Feedback to Fr. Bernas' "My stand on the RH Bill" Sounding Board column article

Dear Editor,

I wish to suggest publishing this letter-to-the-editor (mentioned-below). You may show my email-address.

Thank you and more power to PDI.

*******************
Dear Fr. Bernas,

This is in reaction to your article "My stand on the RH Bill" in your PDI-Sounding Board column (http://opinion.inquirer.net/5340/my-stand-on-the-rh-bill).

I wish to comment on your second point.

To my understanding, you wish to raise at the same level of respect and public esteem the conviction of some people that "artificial birth control is a good method for spacing births" to that of "spacing births through the use of infertile periods" recommended by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. The ground for raising such demand is your alleged perception that we are living in a "pluralist society".

Is Philippine society actually a "pluralist society"?

I have reasons to believe that Philippine society is still far from being a "pluralist society". If we will compare our society to that of the American society (a pluralist society par excellence), we will see the big difference. American society is more like a "big park" where groups could co-exist as long as their rights to life and property are respected and enforced. There are many characteristics in Philippine society that would indicate it is not a pluralist society. In my opinion, these are the following:

1. Majority of Filipinos are not empowered financially, economically, intellectually to participate politically in society. Due to low educational attainment of many, they could not participate independently in the political arena. In addition, the inequitable distribution of wealth among the people further aggravates this lack of political empowerment.

2. Philippine law enforcement and justice system is not so efficient enough to enforce property rights and right to life of the under-privileged.

3. Philippine economy is not so free as it is free in the US. The free-market system here is not exactly a free-market system. The entrepreneurial spirit here is not so active to provide ample opportunities for the majority.

Analogically, Philippine society is more like an "organic body" (human body) than a "big park". As in an organic body, anything harmful to that body the immune system will get into action to reject and expel it. That would probably explain the current upheaval of a significant sector of our society against the rh bill.

Given this consideration, I think it would be confusing to insist that our society is like the pluralist American society. Differing outlook and perspectives on life co-exist in the American society. There, pro-contraception people could live side-by-side with pro-life people as long as they respect each others' rights to life and property. Like in a free-market system, they compete with each other by trying to win support from the majority through proof and evidence from life.

Thank you for the chance to give a feedback to your article.

Feedback to "Commentary: 'For he is our peace' (Eph. 2:14)"

Dear Rev. Fr. John J. Carroll, S.J.

I am very happy to read your Commentary at Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) entitled "'For he is our peace' (Eph. 2:14)" (posted on May 4, 2011, URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110504-334630/For-he-is-our-peace-Eph-214).

It seems to me that you are admonishing everyone to be calm and level-headed in the issue of the Reproductive Health bill (RH bill) under discussion at the Philippine House of Representatives. The way you are proposing is by forging a compromise between the two sides of the issue.

I also notice that you are alarmed by the obstinacy of the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines in insisting in the total and complete dismissal of the proposed law or bill.

With all due respect for your reverence, I wish to send you my seven (7) reactions to your commentary. These are the following:

1. ON THE APPARENT MEDDLING OF THE CHURCH IN POLITICS. I think it is only proper and note-worthy for the Philippine bishops to interfere in political exercises, such as the passing of new laws, when the spiritual welfare of the faithful is dangerously at stakes. It is their duty and responsibility to speak-out that the RH bill contains provisions that are immoral and contrary to natural law and God's will (contraception is immoral). I am convinced that this alleged meddling of the Catholic bishops is not a violation of the "separation of Church and State". Since both the Church and the State are serving one and the same society of human beings, there is bound to be some overlapping of interventions, particularly in matters of faith and morals. Indeed, the RH bill is a moral issue due to provisions on contraception embedded in it.

2. IS IT LEGALIZING CONTRACEPTIVES OR LEGALIZING CONTRACEPTION? I beg to disagree that "the bill does not legalize contraceptives". Aside from the attempt to legalize the practice of contraception, RH bill seeks to enshrine contraceptives (drugs and devices) as "Essential Medicines". Is that not an attempt to legalize contraceptives? It is true that contraceptives are already available to those who can afford. The RH bill attempts to make contraceptives even more available and free-of-charge. Moreover, RH bill attempts to legalize the human act of tampering with the divinely ordained procreative process by means of technological devices, so-called contraceptives. Thus, RH bill attempts both: the legalization of contraceptives and contraception.

3. IS RH BILL AGAINST ABORTION? Blessed Pope John Paul II has already mentioned that "the negative values inherent in the 'contraceptive mentality'-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected." (Evangelium Vitae, 13). It may be claimed that abortion is not explicitly promoted in the RH bill, but the common mentality from which the two arises makes RH bill suspect of being pro-abortion by implication. Moreover, there are valid claims that some contraceptives are abortifacient in its biochemical physiological mechanisms.

Blessed Pope John Paul II has already refuted the claim that "if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced." He wrote, "The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, 13)

4. DO WE WAIT FOR FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) TO DECLARE SOME CONTRACEPTIVES ABORTIFACIENT? In a globalized world, it is a waste of time to "reinvent the wheel". There are already valid credible and conclusive studies in other countries that some contraceptives are abortifacient. These have been banned and thrown away in these countries. The burden of proof should be in proving that these are not abortifacient in the Philippines, not the other way around. Indeed, it is a "tricky scientific question".

5. "OPT OUT" PROVISION FOR PARENTS. Sex education should be the prerogative of parents as primary educators of their children, that is, they should decide, by default, when and how to impart sex education to their children. The "opt out" provision is a violation of that parental right. The provision is based on the assumption that the state must teach sex education to children, by default. The right of parents to "opt out" could be liken to an "after-thought". Moreover, it does not take a rocket-scientist to forsee that, in implementation, very few parents will bother to choose to "opt out" their children from state-mandated sex-education, since, by experience, very few parents bother to inform themselves of their children's school activities.

6. "CONSCIENCE CLAUSES" AND OTHER FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE PROVISIONS. These are applicable only when all the desired behaviours and expected actions are licit and only differ by cultural preferences. These loses its significance and authority when the mandated action is immoral. No amount of "conscience clauses" can hide the damage that a "legalized" immoral act can inflict to society.

7. "THE FAMILY IS ALREADY AT GREAT RISK - AND NOT BECAUSE OF CONTRACEPTIVES". Indeed, the institution of the family is already at great risk even at the dawn of creation after our first parents committed original sin. The threat is rooted in the heart of every woman and man. Perhaps, interventions to strengthen families have not really identified the root cause of the problems. Blessed Pope John Paul II and the magisterium of the Catholic Church has been exhorting all the faithful that the family ought to be built upon the institution of marriage (cf. Pope John Paul II, Letter to Families, 1994) It might be possible that interventions to strengthen the union of couples in marriage have not been enough or lacking. Figures have shown that many couples in slum areas are just cohabiting or in "de-facto unions" which are not suitable substitutes to the institution of marriage. In addition to family-life education and family support services, it would be good to explore initiatives to help couples to enter into legal-marriage or, better yet, to receive the sacrament of Matrimony. It is easier said than done, I admit. But the desire and honest-to-goodness effort to undertake these solutions is already note-worthy.

Irresponsible male partners will not be cured by teaching their women partners artificial birth control. Sad to say, contraception could make the irresponsibility more worse. I hope, artificial birth control is not viewed as the "silver bullet" to kill the "were-wolves" of irresponsibility of men.

Finally, I am sad to find your commentary to reflect a certain bias towards favouring RH bill. I am afraid your position even make the division of the Filipino nation on this issue more worse.

Thank you for giving me the chance to give my feedback. I am a simple college graduate who tries hard to live an upright life. Thank you.

Feedback to "God save the king" article of Patricia Evangelista

Dear Editor,

I wish to send you my reaction to Miss Patricia Evangelista's article "God save the king" (posted on May 1, 2011 at the Inquirer.net website: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110501-333945/God-save-the-king).

Miss Evangelista's article made the concept of excommunication appear as an unfairly harsh and unevenly applied penalty imposed by vacillating and hypocritical pastors. Indeed, it intrigued me to google-search the term and find-out for myself what the World-Wide-Web could provide.

Miss Evangelista is quite correct in calling excommunication a penalty imposed by authorities of the Catholic Church to offenses committed by some of its members. The Catholic Church as a society of persons, just like the Philippine nation-state, is entitled to impose such sanctions on its offending members. "Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, URL:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm)

In principle, this penalty - being the most serious penalty that the Catholic Church could inflict - is meant to be medicinal. It seeks to remind the offender of the gravity of the offense, to correct, and to bring him or her back to the path of righteousness. It may appear vindictive but it should be properly viewed as medicinal. It is a great good for us, human beings, who easily commit or do things that, in the final reckoning, will be self-destructive to ourselves.

By analogy, I would liken "the penalty of excommunication" to the "nauseating odor" of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or methane gas. Pure methane gas is odor-less. However, companies that sell LPG deliberately mix such odor in order that a leak could easily be detected! Like the nauseating odor, excommunication is a reminder of a possible destructive damage one could impose on one's spiritual life.

The seeming vacillation of the pastors is, in my opinion, a reassurance that they are still human beings. It is an indicator that they self-correct themselves when they realize they are deviating from the calling of charity: condemn the sin, not the sinner.

Miss Evangelista is quite accurate in assuming that "automatic excommunication occurs on a quarterly basis at a Manila clinic" if indeed abortion is done at such frequency. But let it be viewed as a calling to reform, not a damnation. Because only God has the ultimate right to judge.

Thank you for allowing your readers to send feedback. More power to PDI!

Author's Note:
This letter was sent by website feedback webform on May 4, 2011 (Manila time).

Feedback to "A war of religions" of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

Dear Editor,

I am very grateful for stumbling-upon the article of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "A war of religions" (posted May 2, 2011, URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110502-334122/A_war_of_religions) for two (2) reasons.

The first reason is that Fr. Bernas enumerated some of the changes RH Bill proponents have made to the draft bill to allegedly make it acceptable to those opposing it. The enumerated changes are as follows:
1) Local government units will "help implement this Act", instead of "give priority to family planning work". (in Section 13 of HB4244)
2) "Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education." (in Section 16 of HB4244)
3) Deletion of the section on employers' responsibility on reproductive health. (Section 21 of HB4244)
4) Deletion of the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. It will be replaced with the proposal for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal.

These changes, I believe, are still to be declared and incorporated to the draft bill during the second-reading sessions at the House of Representatives.

I agree with Fr. Bernas that these changes are not enough to stop the opposition of the bishops of the Catholic Church to the bill. The bishops have been insisting from the very beginning that the bill is an attempt to legalize the use of artificial contraception. The bishops have been exhorting the faithful, and the nation at large, that artificial contraception is contrary to the moral law as declared by Pope Paul VI in 'Humanae Vitae'. The bishops have been reminding the nation that something immoral, or against the Ten-Commandments, cannot be legalized or be established in human laws. The bill despite the latest changes still contains provisions that promote artificial contraception and there is no way for the bishops to agree with it.

The second reason for being grateful to Fr. Bernas is his attempt to encourage both sides of the debate to view the issue in the light of religious freedom and respect for human dignity as enunciated in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCPII), the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and 'Dignitatis-Humanae'.

In my opinion, the only way for both sides to respect each other's freedom and dignity is for RH Bill not to be enacted into law at all, given that artificial contraception is immoral! It is timely to remind ourselves of the exhortation in 'Dignitatis Humanae' to political authorities that "government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will." (Dignitatis Humanae, 6)

There are other options available for the government to reduce maternal mortality other than legalizing artificial contraception.

Though I am grateful to Fr. Bernas for his article, I am also disappointed by the vagueness of his position on the RH Bill. He could be of great service to the ordinary faithful if he will be more categorical and direct in his position.

During World War II when ordinary foot-soldiers were in the midst of a gun-battle and artillery barrage, these soldiers (who were mostly young, uneducated, rural boys) greatly appreciated and were extremely grateful for the concrete, simple, and direct tactical directions of their front-line commanding officers.

I believe, we are in a great spiritual battle in this RH bill debate. The more concrete, simple, and direct our declared position in this issue, the better we can serve the simple flock we are shepherding.

Thank you for this chance to write. Should you decide to publish this letter, please show only my email address. Thank you and more power to PDI!

Author's Note:
This letter was submitted by website feedback form on May 3, 2011 (Manila time).

Another Feedback on Miss Patricia Evangelista's "The Montalvan morality"

Dear Editor,

This letter is a reaction to Miss Patricia Evangelista's latest article in her Method to Madness column, "The Montalvan morality"(PDI, Sunday, October 16, 2010, page A15). I understand her article is a reaction to Antonio J. Montalvan II's October 11, 2010 column-article.

Owing to Miss Evangelista's rhetorical expertise and writing prowess, I fear that her readers would easily come to a rash judgment and thinking: It is necessary and inevitable to employ contraception to manage the population.

A question came to my mind: Is it possible to manage the population without resorting to or employing contraception? I pondered on this question for some time and have come to the conclusion that Yes, it is possible!

In order to manage population, specifically the Philippine population, without using contraception as a public policy, I believe, the following conditions should be present:

1. PEOPLE ARE RESOURCES, NOT BURDENS. Our political leaders and policy-makers ought to view people as potential resources, not just short-term burdens. Instead of looking at people as consumers of resources and producers of wastes, they should be looked upon as potential producers of ideas and problem-solvers of the many mysteries plaguing humanity's existence. Instead of seeing mouths to be fed, they should be seen as pairs of hands that could produce products and services, people with cash-laden wallets that would fill shopping malls after shopping malls. Of course, in order for people to be the country's assets, they should be harnessed through well-crafted public education curricula and well-trained, well-paid teachers. Public funds should channeled to improving public education infrastructures and programs. Let us fight corruption in the public offices so that tax-payers' money are not funneled to unscrupulous individuals but to public education!

Objectors to this idea might counteract that there is not enough public funds for the current and fast-growing population size, population should be reduced to a manageable level. To this objection I will respond:

It is not the size of the population that should be the issue, there are countries who have populations bigger than the Philippines who are able to provide enough public goods and services. Instead, our leaders should wrack their brains to come up with policy strategies that would attract more and increasing foreign direct investments to the country, increase tax collection and implement a more equitable distribution of material wealth.

2. NATURE AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. Our political leaders and policy-makers should foster the true, the correct, the sustainable understanding of the nature and meaning of human sexuality. Through public education and mass-media, the following thinking should be made normal and common: "An individual views and enters into a sexual relationship because she or he is consciously willing to become a parent".

It is true that sex should be viewed as beyond procreation; that there is another meaning to sex. That other meaning is personal unity, partnership, communion. But for this other meaning to really exist and to be unmistakably experienced, the intimate connection of sex to procreation must not be artificially, synthetically cut. Only then, when the possibility of procreation is willingly accepted, that the other meaning of sex will be a reality.

3. INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY IS A PUBLIC MENACE. Before the advent of Internet technology, indulgence to pornography was confined to a few. Now, it is accessible to almost anyone, regardless of age, status, financial capacity, etc! Looking at pornography ought to be viewed as a debilitating addiction, similar to drug addiction. If our public leaders are deeply concerned for the widespread access to dangerous drugs, they also ought to include easy access to Internet pornography as one of the public menace.

Studies have shown that boys and men are more susceptible to be hooked to Internet pornography than girls and women. Our leaders should concede to the proposition that Internet pornography could cook the minds of the male half of the population and come to see the female half of the population as just objects, toys, tools for sexual pleasure. In order to minimize the objectification of girls and women, there ought to be policies that curb the availability of printed pornography in public places and Internet.

4. WOMEN SHOULD REIN MEN, NOT SPOIL THEM. Girls and women ought to be aware that they are a very important influence in guiding boys and men towards chivalry and responsible fatherhood. Our public leaders, specially our women political leaders, should foster the mentality that modesty is better than exhibitionism. Through modesty, ladies could attract gentlemen, willing to respect them as persons with dignity. Through showing too much skin, ladies could attract brutes, filled with the thought: 'girls are just toys'.

Moreover, our leaders ought to foster the concept: women ought to realize that they can keep a true and honest man, as a life-partner, if they do not give-in to the low and perverted cravings of men. Women should not give-in to the lustful desires of their men and resort to the use of artificial contraception to provide an apparent protection from unwanted consequences. Through the actual use of contraception, women, without them being aware of it, willingly turn themselves into willing toys and objects of pleasure for their partners. Women's dignity as a person is not protected by contraception, rather, they are automatically turned into objects and turn their partners into brutes without reason.

To conclude, these are the four (4) suggested conditions, I believe, should be present in Philippine society, in order to manage population without resorting to contraception. I must concede that these are very, very tall orders! These are, indeed, unattainable ideals. But as long as there is an honest-to-goodness effort-exerted and resources-employed, on the part of our political leaders and policy-makers, to move towards achieving these conditions, contraception-free population management will produce effective, long-lasting and sustainable results.

In lieu of population policies dependent on contraception, strategies such as improving all forms of public transportation to encourage people to upgrade existing urban centers or build more urban centers in the country-side will gain public attention, acceptability and feasibility. This could decongest current urban centers like Metro Manila and Cebu. A strategy of population redistribution will be more possible.

Author's Note:
This feedback was sent as letter to the editor and is awaiting Philippine Daily Inquirer's (PDI) response. PDI has the prerogative to publish or not to publish this feedback in printed form. The author respects whatever will be PDI's decision.

Feedback on Miss Patricia Evangelista's "The Montalvan morality"

Dear Miss Patricia Evangelista,

I am very impressed by your latest PDI article, "The Montalvan morality" (Sunday, October 17, 2010, page A15). I understand the article is a reaction to Antonio J. Montalvan's October 11, 2010 column-article. I must admit you write eloquently and persuasively.

Alongside my admiration and awe for your writing skill, is a deep concern and fear. Upon close scrutiny of your statements, I noticed so many terms used wrongly. I fear that readers of your article, equally impressed by your writing prowess, might be misinformed and misled.

I could see many instances, in your long article, demonstrating erroneous term usage. Since terms refer to concepts, your wrong use of terms also means wrong use of concepts.

One obvious instance is your claim in paragraph 14 (of the printed version): "...the Church itself supports natural contraception..." I am certain you are referring to the Church's endorsement and support of Natural Family Planning method or NFP. I wish to enlighten you that NFP must not be equated with natural contraception. The two terms are totally unrelated.

It is true, there is such a term as "natural contraception" and it refers to the "withdrawal method" or "coitus interruptus". It is a contraceptive method involving the withdrawal of the male sex organ during sexual intercourse so that ejaculation could take place outside the female sex organ. This method is also called "Onanism" referring to the Biblical figure, Onan, the second son of Judah and brother of Er, who scattered his seed on the soil to avoid fathering a child with his widowed sister-in-law, Tamar, whom he was required by tradition to take as wife and beget children to be declared as his brother Er's children. Onan resented and despised the traditional precept. God killed Onan, immediately after spilling the seed (cf. Genesis chapter 38)! Now, how can the Church endorse such a contraceptive method?

NFP is never a contraceptive method. Couples who practice this do not intervene nor block the natural process of procreation. There are neither artificial, synthetic instruments nor chemicals used. Performing the conjugal act during the infertile period of the wife should not be considered contraceptive. NFP couples are always open to the gift of life. They consider each child a gift and a responsibility they have to render an account to God later. NFP is more than a family planning method; it is a way of life, it requires a frame of mind that views human sexuality as a sacred reality, God's gift to humanity. Why not verify it for yourself? Ask around and interview a NFP couple or celebrity-couple Maricel and Anthony Pangilinan.

I will be analyzing your statements and hopefully send you the results with an elaborate explanation. But feel free to review your article and your understanding of the terms you used. You may have an impeccable writing skill, Miss Patricia, but your content may be full of conceptual errors.

Thank you for your time and more power to your career!

Author's Note:
This feedback was sent as letter to the editor and is awaiting Philippine Daily Inquirer's (PDI) response. PDI has the prerogative to publish or not to publish this feedback in printed form. The author respects PDI's decision.