Response to "CBCP's monumental blunder"

Dear Mr. Butch del Castillo,

I write you in response to your 23 August 2012 article entitled "CBCP's monumental blunder". I understand it was meant to tell the Catholic bishops they made a faux pas by threatening to strip AdMU of its Catholic status because of almost 200 of its faculty signed a pro-RH Bill manifesto.

I read your article several times. What particularly caught my attention was your characterization of the position of the Ateneo faculty as being "hard to dispute or refute" which was the following:

"It upholds the constitutional right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, honors our commitments to international convenants and conventions, and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue -- our women, poor families and young people."

Indeed, pro-RH Bill Ateneo faculty's declaration of their position appear noble. But I have these questions:

Does this position really reflects the true nature of contraception-laden RH Bill?
Does the use of contraception fulfills these alleged noble goals?
Are these "noble" goals really that noble?

The obvious answer I see is NO!

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 "Contraceptive morality"

Note: This is my comment at "Contraceptive morality" of PDI.

The woman's power to conceive is NOT a tool to be owned absolutely by a woman. It is entrusted to her by her Creator; it is not hers. She will render account to her Creator on how she used it later in her life.

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".

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.

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.

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).

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).

Another Feedback on Miss Patricia Evangelista's "The Montalvan morality"

Dear Editor,

This letter is a reaction to Miss Patricia Evangelista's latest article in her Method to Madness column, "The Montalvan morality"(PDI, Sunday, October 16, 2010, page A15). I understand her article is a reaction to Antonio J. Montalvan II's October 11, 2010 column-article.

Owing to Miss Evangelista's rhetorical expertise and writing prowess, I fear that her readers would easily come to a rash judgment and thinking: It is necessary and inevitable to employ contraception to manage the population.

A question came to my mind: Is it possible to manage the population without resorting to or employing contraception? I pondered on this question for some time and have come to the conclusion that Yes, it is possible!

In order to manage population, specifically the Philippine population, without using contraception as a public policy, I believe, the following conditions should be present:

1. PEOPLE ARE RESOURCES, NOT BURDENS. Our political leaders and policy-makers ought to view people as potential resources, not just short-term burdens. Instead of looking at people as consumers of resources and producers of wastes, they should be looked upon as potential producers of ideas and problem-solvers of the many mysteries plaguing humanity's existence. Instead of seeing mouths to be fed, they should be seen as pairs of hands that could produce products and services, people with cash-laden wallets that would fill shopping malls after shopping malls. Of course, in order for people to be the country's assets, they should be harnessed through well-crafted public education curricula and well-trained, well-paid teachers. Public funds should channeled to improving public education infrastructures and programs. Let us fight corruption in the public offices so that tax-payers' money are not funneled to unscrupulous individuals but to public education!

Objectors to this idea might counteract that there is not enough public funds for the current and fast-growing population size, population should be reduced to a manageable level. To this objection I will respond:

It is not the size of the population that should be the issue, there are countries who have populations bigger than the Philippines who are able to provide enough public goods and services. Instead, our leaders should wrack their brains to come up with policy strategies that would attract more and increasing foreign direct investments to the country, increase tax collection and implement a more equitable distribution of material wealth.

2. NATURE AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. Our political leaders and policy-makers should foster the true, the correct, the sustainable understanding of the nature and meaning of human sexuality. Through public education and mass-media, the following thinking should be made normal and common: "An individual views and enters into a sexual relationship because she or he is consciously willing to become a parent".

It is true that sex should be viewed as beyond procreation; that there is another meaning to sex. That other meaning is personal unity, partnership, communion. But for this other meaning to really exist and to be unmistakably experienced, the intimate connection of sex to procreation must not be artificially, synthetically cut. Only then, when the possibility of procreation is willingly accepted, that the other meaning of sex will be a reality.

3. INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY IS A PUBLIC MENACE. Before the advent of Internet technology, indulgence to pornography was confined to a few. Now, it is accessible to almost anyone, regardless of age, status, financial capacity, etc! Looking at pornography ought to be viewed as a debilitating addiction, similar to drug addiction. If our public leaders are deeply concerned for the widespread access to dangerous drugs, they also ought to include easy access to Internet pornography as one of the public menace.

Studies have shown that boys and men are more susceptible to be hooked to Internet pornography than girls and women. Our leaders should concede to the proposition that Internet pornography could cook the minds of the male half of the population and come to see the female half of the population as just objects, toys, tools for sexual pleasure. In order to minimize the objectification of girls and women, there ought to be policies that curb the availability of printed pornography in public places and Internet.

4. WOMEN SHOULD REIN MEN, NOT SPOIL THEM. Girls and women ought to be aware that they are a very important influence in guiding boys and men towards chivalry and responsible fatherhood. Our public leaders, specially our women political leaders, should foster the mentality that modesty is better than exhibitionism. Through modesty, ladies could attract gentlemen, willing to respect them as persons with dignity. Through showing too much skin, ladies could attract brutes, filled with the thought: 'girls are just toys'.

Moreover, our leaders ought to foster the concept: women ought to realize that they can keep a true and honest man, as a life-partner, if they do not give-in to the low and perverted cravings of men. Women should not give-in to the lustful desires of their men and resort to the use of artificial contraception to provide an apparent protection from unwanted consequences. Through the actual use of contraception, women, without them being aware of it, willingly turn themselves into willing toys and objects of pleasure for their partners. Women's dignity as a person is not protected by contraception, rather, they are automatically turned into objects and turn their partners into brutes without reason.

To conclude, these are the four (4) suggested conditions, I believe, should be present in Philippine society, in order to manage population without resorting to contraception. I must concede that these are very, very tall orders! These are, indeed, unattainable ideals. But as long as there is an honest-to-goodness effort-exerted and resources-employed, on the part of our political leaders and policy-makers, to move towards achieving these conditions, contraception-free population management will produce effective, long-lasting and sustainable results.

In lieu of population policies dependent on contraception, strategies such as improving all forms of public transportation to encourage people to upgrade existing urban centers or build more urban centers in the country-side will gain public attention, acceptability and feasibility. This could decongest current urban centers like Metro Manila and Cebu. A strategy of population redistribution will be more possible.

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 whatever will be PDI's decision.

Feedback on Miss Patricia Evangelista's "The Montalvan morality"

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.

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".

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)

Feedback to "Managing population growth” (page 2, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin)

Dear Editor,

I am very happy to read a short info-mercial, entitled, "Managing population growth" (Page 2, Sunday, October 5, 2008, Manila Bulletin), that mentions the Commission on Population (POPCOM), "… in coordination with other agencies, leads the task of promoting natural family planning…"

At the same time, I am also very worried that the same write-up contains potentially misleading statements. These are the following:

1. The quotation attributed to POPCOM Executive Director Tomas M. Osias which states that "the larger the population, the greater is the demand for natural resources and manufactured goods and services, giving lesser time for our natural resources to regenerate and lesser time for production lines and service sectors to supply our basic needs."

It shows a very narrow-minded and partial correlation between population and use of natural resources and manufactured goods and services. Aside from population growth, there are other factors that must be considered such as unregulated economic activity, graft and corruption, poorly formulated and implemented public policies, etc. Blaming everything to a large population is dangerously misleading. Moreover, the statement is a hypothesis that is not supported by empirical data. A national agency that is expected to be manned by professionals should be careful in making assertions well supported by scientific evidence.

2. The statement " The decline in population growth will ease the demand for resources…"

This statement somehow tries to emphasize that declining population growth is desirable or a good thing for our country. This reflects the underlying assumption that people are just burdens; mouth that must be fed; not brains and pairs of hands that could be innovators, inventors, creators of new ideas and solutions. It shows an anti-life philosophy.

Instead of controlling population growth, I would suggest that POPCOM focuses their work on POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION. They should formulate and propose demographic policies, among other things, that would encourage the formation or establishment of secondary urban centers in order to decongest the major cities like Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. These policies should also include recommendations to improve public transportation like the railways and roll-on-roll-off (RORO) ports.

I wish also to suggest that POPCOM revises the underlying philosophy of their work. They should consider the idea that people are potential resources, not problems. They are potential dollar-earners. They are potential inventors, creators of new wealth, and discoverers of new resources or discoverers of new uses of existing or known resources. In this perspective, population growth is a welcome phenomenon. What will be required from POPCOM and other government agencies are ideas and proposals to develop and harness these potential human resources.

"The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2372)

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Cf. Psalm 95:7-8)

On Australian blogger Brian Gorrell

Dear Editor,

I read several articles in Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) on the Australian blogger Brian Gorrell.

I became curious of what PDI wrote about him. I logged on to the internet and searched his blog.

I was shocked by what I read! Can his allegations be true?

Questions came up to my mind: Is injuring people's reputation a fair revenge for allegedly being swindled of one's hard-earned $70,000 material wealth? Are people's reputation less valuable than money?

I am also saddened by the readers' comments that mostly accepted the allegations as true. But it seems that the charges have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In ethics books, it says that one ought not to assume as true, even tacitly, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of another person. If one does, one is guilty of RASH JUDGMENT and injures, in one's mind, the reputation of the other person. Reading the comments, it appears that so many rash judgments have been committed. How easily people believe on negative things about people!

Even if Mr. Gorrell's allegations are true, one ought not to disclose, without objectively valid reason, people's faults and failings to the unsuspecting public. There is such a thing as DETRACTION, wherein, a person's reputation is injured by exposing his faults and failings to those who do not know them.

Much worse, if the allegations are false. It is CALUMNY, a grave injustice to innocent people.

As one ethics book explains "detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity." (CCC 2479)

Even if the offense to Brian Gorrell is true, he is still not blameless. He should know better. He should have placed things in writing. Even if they are best of friends, as he alleged.

We can also give Mr. Gorrell the benefit of the doubt that he mistakenly trusted the person too much. No one is perfect. But what is $70,000 to a guy who writes and takes picture well. He can earn it again. He should just leave to the Almighty God the retribution and justice he desires. After all, one cannot bring to one's grave one's riches.

The issue, then, here is reputation of persons against money. We cannot discount the possibility that there is blackmail being committed. It is saddening to realize that PDI is allowing itself to be used, for free, to a possible destruction of people's reputation.

Don't get me wrong. I do not know the people Brian Gorrell are "leaving under the sun to dry". I do not belong to the moneyed and propertied-social class. I just came to know about this through your PDI articles. I am not grateful to PDI for letting me know this. This is not worth the ink and newsprint paper PDI spends. It is a shame. It gives a bad after taste. Let the others do it, not PDI.

Thank you for your time and I hope PDI will think twice next time in assisting character assassination by featuring them, free of charge.

Note: This letter was published April 13, 2008. To read the online version, click HERE or copy and paste to the browser this link: http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20080413-130043/Feedback

Reaction to "High birth rate = classroom lack"

The title of your article "High birth rate = classroom lack" (Published on page A2 of March 25, 2007 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer) easily caught my attention. I immediately thought to myself, here they go again launching another campaign to convince the public that the source of our country's problem is our population!

God bless our president! Peace of mind came back to me when I read President Arroyo does not buy the argument of DepEd Secretary Lapus. She is aware of the strong position of the Catholic Church on the population issue.

Instead, she wants to encourage "high school students to take up vocational courses instead of going on to college", where chances of getting high wage jobs abound. Here is a hint to a real solution to our problem in our educational system.

Why not the government launch an incentive program such as scholarship grants for our young people to go to technical schools rather than to universities?

It is also mentioned in the article that "more than half of the 1.3 million senior high school students in both the public and private schools did not qualify for a college education". It appears now that government college scholarship programs favors a small portion of our high school graduates.

If the government subsidizes college education of a small fraction of our country's youth through state universities and colleges, particularly the University of the Philippines, why don't the government increases the programs that will subsidize the vocational training of our college-age youth? Besides, most of the "poorest of the poor" portion of the population are resigned on taking vocational courses.

There are a number of private technical schools that give quality technical training. The government can tap the expertise of these institutions by channeling the scholarship grants to them. No need to put up public technical schools.

One reason parents and the young themselves prefer college education instead of vocational courses is due to the low esteem of these courses. The government should also do something to raise the public perception on vocational courses. One way to do that is to increase the number of slots of full scholarships to vocational courses. Right now the slots available are so few, that very few people are aware of it.

If public perception on vocational courses is raised to a level that a students can be proud of it, some of the "cream of the crop" of our high school graduates will consider taking the vocational course path. It will further raise the public perception on vocational courses. A sort of "snowball effect" will occur.

I liked this short article. It made me think.

Reaction to "New contraceptives make menstrual period optional"

I was saddened by your article "New contraceptives make menstrual period optional" (Published on Page A1 of the May 24, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer). This time advocates of artificial contraception try to appeal to a very common aspiration among individuals, women and men alike, in a consumeristic society for less suffering and greater comforts.

Don't you realize that oral contraceptive pills taken at an early age on a regular basis and before the first full term pregnancy has an estimated increased risk of breast cancer of 40%? Studies conducted by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn have reached to this conclusion. If you want to view his study, click on the following URL: http://lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_10chap8canabor1.html

Dr. Chris Kahlenborn specializes in internal medicine and practices in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Dr. Kahlenborn has studied the epidemiology of breast cancer in relation to abortion and oral contraceptives for the past six years and has lectured in Canada, Russia, the Philippines, and China, in addition to testifying before the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He writes and speaks extensively in the areas of breast cancer, with its links to Abortion and the pill; artificial contraception; In-Vitro fertilization; and the Chickenpox vaccine. He has a book published entitled, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Brith Control Pill.

It also significant to point out that interventions to the human reproductive system is not similar to cosmetic surgery. Our capability to reproduce has a supernatural and spiritual component. The organs and processes involved in forming a human embryo includes the action of God. Each human embryo formed or could be formed has a spiritual soul that comes from God only! We cannot treat our power to generate another human being at the same level as breast augmentation surgery!

Birth control pills and other hormonal contraceptives are actually poisons that could bring greater harm to future mothers than good!

I hope you will study more carefully and deeply the link between Oral Contraceptive Pill and Breast Cancer.

Thank you for your time and best regards.

Re: No Free Lunch: Getting out of the governance trap

Dear Mr. Habito,

I was very happy to read in your article "No Free Lunch: Getting out of the governance trap" (Page B6 of the May 8, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer) that low salaries of government employees is one of the causes of poor public governance. As you mentioned in your article, it is one of several causes that propagates the vicious cycle of weak governance.

I agree with your claim. Low salaries in the public sector do lead to "inadequate quantity and quality of government services, often marked by lack of integrity, professionalism and dedication, and in too many cases, by graft and corruption".

I also agree with you that breaking out from the vicious cycle of weak public governance is a "long and painful process". But I believe we can make a good start by undertaking a slow and gradual increase of public salaries. I propose we start increasing the salaries of policemen and public school teachers first. They are the ones in the forefront of providing the much needed public goods of literacy, peace and order. By so doing, we can gradually improve the quality of our police force and public schools.

Increasing the salaries of policemen and public school teachers would compel them to improve their work. It is a fact of human nature that when one is compensated adequately, one is compelled to reciprocate it with better productivity. How will you explain the high productivity of Filipinos working overseas?

Besides increasing productivity, increasing their salaries is a good means of redistributing wealth to the lower classes and to the rural areas. Since policemen and public school teachers are spread throughout the archipelago, material wealth will be distributed throughout the countryside.

It is alright to allow the inevitable of "rewarding the misfits and the corrupt along with the truly deserving" in the short term. Some of these misfits and corrupt will be forced, out of delicadeza, to improve in their job. When their improved salaries will be known publicly, taxpayers can reprimand them for their sloppy work by pointing out to them the taxes spent for their pay.

Once the salaries of policemen and teachers are raised, there will be a gradual exodus of the best and the brightest among our youth to police work and teaching. The vicious cycle will be converted to a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle, as you mentioned in the article.

Yes, Mr. Habito, there is a way out of the poverty trap or vicious cycle. I suggest we start from the link that directly affect human beings: income. The human component of the poverty issue should be tackled first. I believe we start adopting a mind set that human resources are our best asset. By increasing income, savings will increase. Increased savings will make investments rise. Rising investments will result to rising productivity. Higher productivity will engender higher income!

How will we fund the higher salaries? I suggest we proceed gradually by increasing first policemen's and teachers' salaries of cities other than Metro Manila. Let's start from the countryside.

Your article confirmed my long-held theory: higher salaries of government workers result in better public service.

Thank you for your time reading my comment. I look forward to reading your column in PDI. God bless.

With kind regards,

Manuel Felix G. Abejo Jr.