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.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
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).
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).
Monday, May 02, 2011
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)