Feedback to Miss Chit Roces' article "The other side of the Church"

Dear Miss Chit Roces,

Pope Paul VI

The first time I read your article in PDI Lifestyle section (The other side of the Church, 12 August 2012) I immediately had the impression it is in support of contraception and RH Bill. I also noticed it was a way to exult Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ.

You praise him for his “assurance” that RH Bill is about responsible parenthood. You are comforted that you have someone of stature to defend you from the Catholic bishops who call RH Bill a birth-control bill or population control bill. You are glad your belief that contraception is alright as a means for family planning has a “champion” in the ranks of the Catholic clergy.

I am also glad you wrote the article. I had a glimpse of the frame of mind of a person with contraceptive mentality. I saw a mind fascinated by science and technology's achievement to curtail human fertility as a family planning method. I saw a mind fascinated by the convenience it affords for planning one's family.

Feedback to "Life worth fighting for"

I thank you for reading my feedback to your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths".  I am doubly thankful to you for writing a follow-up article "Life worth fighting for" (https://www.philstar.com/business/2012/06/25/821004/life-worth-fighting-for) which include my emailed letter.

I am saddened, though, by your confession that you are "a person not averse to accepting the use of contraceptive measures, more so if a mother’s health or her baby’s is at risk should there be the possibility of a pregnancy". Contrary to your opinion, I see contraceptive measures give-out multifaceted effects, some may appear beneficial, but its inherent outcome is anti-life. I analogically compare contraceptive measures to the conventional carpet bombs of the US Air force: it does not discriminate between combatant and civilian-non-combatant targets.

I agree with you that HB4244 includes provisions to improve hospital facilities and personnel to better deliver maternal health care. But I am very worried that these are bundled-up with contraceptive measures. I analogically liken HB4244 to a nutritious pot of soup with a thimble of human feces dropped to it. No one in his right mind will take that pot of soup! I am convinced that provision on contraceptive measures destroys the possible maternal health benefits of HB4244. 

If our political authorities are authentically sincere in lowering maternal mortality rate they should remove contraception in HB4244. Besides, contraception is just one of HB4244's objectives, as you mentioned.

Our Catholic bishops are not against provisions for improving maternal delivery care. They are against the contraceptive-measures component.

Feedback to "Senseless Maternal Deaths"

Dear Mr. Gamboa,

I chanced upon your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths"(http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=819584&publicationSubCategoryId=66) in Philippine Star. It appears to be pushing for the passing of HB 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011) into law as soon as possible.

I have read HB 4244 several times. The primary solution it envisions to contribute toward lowering maternal mortality rate is by preventing pregnancies through contraception and a veiled provision for abortion in the term "emergency obstetric care services". But the State has no right to compel couples not to beget children. It is a human right of every couple to decide whether or not to form a family. The accusation alleging some couples are irresponsible in begetting children beyond their capability to support is not sufficient reason for the State to dictate to them to practice contraception.

If the State is truthfully serious in lowering maternal mortality rate, it should enact laws that target the real cause of maternal mortality: poor birthing facilities and lack of skilled staff. HB 4244 does not have provisions for improving birthing facilities. The bill does not envision to assist couples who wish to have children. It is skewed to favoring pregnancy-prevention which is one-sided and unfair.

I stumbled-upon a 2008 TIME magazine article on maternal mortality (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1842278,00.html). It identified some of the causes of maternal mortality, which are 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.

With HB 4244, the State is proposing a wrong solution to the problem; it is "barking at a wrong tree". Our political authorities should, instead, work on solving why public funds are not effectively translated to better local government hospital facilities and skilled health staff: fight graft and corruption.

Thank you for writing "Senseless Maternal Deaths".

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).