Feedback to Mary Racelis' "RH interpellation in communities"

Dear Prof. Mary Racelis,

I am very glad to stumble-upon your article in PDI's Commentary column, “RH interpellation in communities” (3 April 2012, URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/26193/rh-interpellation-in-communities). I always look forward to reading your articles in PDI.

In your article I see you are appealing to our senators and representatives to hold town-hall meetings with their constituents during their April-May recess on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

However, I fear our senators and representatives will not heed your request. They could easily see that your advice is a waste of time for two (2) reasons.

First, your advice would only give occasion to meet less than half, at the most, of their voters constituents. You mentioned in paragraph 8 that our solons should meet the female voters only. Since majority of their female voters are not battered wives and mal-treated mothers, it is very likely that our solons will waste time interfacing with so very few voters.

Second, your advice stems from an unrealistic and unsustainable version of radical feminism. I see your article as an echo of a feminism that advocates equality between male and female with utter disregard for the natural difference between femininity and masculinity. Your brand of feminism fosters  absolute autonomy of women from relationships with men which has no basis in the natural disposition and inclination of most women. Almost all women are naturally disposed to belong someone, to have a relationship with someone. It is only women who have bitter experiences with their men-partners that demand liberation and absolute equality from men. And they are only a minority. Our pragmatic, practical and realistic solons will easily notice the obvious: your secular and radical feminism will not be beneficial to women, families, children and the Filipino nation.

I owe my knowledge of radical and secular feminism from Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (1941-2007), a noted American historian. She was the Eleonore Raoul Professor of the Humanities at Emory University, where she was the founding director of the Institute for Women's Studies. She was the author of  “Women and the Future of the Family” (2000), “ 'Feminism is Not the Story of My Life': How the Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch With the Real Concerns of Women” (1996), “Feminism Without Illusions: A Critique of Individualism” (1991), and “Within the Plantation Household:Black and White Women of the Old South” (1988). She wrote an article “Catholic and Feminist: Can One be Both?” in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture (2:4, Fall, 1999, pp 11-38, an online version could be found here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0025.html) contrasting Catholic feminism and secular feminism.

Please, Madam Racelis, feel free to peruse the works and writings of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Be  enlightened about the feminism which is authentically beneficial to women.

I agree with my feminist friends when they sincerely admit that contraception is a possible solution to the perennial problem of men's irresponsibility. But, there are always questions: Is it effective in solving men's irresponsibility? Is it only the men who are irresponsible? Are the women naturally responsible and holy? Are not they also to be accused of some irresponsibility? Are unwanted pregnancies to be blamed solely to men's misconduct?

I learned from my readings that women and men both have weaknesses. These weaknesses are manifested in “unique” ways by women and men. In unwanted pregnancies, the weaknesses of women and men both come into play. The most effective solution should address both women's and men's weaknesses. Contraception, I am certain, is not one of these solutions.

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.