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.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Monday, April 12, 2010
Is Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) assisting in the propagation of a hedonistic Philippine society?
Is Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) assisting in the propagation of a hedonistic Philippine society?
I read Mr. Romy Aquino's published letter-to-the-editor ("Nature shows sex not merely for procreation", page A16, PDI, 4/12/10) and was particularly alarmed by his thesis statement: "... sex among human beings is mainly for pleasure and not for a 'higher purpose which is to procreate'".
Mr. Aquino elaborated further by enumerating five (5) "empirical evidences" to back-up his claim. But, I think, these are more "superficial, amateurish speculations" interpreting human sexuality's natural processes than "scientifically verifiable conclusions" valid as evidences.
Mr. Aquino erroneously equated "procreation" to "animal reproduction". PDI editors should be aware that human procreation is very different from animal reproduction. Since a human being is a unity of a material body and a spiritual soul, where each soul is uniquely created by an infinitely perfect spiritual being called God and is not a piece from the mother and father's souls, human procreation is a category of its own. We can say, when our parents procreate, God is always involve in each and every sexual act, even if, in some cases, it does not result in a new human being. Animal reproduction is purely material while procreation is both material and spiritual.
All of Mr. Aquino's arguments disregarded the spiritual dimension of human sexuality. We cannot properly explain human sexuality if the spiritual aspect is not also discussed. Human sexuality's spirituality could be gleaned from Christian anthropology and theology, not from popular, laical interpretations. Human beings have a spiritual calling to form communities through sincere mutual self-giving with each other as what happens in marriages; human sex is the essential bodily component of this calling while the marriage vows forms the other part.
I am very worried PDI, the most widely-read broadsheet, published Mr. Aquino's letter and read by the Filipino public. This might influence public opinion and contribute to mainstreaming the notion that "SEX IS JUST FOR PLEASURE"! Does PDI realizes it might be helping fortify the practice of snatching or conning rural young girls to be instruments of sexual pleasure in tourist resorts and other establishments?
I suggest PDI moderates closely publishing letters-to-the-editor and take careful look at the philosophy and ideology behind each and every letter. As they say, "ideas do have consequences".
I read Mr. Romy Aquino's published letter-to-the-editor ("Nature shows sex not merely for procreation", page A16, PDI, 4/12/10) and was particularly alarmed by his thesis statement: "... sex among human beings is mainly for pleasure and not for a 'higher purpose which is to procreate'".
Mr. Aquino elaborated further by enumerating five (5) "empirical evidences" to back-up his claim. But, I think, these are more "superficial, amateurish speculations" interpreting human sexuality's natural processes than "scientifically verifiable conclusions" valid as evidences.
Mr. Aquino erroneously equated "procreation" to "animal reproduction". PDI editors should be aware that human procreation is very different from animal reproduction. Since a human being is a unity of a material body and a spiritual soul, where each soul is uniquely created by an infinitely perfect spiritual being called God and is not a piece from the mother and father's souls, human procreation is a category of its own. We can say, when our parents procreate, God is always involve in each and every sexual act, even if, in some cases, it does not result in a new human being. Animal reproduction is purely material while procreation is both material and spiritual.
All of Mr. Aquino's arguments disregarded the spiritual dimension of human sexuality. We cannot properly explain human sexuality if the spiritual aspect is not also discussed. Human sexuality's spirituality could be gleaned from Christian anthropology and theology, not from popular, laical interpretations. Human beings have a spiritual calling to form communities through sincere mutual self-giving with each other as what happens in marriages; human sex is the essential bodily component of this calling while the marriage vows forms the other part.
I am very worried PDI, the most widely-read broadsheet, published Mr. Aquino's letter and read by the Filipino public. This might influence public opinion and contribute to mainstreaming the notion that "SEX IS JUST FOR PLEASURE"! Does PDI realizes it might be helping fortify the practice of snatching or conning rural young girls to be instruments of sexual pleasure in tourist resorts and other establishments?
I suggest PDI moderates closely publishing letters-to-the-editor and take careful look at the philosophy and ideology behind each and every letter. As they say, "ideas do have consequences".
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)