Feedback to “Can Catholic support the RH bill? Yes!”

Dear Dr. Mary Racelis,

I am very glad to read your article, "Can Catholic support the RH bill? Yes!" (page A15, Monday, October 13, 2008, PDI, also published by ABS-CBN News) which highlights the goal or objective TO LOWER MATERNAL MORTALITY as a valid reason for Catholics to support the RH bill.

I became interested, lately, on maternal mortality, after I read a TIME magazine article on maternal mortality (an online version of it is available; the URL is http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1842278,00.html). The article identified some of the causes of maternal mortality, which were as follows:

1. Low access to well-equipped clinics or hospitals;
2. Lack of properly trained and adequately-paid medical professionals;
3. Low availability of necessary medicines;
4. Unsanitary traditional practices;
5. Well-entrenched traditions and fatalistic attitudes to maternal mortality;
6. Lack of government funds for maternity health care; and
7. Lack of political will of government decision makers.

I am with you, Dr. Mary Racelis, in pushing for lowering maternal mortality as a worthwhile government objective. Besides, it is one of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) -- a series of targets in a program that channels aid to key issues, including education and clean water -- to be met by 2015. Maternal mortality is a valid health issue. Looking at the causes highlighted by the Time article, I believe a bill on maternal and infant health care could be formulated independent of the current RH bill. The Time article never mentions contraception as a solution nor a cause (due to the lack of it).

However, I am wondering: Will RH bill proponents agree to the removal of provisions on contraception and sex education?

This could be a possible compromise between the Catholic Church and RH bill proponents: Remove provisions on contraception and sex education; keep provisions on improving maternal health care! Eureka!

The abortion statistics you mentioned is open to many interpretations. To me, it is an indication of the following:

1. Many people are already practicing contraception as a result of sex education in the 60s and 70s;
2. Most of their contraceptive means failed. Since they cannot accept failure, they resort to abortion as back-up contraception.

Contraception as a means to plan the size of the family is not healthy psychologically and biologically. It fosters irresponsible use of the sexual faculty. Some contraceptive means, the Pill particularly, causes cancer (in the breast, cervix, uterus, etc.)

It is with divine wisdom that the Catholic Church is exhorting the faithful (take note, she is not forcing the faithful) to practice Natural Family Planning (NFP). Please take note, further, that NFP is not contraception. NFP does not intervene in the natural procreative process: no artificial hormones taken in, no devices installed, etc. NFP does not need HB 5043 for it to be promoted. The practice of NFP "respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil." (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370)

I believe, contraception will not contribute to maternal health. Maternal mortality is not caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the best thing that could ever happen to a woman; she becomes a mother, regardless of the circumstances (married mother, unwed mother, rape-victim mother, etc.). The child that comes out from pregnancy should be viewed as a gift from God, not a property.

Contraception and abortion is essentially connected. In the late Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," the "Gospel of Life," he says that "despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree." The late pope points out that in many cases, both practices are "rooted in a hedonistic mentality" that tries to separate sexual pleasure from procreation. He believes that this type of thinking strengthens the temptation to accept abortion as the only solution to failed contraception, because "the life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs." (Evangelium Vitae, 13).

Thank you, once again, for writing the article. It gave me the occasion to gather my thoughts and write you this letter. Pardon me for the errors in grammar, spelling and syntax I failed to correct.

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Cf. Psalm 95:7-8)

Feedback to "Managing population growth” (page 2, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin)

Dear Editor,

I am very happy to read a short info-mercial, entitled, "Managing population growth" (Page 2, Sunday, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin), that mentions the Commission on Population (POPCOM), "… in coordination with other agencies, leads the task of promoting natural family planning…"

At the same time, I am also very worried that the same write-up contains potentially misleading statements. These are the following:

1. The quotation attributed to POPCOM Executive Director Tomas M. Osias which states that "the larger the population, the greater is the demand for natural resources and manufactured goods and services, giving lesser time for our natural resources to regenerate and lesser time for production lines and service sectors to supply our basic needs."

It shows a very narrow-minded and partial correlation between population and use of natural resources and manufactured goods and services. Aside from population growth, there are other factors that must be considered such as unregulated economic activity, graft and corruption, poorly formulated and implemented public policies, etc. Blaming everything to a large population is dangerously misleading. Moreover, the statement is a hypothesis that is not supported by empirical data. A national agency that is expected to be manned by professionals should be careful in making assertions well supported by scientific evidence.

2. The statement " The decline in population growth will ease the demand for resources…"

This statement somehow tries to emphasize that declining population growth is desirable or a good thing for our country. This reflects the underlying assumption that people are just burdens; mouth that must be fed; not brains and pairs of hands that could be innovators, inventors, creators of new ideas and solutions. It shows an anti-life philosophy.

Instead of controlling population growth, I would suggest that POPCOM focuses their work on POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION. They should formulate and propose demographic policies, among other things, that would encourage the formation or establishment of secondary urban centers in order to decongest the major cities like Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. These policies should also include recommendations to improve public transportation like the railways and roll-on-roll-off (RORO) ports.

I wish also to suggest that POPCOM revises the underlying philosophy of their work. They should consider the idea that people are potential resources, not problems. They are potential dollar-earners. They are potential inventors, creators of new wealth, and discoverers of new resources or discoverers of new uses of existing or known resources. In this perspective, population growth is a welcome phenomenon. What will be required from POPCOM and other government agencies are ideas and proposals to develop and harness these potential human resources.

"The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2372)

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Cf. Psalm 95:7-8)

On Australian blogger Brian Gorrell

Dear Editor,

I read several articles in Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) on the Australian blogger Brian Gorrell.

I became curious of what PDI wrote about him. I logged on to the internet and searched his blog.

I was shocked by what I read! Can his allegations be true?

Questions came up to my mind: Is injuring people's reputation a fair revenge for allegedly being swindled of one's hard-earned $70,000 material wealth? Are people's reputation less valuable than money?

I am also saddened by the readers' comments that mostly accepted the allegations as true. But it seems that the charges have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In ethics books, it says that one ought not to assume as true, even tacitly, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of another person. If one does, one is guilty of RASH JUDGMENT and injures, in one's mind, the reputation of the other person. Reading the comments, it appears that so many rash judgments have been committed. How easily people believe on negative things about people!

Even if Mr. Gorrell's allegations are true, one ought not to disclose, without objectively valid reason, people's faults and failings to the unsuspecting public. There is such a thing as DETRACTION, wherein, a person's reputation is injured by exposing his faults and failings to those who do not know them.

Much worse, if the allegations are false. It is CALUMNY, a grave injustice to innocent people.

As one ethics book explains "detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity." (CCC 2479)

Even if the offense to Brian Gorrell is true, he is still not blameless. He should know better. He should have placed things in writing. Even if they are best of friends, as he alleged.

We can also give Mr. Gorrell the benefit of the doubt that he mistakenly trusted the person too much. No one is perfect. But what is $70,000 to a guy who writes and takes picture well. He can earn it again. He should just leave to the Almighty God the retribution and justice he desires. After all, one cannot bring to one's grave one's riches.

The issue, then, here is reputation of persons against money. We cannot discount the possibility that there is blackmail being committed. It is saddening to realize that PDI is allowing itself to be used, for free, to a possible destruction of people's reputation.

Don't get me wrong. I do not know the people Brian Gorrell are "leaving under the sun to dry". I do not belong to the moneyed and propertied-social class. I just came to know about this through your PDI articles. I am not grateful to PDI for letting me know this. This is not worth the ink and newsprint paper PDI spends. It is a shame. It gives a bad after taste. Let the others do it, not PDI.

Thank you for your time and I hope PDI will think twice next time in assisting character assassination by featuring them, free of charge.

Note: This letter was published April 13, 2008. To read the online version, click HERE or copy and paste to the browser this link: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20080413-130043/Feedback