Comment at "Trouble brewing"

Note: This is my comment at PDI's Trouble brewing.

I understand the sentiment of the author who employs a secular and atheistic theoretical framework in portraying the Catholic Church as an institution.

The faithfuls of the Catholic Church accept by faith that the Catholic Church has a spiritual and invisible dimension, analogously similar to a human being that has a spiritual soul united to a physical and material body.

Thus, it is incomplete and a huge injustice to measure the Catholic Church in purely physical, visible and material criteria.

In understanding why Catholic Church does not ordain women to the priesthood, it is necessary to look back at the historical past, up to the time of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who chose only men as his closest collaborators in fulfilling His mission. Moreover, it is a big mistake for Mr. Denis Murphy to treat the priesthood as positions of power. Contrary to his notion, priests ought to look at their role as servants, following Jesus Christ's example.

But this does not mean women have a lower dignity compared to men. It is taught in the Catholic Church that men and women have equal personal dignity. In addition, "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2333)

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.