TV show and movie examples, as arguments, are unreliable, partial and biased. At first reading, your article seem to give a good and strong argument for homosexuality. But the three examples are TV shows and a movie. Are not the people depicted there do not act naturally as in real life? Their actions are dictated by the scriptwriters and controlled by the film directors. Even what we see in reality TV shows, like Amazing Race, cannot be considered natural and realistic. The race participants are aware that they are in-front of a camera. They can adjust their behavior to the way they want their viewers to see.

In my opinion, raising homosexual relationship (we can assume that homosexual acts are committed in that set-up) to the same level as heterosexual marriage through legalization will definitely destroy the traditional family as an institution. People's understanding of heterosexual marriage, as a stable mutual relationship of love and life, will suffer a distortion and confusion. There is no way can a same-sex relationship equal the social contribution a heterosexual marriage could make by begetting and bringing-up new responsible members of society. Let us respect these homosexual persons but let us not exalt their homosexual relationships as equal to traditional marriage!

Thank you for your time and best regards.