Ms. Bianca Consunji, "Timely counsel for the young", page D1, PDI,

7 August 2005

Ms. Bianca Consunji
Wednesday 2BU
Lifestyle section
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Dear Ms. Bianca,

I was shocked to read in your article ("Timely counsel for the young", page D1, PDI, August 3, 2005) grim and dangerous ways young pregnant girls use to eliminate the growing fetuses in their wombs. It lead me to ask myself: Why these girls make such decisions? What is going-on in their minds that they resort to such course of action?

I am also consoled to read in your article that there so many counseling centers existing to help these young girls cope with their problems.

I think, however, the services these centers provide are just palliative solutions to the problem of teenage pregnancy. They are only trying to remedy the symptoms of a "social disease". The problem of teenage pregnancy will not be solved if we will only use these palliative solutions. You can expect, Ms. Bianca, that these counseling centers will grow to be a major "cottage industry" in the future. Teenage pregnancy incidence is bound to increase if we will not address the real cause: the social disease.

What is the social disease, then?

In my opinion, the real cause, the social disease, is the widespread practice of contraception and contraceptive mentality. Fr. Frank Pavone (www.priestsforlife.org) claims that contraception and abortion are "fruits of the same tree". They are linked by a common mentality, the "contraceptive mentality".

(If you wish to read Fr. Pavone's article, click on the link: http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/fruitsofsametree.htm)

Thus, if we wish to solve effectively the problem of teenage pregnancy, we have to cease teaching contraception. We have to recognize that contraception is a product of utilitarianism, an ideology that regard the principle of maximum enjoyment of pleasure, with the reduction of pain to its minimum, as the ultimate rule of conduct. Pope John Paul II, in his 1994 "Letter to the Families", described utilitarianism as "a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of “things” and not of “persons,” a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used. In the context of a civilization of use, woman can become an object for man, children a hindrance to parents, the family an institution obstructing the freedom of its members."

Instead of contraception, we have to inculcate to the youth the teaching of the late Pope John Paul II: the personalist norm. "This norm, in its negative aspect, states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end. In its positive form the personalistic norm confirms this: the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love. ...The value of the person is always greater than the value of pleasure". (Love and Responsibility, p. 41)

We have to drown the utilitarian slogan: "no unwanted child ought to be born", by a truth rooted in the dignity of a human being: "no person, including children, ought to be unwanted". (W. May, "Marriage, the rock on which the family is built", p.38)

Thus, we have to teach the youth the ethical dimension of human sexuality. They should know that:
1) Human beings are persons, not things. They should not be used, but loved.
2) Sex is a way to manifest a free, total, faithful and fruitful love.
3) Separating the sexual act from its procreative function (contraception) destroys the true meaning of sex.
4) Contracepted sex is not a manifestation of love; it is using the other person as an instrument of selfish pleasure.
5) Contraception can lead to a contraceptive mentality, a state of mind that treat an unwanted child a nuisance.

(Should you wish to know more about the ethics of human sexuality, read a summary of the late Pope John Paul II's book "Love and responsibility" through this link: http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html.)

I hope you find reading my feedback worth your time.

With kind regards,

"Sex and the Filipino youth", PDI, August 3, 2005

4 August 2005

Catherine Young
2bU! Correspondent
Inquirer News Service

Dear Miss Young,

I find your article very interesting (Sex and the Filipino youth, PDI, August 3, 2005). I also get the impression that the article's objective is to generate alarm on the reading public.

Looking at the issue of premarital sex among the youth on a global perspective, let me assure you that our situation is less serious than in the US.

Have you read the Institute for American Values Report, entitled "Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today", published in 2001? (If you wish to read the report, click on the link: http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-hooking_up.html).

That report mentioned that “hooking up,” a distinctive sex-without-commitment interaction between college women and men, is WIDESPREAD on-campuses and PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCES campus culture, although a minority of students engage in it. Three-fourths of respondents agreed that a “hook up” is “when a girl and a guy get together for a physical encounter and don’t necessarily expect anything further.” A “physical encounter” can mean anything from kissing tohaving sex.

Reassuring you that our situation is not that serious, however, does not mean we should not do anything about our situation. I agree, we have aproblem and we have to act on solving it.

The approach proposed by UP Population Institute and other groups worries me. Your article might be used as a means to justify the use of artificial contraception. Their solution is based on the principle that sex is a kind of "contact sport". Young people should be taught to engage in it using the available protection from unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. For them it, it is a physicalhealth-issue.

Don't you know that sex has an ethical dimension? More than viewing it as a health issue, we have to look at it ethically and its relation to human love, marriage, family and parenting. Our youth must be taught the following ideas:
1. Sex as a way to express a free, total, faithful and fruitful love.
2. Sex must be done within marriage only; between a man and a woman married to each other.
3. In order for sex to be a true expression of love, it must be open to life.
4. Parents are the best teachers of sex education for their children. Thus, future parents must know the truth and meaning of human sexuality.

I must admit that to teach the ethical dimension of sex is easier said than done. But I believe that it is the most effective way to confront the problem that would yield far-reaching benefits for our youth and our country at large. We have to teach the youth the Christian values of self-control, modesty, chastity and faithfulness more than the use of condom, morning-after-pill, and other artificial contraception.

If you wish to know more about the ethical aspect of sex, I recommend you read the book of John Paul II, "Love and Responsibility". An easy-to-read summary of the book can be found in this link:
http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html.

I hope you find my feedback worth your time.

"Family Planning: When 'Natural' is Unnatural", PDI, October 27, 2004

Dear Ms. Blanche Rivera,

This is to convey my reaction to your article published today, Wednesday, October 27, 2004, p. A9, entitled "Family Planning: When 'Natural' is Unnatural". In this article you stated that Natural Family Planning (NFP) may be unnatural based on the claims of Mr. Ric Gonzales of The Social Acceptance Project-Family Planning (TSAP-FP) that NFP is difficult to Filipino couples because of the physiological sacrifice and behavioral changes required.

I am greatly concerned about the possible negative impact of your article to people's perception toward NFP. I believe NFP affirms the couples' humanity more than all the other family planning method combined. If couples wish to affirm their human dignity, they ought to use NFP.

My reaction to your article is summarized in the following items:

1. It is scientifically inaccurate for Mr. Ric Gonzales to claim that NFP is unphysiological.
2. To claim that NFP is unnatural because of the behavioral change required (abstinence) is tantamount to saying that human beings are not expected to control their natural instincts when it becomes unreasonable and not to assert their will power.

I will proceed to elaborate on these two items.

It is scientifically inaccurate for Mr. Ric Gonzales to claim that NFP is unphysiological. Couples who practice NFP do not take in drugs that can chemically affect the hormonal state of their bodies. The ones that are really unphysiological are those that take in contraceptive pills and abortifacient drugs as their family planning method. These medicine alter the hormonal and other physiological process inside their bodies. Artificial contraceptive methods are the ones unphysiological.

It is not unphysiological for couples who practice NFP to have sexual intercourse during the female partner's infertile period. They are not altering or manipulating physiological process in their bodies. One of the significant differences between sexual intercourse during fertile and infertile period of the female partner is that the female is easily aroused sexually during fertile period. During infertile times, it takes time for her to be sexually aroused. This difference is not physiological. Sexual arousal has a biological and physiological basis but it is more accurately considered psychological.

Human beings' behavior does not only proceed from instincts and feelings, as animal do. Human beings have will power which ought to be the main determinant of human actions. Thus, there is nothing wrong for couples to have sexual intercourse during the female's infertile period. If they want to do it, they are free do it. It is not correct to label NFP as unnatural just because of the behavioral change required. Abstinence, as a family planning method, is the most natural method of all the family planning methods. The only "unnatural" thing in abstinence is to control one's sexual instinct when the situation dictates that it is unreasonable and irresponsible to follow one's instinct. In abstinence, couples do not take in medicine that could affect their body processes nor use instruments that physically block a natural biological process (i.e. the meeting of the sperm cells and the egg cell). It is more proper and responsible for human beings to assert their will power than to follow unreasonably their sexual instinct. Couples affirm their humanity when they use their will power. Couples deteriorates down to animality when they do not assert their will and just follow their instincts.

To condone couples who cannot abstain all the time and provide them with other contraceptives is the same as allowing these couples to follow their sexual instinct and not to use their will power. Teaching couples responsible parenthood includes teaching them to act using their will power and not their instincts. It is really hard to acquire self-control, but that does not mean that it is inhuman and unnatural. Condoning people for their lack of self-control is the same as accepting their mediocrity. We cannot progress as a nation with this mind set. We ought to teach couple to how to acquire self-mastery.

I hope I made my point clear to you, Ms Rivera. If you need more clarification, please feel free to send me a message. Thank you for your time. Be of good heart and health.