Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Fr. Bernas quietly writes on RH Bill on the very day that bishops lambast it

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

He says, “Don’t burn house to roast a pig”

I am reposting below Fr. Bernas’ latest piece which he uploaded Saturday while the Church rally was going on.

The thing speaks for itself.

 RH Bill: Don’t burn house to roast a pig 

By Fr. Joaquin Bernas

    Saturday, August 4, 2012

A little over a year ago, or on May 22, 2011 to be exact, I wrote an article for Inquirer entitled “My Stand on the RH Bill.” With the vote on the RH Bill approaching people have asked me whether my stand on the bill has changed. Let me restate the salient points I made then.

First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. I know that some people consider me a heretic and that at the very least I should leave the priesthood. But my superiors still stand by me.

Second, (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church state relations) I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception which is very much at the center of the controversy. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen pressure President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community [like the Catholic church] might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”

Third, the obligation to respect freedom of religion is also applicable to the state. Thus, I advocate careful recasting of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, in addition to free exercise of religion, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12).

Fourth, the duty to care for sexual and reproductive health of employees should be approached in a balanced way so that both the freedom of religion of employers and the welfare of workers will be attended to. In this regard it may be necessary to reformulate the provisions already found in the Labor Code.

Fifth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Thus, for instance, it may be legitimately spent for making available reproductive materials that are not abortifacient. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.

Sixth, we should be careful not to distort what the RH Bill says. The RH Bill does not favor abortion. The bill clearly prohibits abortion as an assault against the right to life.

Seventh, in addition, I hold that abortifacient pills and devises should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. However, determining which of the pills in the market are abortifacient is something for the judicial process to determine with the aid of science experts. Our Court has already upheld the banning of at least one device found to be abortifacient.

Eighth, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

Ninth, I claim no competence to debate about demographics.

Tenth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. I hold that the approval of the RH Bill today will not end all debate about it. It will only shift the arena for debate from the raucous and noisy rally fields to the more sober judicial arena where reason has a better chance of prevailing.

Finally, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which are desperately needed especially by poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved even if we must litigate later about those which we disagree on. In other words, let us not burn the house just to roast a pig.

Here is the link to Fr. Bernas’ blog

Here are previous articles concerning Fr. Bernas’ stand on the RH Bill as well as my other related pieces:

Fr. Bernas suggests condoms are OK

Will Father Bernas be cowed by higher authority & fall silent on the RH bill?

Father Bernas gives Catholics wiggle room to support controversial RH bill

Jesuit priest-lawyer Bernas strikes again on side of the Reproductive Health bill

The latest & only “RH” House version

“Contraception is corruption” – Archbishop tells PNoy

PNoy will back RH bill; brace yourself for political trouble

Senator Vicente Sotto reinvents himself as the anti-RH champion

Msgr. Rosales leaned on Cory Aquino to make GMA resign, then left Cory

GMA loyalist Edcel Lagman vows not to abandon pro-RH fight in Congress

RH bill was killed by Pres. Gloria Arroyo in exchange for Church political support

 

Comments

  1. Reproductive Health at its very core regardless if its natural or artifical will always go against Catholic doctrine. It is basically going through the action or inaction with the objective of not creating life. Natural methods just makes it more palatable but is still anti life.

    The question therefore should leave ethics of sex as it becomes moot. Its a catch 22..

    It really needs to shift to issues of maternl, infant and ultimately family health.

    Maternal health equates to access to information, and medicine if so requested.
    Infant health starts at conception. I am against abortion.
    Family health, access to information and guidance to building families.

    Religion provides the ethical and moral backdrop to RH. It is thus incumbent on the Church to teach the complete truths and being Christians or Muslims allow discernment of its flock.

  2. Thank you raissa for this site. This is my first post and read almost all your article and also all the comments here. It is worth my time. Very informative and very interesting… About RH bill i think many people from pro and anti neglect the fact that overpopulation is sometimes cause by early sex of our Filipino people… The time of sex is usually done before during marriage already but due to change in culture of our country, sex is so casual already between young people. So i think the increase in population can also be attributed to early exposure of kids to sex and love… But kuddos again raissa for a wonderful site you have here… keep it up!

  3. Some of Fr. Bernas’ statements need a deeper look.

    1.) When he says his superiors “…stand by me…” does he mean: “…agrees with me…” or does it mean “…respect my right to my opinion…”?

    2.) Public money “…may be spent…in ways that do not violate the constitution…”; and “…may be appropriated by congress for public good…” Here he is being technical or in my language, “lawyer-like.” Glossed over is the fact that whether contraceptives are good for the health or not is precisely one of the main points being debated. Yet his last statement “…let us not burn the house to roast a pig…” implies that he supports the RHB or at least is against the protest against it. As to the power of Congress to appropriate public money, this is not, or should not be absolute. The will of the people should always prevail in a democracy. So if Congress is to appropriate public money, it should reflect the will of the majority. This is especially important in this issue when the health effects are under question.
    It may be noted, for example, that Senator Sotto discussed at length the definition of “conception” which is crucial to classifying the contraceptives as to “abortifacient” or not. And the legal entity that will make the determination is the FDA (need I say more?)!

    3.) One will not find it difficult to sympathize with Fr Bernas in his concern for “…poor women who cannot afford medical services…” But let us not forget that the end does not justify the means.

    Having said all this, may I summarize my thoughts on the issue as follow:

    1. I am against the passage of the RHB because to me, contraception is an act of trying to thwart nature aside from supporting the belief that one is entitled to behave irresponsibly then escape responsibility;

    2. I cannot agree that public money may be spent for contraception unless it can be irrefutably proven that it will promote health. Remember, billions of pesos of public money are involved;

    3. I am against the church hierarchy or clergy taking an active role to prevent passage of the law. If priests protest individually, I can stand side by side with them in exercising our civil rights, but an official church stand, I cannot accept;

    De humanitae vitae (affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI on 12 May 2008) is binding on its “citizens”- the true faithful- but it cannot be used to manage or influence civil legislation. The catholic who chooses to revise its interpretation or to entirely ignore it for secular reasons is on his own.

  4. The Catholic Church is way beyond the rainbow on this RH issue. It just isn’t making sense on some of their teachings.

    Such as.. married couples can have sex only if the intention is procreation.

    Question: What of a couple who get married and later find out they can’t have children because one or both of them are infertile? Does that mean they should never ever have sex again for the rest of their lives?

    • Married couple (man + woman) should have sex even if they’re diagnosed infertile.

      A major difference is that while a homosexual couple could not under any circumstances conceive a child during a sexual act, an infertile couple, in a sense, “can.” What I mean here is that they are not opposed to life and would accept a child with open arms if one should be conceived. A homosexual cannot ever expect a child to be conceived.

      There is always a chance to conceive. God has already performed such miracles. How about Sarah, the wife of Abraham. How about Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary who bore John.

      homosexual sex is wrong for several reasons.
      – its a disordered and unnatural act
      – its an act that is not open to life
      – sex is only allowed within a marriage which can only be between a man and woman

  5. The director of an African AIDS care center is supporting Benedict XVI’s words about the ineffectiveness of condoms in the struggle against the spread of the disease.

    Rose Busingye, who directs Meeting Point Kampala, a center in Kampala for those suffering from AIDS, and cares for about 4,000 people a day, responded to the Pope’s words and the public criticism he received.

    In an interview published online March 20 by Il Sussidario, Busingye said that “those who contribute to the polemics over the Pope’s statements must in reality understand that the true problem in the spread of AIDS in Africa is not condoms; talking about this would be to stop at the consequences and never go to the origin of the problem.”

    “At the root of the spread of HIV,” she explained, “there is a behavior, there is a way of being.” She added, “And then let’s not forget that the great emergency is to take care of the people who have already contracted the disease and for whom condoms are useless.”

    Offering an example of the occasional lack of comprehension of the situation in Africa, Busingye spoke about a group of journalists who had come to report on the activities of Meeting Point. Seeing the condition of the HIV-positive women, they were moved. They decided to make themselves useful and do something for the women: they gave them a small box of condoms.

    Seeing this, the director reported, one of the women at the center, Jovine, looked at them and said: “My husband is dying and I have six children who will soon be orphans. What use are these boxes you are giving me?”

    “What that woman and many other women like her need,” Busingye affirmed, “is to have someone who looks at them and says: ‘Woman, don’t cry!'”

    “It is absurd,” she added, “to try to respond to her need with a box of condoms, and the absurdity is in not seeing that man is love, and affectivity.”

    Real solutions … http://www.zenit.org/article-25480?l=english

      • Contraception is not the answer whether we’re talking about AIDS or addressing poverty… and you’re taking the Pope’s words out of context. Read catholic sources to balance your interpretations. We can’t get good words from Arroyo’s camp about Aquino.

        • Ow common how ignorant you are……….TIME is the ESSENCE equate it with the DISCIPLINE of the Filipinos then and now COROLATE it with all your RESEARCHED …….. Give us your formula to solve poverty now in the PHILIPPINES that will overcome the ESSENCE of TIME……TELL US…..

          THEN and NOW you are IGNORANT and LYING. Tell it to ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES…… Pay first their TAXES and what ever they earned righteously, distribute to the poor then that is the TIME we have to believe on our BISHOPS/PRIEST’s.

        • Vactin,
          And so you insist that contraception is the answer?
          Europe has been there ahead of us and you can see now.
          Netty just posted a gloomy reality below about the predicament of those who pionered the culture of death. And is contraceptive saving them now?

          Poverty is a complex thing.
          But even if you’re very rich if you’ve no satisfaction, your life is no meaning. It’s better to be with the poor with their laughters and sense of dependence on God.

          We all pay taxes; buy/build anything and government gets something!

        • @D on SCOT….. ESSENCE OF TIME, DISCIPLINE of the FILIPINOS NOW, FACTS ( YOUR RESEARCHED include them ) equate and correlate them together…… WHAT IS THE BEST FORMULA TO SOLVE POVERTY IN THE PHIL? TELL US ?

          TIME IS THE ESSENCE SIDE BY SIDE…. Birth control ( contraceptives not abortion ) , fight graft and corruption, education, old and new technology…. If we disregard population explosion NUMBERS of POVERTY’s overtakes DEVELOPMENT with the kind of DISCIPLINE we have now.

          Now you are comparing us to the SUCCESS of EUROPEAN COUNTRIES……………here is my answer …. Not only that they have their own kind of DISCIPLINE which we don’t have BUT listen and it’s a FACT….. ALMOST ALL OF THEM WENT to a BLOODY REVOLUTION or CIVIL WARS…………… NOW tell me can we afford those SCENARIOS? Can we kill our brothers having different ideas as we have? Do we have the BONES to execute our parents for they embraced the wrong interpretation of DEMOCRACY? CAN YOU? Ang mga anak mga dyan ng ating mga public officials when acused of henius crimes, pinagtatakpan nila. Pag sila mga ang gumawa ng henius crimes wala ngang naamin nor even RESIGN to their POST like your CORONA and etc..

          FOOLISH on you …you want development without sacrificing to the most…look at our COMMUNIST BROTHERs they are excecuting a mere policeman , soldiers pero wala silang napapala kasi may pumapalit sa kanila na mas corrupt….. Why are they not executing those Filipino billionaires whwho are controlling/manipulating our ECONOMIES or their HEIRS ? WHY? It is because we don’t have the BALLS and BONES to do it and our wrong exercised of STRONG FAMILY TIES. We always protect our siblings whether they are right or wrong.

          BETTER TELL YOU CHURHES TO PAY REALTY TAXES FIRST to be distributed to the POOR .

        • Vic,
          About taxes, direct your concerns to the govenrment not to me unless you believe I have that power. And let’s do something about the law while we can_ like taxes to be spent on RH Bill.

          You seem to view our society as very dim and hopeless. Come on cheer up man!

          You keep asking me for formula. Why are you so desperate for a quick fix. Contrary to your interpretation I don’t view Europe’s society as a success this time. They’re becoming inferior due to the culture of death and lesser acceptance of new life which started from approval of contraception (year 1930).

          Wake up! Don’t be imprisoned within the morbid hatred for the Church. No institution on earth has directed life more positively than the Catholic Church. Don’t follow the Europeans, don’t forget your heritage!

        • You don’t want to have quick solution to our problems of poverty therefore you want us to be more populous and poorer. As I said TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE any FORMULA that will not slow down population growth will OVERTAKE any development our government will undertake because of the discipline we have .

          FACTS will tell so as your researched against RH BILL so why are you against contraceptives in slowing population growth? The teaching of the BIBLE…you can not defend it. Science…. still a FLAUSIBILTIES.

          Why not go to your CARDINAL’s , your BISHOP’s , your POPE in the Philippines where the ROMAN CATHOLIC’s placed as their dominions for 300years, compute the realty TAXES including interest and deduct all illegal donations you had received and ask them to PAY……so that all the SUM’S will be utilized for the poor FILIPINOS and your unborn as you said, so never mind the ESSENCE Of TIME and the contraceptives you are opposing.

        • May I asked you personally @d on Scott ……what do you embraced, the teaching of Jesus both in the OLD and NEW testament or SCIENCE? Tell me because i am also a ROMAN CATHOLIC . The sister of my father my aunt is a sister of the FRANCISCAN ORDER ( st. Joseph university ) so as my late uncle a parish priest in LA UNIOIN…. Father TONGSON…does it sound your bells.

        • Your constant reference of your aunt as a Franciscan Sister and your uncle as a priest does not make you a better catholic, or if you became a bad catholic, perhaps you need to blame them first. Then after blaming them for not influencing you, maybe you can draft a bill on church tax. Is this ok for you? if you are no longer a catholic, you are in prayers.

        • You’ve got no more credibility kabayan @AGUEDO . Period na tayo .. Amen na tayo, you can not defend what you are saying talo kana at wala nang maniniwala sa iyo. WASTE KA NA DITO sa BLOG. LASTOG KA MET

        • When objectivity is lost, personal feelings come to the fore and the person simply is out of control. This is simply immaturity which when translated morally is a dangerous anchor. Grow up so you can be truly proud of your identity. Discuss squarely and avoid giving name. Parang inuman lang yan kapag natalo naghahamon na ng away o kaya nagbibigay ng katawagan. You can still improve you know! God bless. If interested join my class next sem you are most welcome and my students may learn from you. But be mature first.

        • Kabayan, you call your discussion in this blog crediblity? Please check what you meant by “henius? O r maybe the spelling? In an argument the word you used twice does not make any sense. If you submit to me your paper with this word, you will receive a red mark, ok! You dont even bother to correct yourself and here you are correcting others. Just a note.

        • Professor kabayan ha ha gising kapa ….. I appreciate all of your corrections thanks.. Sorry for going against your conviction but I will assure you in other matters especially the HACIENDA LUISITA if it will not properly implemented , I will be with you fighting PINOY.

          Addadtoyak manila tatta . Naggapuak idiay adayo nga ili me. Ayan mo professor? Kayat mo agpasyarak kenka.? Thanks again

        • Dumawattak kenka ti dispensa no adda naysurat ko kenka na saan mga napintas professor ha. Thanks again

        • Seing as how we’re going to be prissy, Florence:

          “Please check what you meant by “henius? O r maybe the spelling? In an argument the word you used twice does not make any sense. If you submit to me your paper with this word, you will receive a red mark, ok! You dont even bother to correct yourself and here you are correcting others. Just a note”

          is better rendered

          Please explain what you mean when you said ‘henius” Or perhaps you just misspelled it? (ellipsis) Were you to submit a paper to me with such usage, I would give you a red mark (ellipsis)”

          There, your pomposity is now more limpid

        • Offering a bait, maybe? I have not read a substantial elucidation from you. Is this your cup of tea or just a make-belief? Assert your credibility in a more creative display. Just a note. thanks. Oh, by the way, do not bite what you cannot chew. I dont have the monopoly of truth but I go with my expertise. God bless.

        • Hey, your “seing” is not accepted. Just a note. In a Socratic method the best way is to look at oneself. A saying goes this way, “the longest journey is the journey within.” Do some introspection, it is good for the soul. God bless

        • Dear Florence, just a suggestion that you should put aside your professorial pomposity and consider that in life we’re all students

        • Vic,
          Please read: http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=36735&se=362&ca=968&te=707&csearch=968

          What was Jesus’ response to the apostle that questioned him “why was this not given to the poor” (Jn. 12:5)? He replies, “You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” (Jn. 12:8). He implies that an encounter with God is the basis for any true encounter with the poor. It is fitting that this contact with him should bear the marks of beauty and love, for nothing is too extravagant for God. Without Christ as the center and drive of apostolic initiative and activity, the Church’s works would be worth nothing. In the end, the Church remains faithful to her deepest nature through the celebration of the sacraments, where the faithful meet Christ in order to meet the poor.

        • I am not again Jesus … I am against your interpretation of the BIBLE we are both embracing . In the EXIGENCY of TIME the best method to slow down population explosion thus solving the soonest poverty in our country is thru morally contraceptives ( not for abortion ).

          Again your ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES are accepting DONATIONS coming from ILLEGAL MEANS and that is CORRUPTION…… and using them EVENTHOUGH LAWFULLY or MORALLY still CORRUPTION….then how can we believe on you when you started CORRUPTION .

        • OK, good that you’re a believer.
          But before going thru the Bible, please don’t bark at me on your perceived corruptions of the Church leaders. For one thing, it is still to be proven and what is the use of our justice system if we convict without trial. It’s just a repetitive childish cry!

          And in exigency of time there is a way to solve poverty sooner than contraceptives (which takes generations): Use the annual RH bill fund to provide livehood and improve our farming and eduaction system.

          And let’s now take from the Scriptures…

          Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

          The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

          The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

          Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

          Christian history… http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

        • @@D on SCOT………ha ha you make me laugh you are indoctrinating a VERSES in the OLD TESTAMENT which was never repeated in the NEW TESTAMENT a VERSES exclusively given BY GOD only to ONAN ,the son of LEVI, lineage of JACOB and ABRAHAM all are JEWS , not comanded by GOD to the other brothers of ONAN it is because only ONAN committed a SIN to GOD. ISRAEL ang hinirang ng GOD and that command by GOD was only for the JEWS cause even during the that time ISARAEL has an SCARCITY of POPULATION…… And proof is UNTIL now ISRAEL has only around less tthan 10millions in population.

          LOOK at the NEW TESTAMENT if that COMMAMD of GODwas reapeted ….NONE……

          IN THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT we are not JEWS but we are GENTILE’s ……DID ST. PAUL our apostles of the GENTILE’s like us told us or TEACH US THAT COMMAND of GOD?….NO…..it is because that COMMAND Was for the JEW and DIRECTED ONLY to ONAN…….

          NOW regarding the corruption of the ROMAN CATHOLIC re:accepting donations thru illegal MEANS……. Isinauli nga nila ang kanikanilang magagarang SASAKYAN diba na galing sa SUGAL. FACTS isn’t it. SA BIBLYA ang ano MANG galing sa SUGAL ay IMMORAL at ILLEGAL …. So CORRUPTION they HAD……using it even now legally or morally because of the FRUITS of the FRUITS comes FROM ILLEGAL. ……..still CORRUPTION they HAD.

        • Solving the problem with your method as I said THE ESSENCE of TIME with our DISCIPLINE will not hold and POPULATION with POVERTY will definitely OVERTAKES… OVERTAKES ….. all the development that will be instituted BY PINOY.

          YOUR BIBLICAL DEFENSE is of NO MOMENT to US. The GENTILEs. So contraceptives both the old and new TESTAMENT never prohibited us to USE. AMEN

        • …..poverty will definitely overtakes……overtakes….This is quite irritating. Just a note.

    • This is the reality now that is happening in Europe. Is this what the church like to see? Perhaps the CC wants to open their churches and other buildings as drop in centers, then go ahead and say “woman, don’t cry! ”
      Yes, AIDS. The women need AIDS TO FEED THEIR BABIES. Can you please help?

      http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/as-austerity-measures-bite-more-babies-are-abandoned-across-europe-in-2-years-it-could-be-epidemic-warns-politician/

      • It’s the Church who doing a lot to help the Africa and the poor. Do your research.
        What about you? Just noise?

        I opened the newspaper a couple of weeks ago to read the headline that Australia will be doubling an aspect of its foreign aid to $50 million to assist the poor women of the world. What a wonderful idea. Perhaps the aid will be going towards vital medication to women in Sub-Saharan Africa; perhaps food and vitamins to women in South Asia; or perhaps it will pay for education and training in more effective farming methods? No. The money will go completely towards ‘family planning’. And not just our $50 million, add to that half a billion dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with a total amount from worldwide governments and the private sector of $2.6 billion.

        … http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/11060

      • Europe is adamant from the preaching of the Church and is reinventing itself without the Church and may soon suffer demographic downturn due to less regard for new life.

        Goldman, an observant Jew, believes that an inability to establish the Church as a kingdom not of this world helps to explain both the secularism and the hopelessness of Europe today. Everywhere, traditional Catholic nations, Poland, Ireland, Spain, and Quebec (Canada), for example, are collapsing at the core because, he argues, “faith rooted in blood and soil weakens when people step out of traditional society into the modern world.” The average Polish woman now has only one child. Ireland is lost to posterity. Spain has the lowest birth rate in Europe. Even so, who would have believed that by 1982 in Quebec – once famed for its proud Catholic heritage in the teeth of opposition – more than 42 percent of men and women still in their reproductive ages had undergone voluntary sterilization, with 41 abortions for every 100 live births?

        … http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_america_might_pull_through_the_demographic_collapse/

  6. erratum: dynamic instead of dynamics; actions speak louder than words instead of what you read. Please take note.

  7. The first thing was a course that Kimberly took her first year, a class that I had taken the year before entitled Christian Ethics. Dr. Davis had all the students break up into small groups so that each small group could tackle one topic. There was a small group on abortion, a small group on nuclear war, a small group on capital punishment. One dinner she announced that she was in a small group devoted to studying contraception. I remember thinking at the time, “Why contraception?”

    The year before when I took the class, nobody signed up for that small group and I told her. She said, “Well, three others have signed up for it and we had our first meeting today. So and so appointed himself to be chair of the committee, and he announced the results of our study even before it began. He said, ‘Well, we all know as Protestants, as Bible Christians, that contraception is fine, I mean so long as we don’t use contraceptives that are abortafacients like the I.U.D. and so on.’ He announced further that really the only people who call themselves Christians who oppose artificial birth control are the Catholics, and he said, ‘The reason they do, of course, is because they are run by a celibate Pope and lead by celibate priests who don’t have to raise the kids but want Catholic parents to raise lots so they can have lots of priests and nuns to draw from, you know.'”

    Well, that kind of argumentation did not really impress Kimberly. She said, “Are you sure those are the best arguments they would offer?” And I guess he must have mocked or said, “Well, do you want to look into it yourself?” You don’t say that kind of thing to Kimberly. She said, “Yes,” and she took an interest in researching this on her own…

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html

  8. @ AGUEDO FLORENCE JALIN JR/ Professor

    NEWSFLASH, JUST IN TODAY!!!!!!!

    Pope Benedict Okays Condom Use Among Catholics
    Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:28pm by Mytheos Holt
    theblaze.com

    In a shift that may signal muted opposition to the use of contraceptives among Catholic authorities, Pope Benedict XVI has announced that the usage of condoms can be morally justified, provided the right circumstances are involved. The Telegraph reports that the Pope declared these particular prophylactic devices are acceptable, provided the intention involved is to “reduce the risk of affection” from AIDS.

    Benedict XVI

    “The Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” the Pope said. “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

    The Pope cited the example of male prostitutes using condoms as an example of how the practice could be moral, which he described as a “first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.”

    The Vatican will be publishing this interview with the Pope in a book forthcoming this week. The Telegraph explains the implications of his shift this way;

    The Pope’s ruling is aimed specifically at stopping people infecting their partners, particularly in Africa where the disease is most prevalent.

    However, it will inevitably be seized upon by liberal Catholics in Britain who oppose the Church’s stance against contraception.

    High profile Catholics such as Cherie Blair have stated publicly that they use birth control.

    The Pope’s comments are surprising because he caused controversy last year by suggesting that condom use could actually worsen the problem of Aids in Africa.

    He described the epidemic in the continent as “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

    The Vatican amended an official version of the remarks to indicate that he said merely that condoms “risk” aggravating the problem.

    In other words, the Pope is walking himself back and may even have changed his (and by extension, the Church’s) mind on the issue. Surprising, but perhaps a harbinger of more reformist urges on the part of this Pope.

    ———

    Should the Pope now be invited to your classes as well, Professor?

    • Apologies everyone. I think the writer of this article M. Holt might have made a mistake. It was posted this morning at The Blaze as indicated under the title above – Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:28pm by Mytheos Holt

      I went back to the link I found this morning and I got an error message.

    • May I correct you. the posting is different from when was it stated. it was issued last year, by the way. next, don’t cut and paste to suit your argument. The pope’s core message should and must be taken in the proper context. without this approach, you are manipulating the essence of things. what the hole Father was saying is to understand the use of condom in the context of HUMANIZED SEXUALITY. This term is to be understood in the perspective of the sanctity of sexuality. since we cannot control everyone, like you and anybody else, the pope is saying to the prostitute to find better occupation which is parallel to their humanity. Prostituting is immoral. But because the males are in this trade and perhaps, at the moment, cannot find a suitable work, they need to use condom to avoid the spread of the dreaded disease. But if you take and slice the message of the pope improperly then you might also say that he allows prostitution. By the way, condom is not abortifacient. Condom is contested only because it is among the entire gamut of things contained in the bill. tubal ligation 9 specially not done properly), iud (makes thin the lining of the uterus making incapable of holding fertilized egg), pills (morning pills) are abortifacient and the USA Medical Association found chemicals in them that are carcinogenic or cancer-causing. these things are not explained to the women and husbands when they go to barangay health centers. how do i know? Because i went, myself, for a month to observe several barangay centers. In fact, some health workers are not qualified. so my advise, go to the source of the data and validate for yourself. And pls dont take piece by piece the message. The message has to be taken in its proper context.

      Archbishop Lustiger quoted: The foundations of the society rests in its recognition of life’s sacredness.

      • Erratum: hole Father should be Holy Father. no 9 after iud is supposed to be an open parenthesis.

        By the way, to those who are saying Raissa cant do anything to edit or correct, i agree. But I believe those who are writing here are adults, so whether she says or not to have proper decorum, there should be. We are what we speak by the way. Man ought to be for reason of what he is. Unless, you were created differently from the rest of humanity. Thanks.

        • You don’t just burst into a room and start imposing your terms or dictate how people should conduct discussions. You come in politely, make a suggestion and wait for the individuals to consider your proposal. Their answers will probably depend on whether or not they have any respect for you

      • “Don’t cut and paste to suit your argument” and this from the man who litters his posts with quotes from other people. Oh well…

        Since you wouldn’t listen to any of us, I thought the Pope himself can knock some sense into you. i think what the Pope says speaks for itself. but of course, you are the only one capable of deciphering what it really means, the only one able to take it in its proper context. You are the word of God.

        And oh,do stop with your posturings on being morally mature and lecturing everyone on proper decorum. We are what we speak, like you say. And here is what you said – ” since we cannot control everyone, like you and anybody else, the pope is saying to the prostitute to find better occupation which is parallel to their humanity”. It’s quite clear what you are trying to imply in your statement. Only an absolutely vile and malicious person would say such a thing to someone.

        And I thought at first you didn’t deserve some of the names you have been called here. You deserve worst.

        • Erratum, the complete statement from you :

          … Human Sexuality. This term is to be understood in the perspective of the sanctity of sexuality. since we cannot control everyone, like you and anybody else, the pope is saying to the prostitute to find better occupation which is parallel to their humanity

      • Professor ha ha hayan ….you are now changing your research ” itinatama muna pa kaunti kaunti ” now you believe that condoms, iud and etc. Except PILLS are abortifacients ” pero kulang professor ” they are not also CARCENOGENICS. He he KABAYAN ” ulbod ka ken nalastug ken nalangtaw ka la unay ”

        HULING HULI KA SA MGA POSTINGS MO DITO SA BLOG. YOU ARE NOT CONSISTENT .

        Now we go to your understanding regarding the RESEARCH of USA medical association and the World Health Organization which is proven to be not credible. It was very clear that they are pronouncing that PILLs are CARCINOGENIC ( causes cancer but the truth is most researches concluded that findings are FLAUSIBLE to date ) NOT or NEVER …. NEVER ……NEVER…… STATED ….that those PILLs are ABORTIFACIENTS …………WALA. WALA. WALA silang sinasabi na NAKAK ABORT.

        Why professor, It is because on their studies NO SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE OR SACREDNESS of LIFE ENVOLVED………WALA NAMANG iaabort dahil WALA pa naman CONCEPTION as you said and BELEIVED when human life begins. SAGOT mo ito at Hindi galing sa amin at Ito nga ang TOTOO.

        Now it’s very clear on their STUDIES those PILL’s PROBABLY ( Hindi parin sila sigurado ) contend certain percentage of HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM wherein some WOMAN’s body resistance are weak such that cancer sickness might affect them.

        He he professor this is like our human body’s measurement on how to or how many percentage of electromagnetic radiation can our body TAKES. FLOURESCENT LAMP’s ,T V, micro waves and the SUN produces ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION. He he kaya nga may nagkakaroon ng SKIN CANCER at iba pa.

        Now professor para maintindihan mo ang mga isinusulat mo………for the contents of CHROMIUM on pills, if there is ANY,…. the safety of the PILL’s should be the MAIN CONCERN of the DRUG COMPANY in short the QUALITY or SAFETYNESS of the PILLS must be MONITORED by US ESPECIALLY by your CHURCH …. Para naman may pakinabang sa inyo ng TAONG BAYAN tutal LAHAT NAMAN kahit para sa KABUTIHAN ng KARAMIHAN ay pinapakialaman NINYO. AMEN

        • Para sa inyo ang SAGOT KO SA ITAAS PROF. AGUEDO SALIN JR.

          Better you read the story of RODRIGO BORGIA……. Who became a CARDINAL and later a POPE para malaman mo how the ROMAN CATHOLIC which we belong TWISTED almost all the FACTS of LIFE during that AGES and CARRIED until NOW .

        • Tumulong muna tayong maglinis o kaya mag-volunteer tayo sa ABS-CBN na mag-repack ng mga goods at iba pang ipamimigay sa mga nasalanta nating kababayan para ma=translate natin into real actions ang mga discussions natin. I know well you have the connections and maybe you can have creative and dynamics ways of doing things. It is soul-upliftng you know when we can help. Words speak louder than words. I have done my share. Thanks everyone.

        • Buti pa nga kabayang professor JALIN……naimas ti kanduli, dalag, paltat lalo na iti TUKAK na GINISA idiay NUEVA VISCAYA kabayan he he …tumulung muna tayo sa mga nabaha anyway we are all FILIPINOS even though with different beliefs and understanding. Hope to see you always in this blog kabsat.

      • @AGUEDO

        You wrote “… This term is to be understood in the perspective of the sanctity of sexuality. since we cannot control everyone, like you and anybody else, the pope is saying to the prostitute to find better occupation which is parallel to their humanity. “.

        There lies the answer to the whole debacle – spearheaded by the CBCP and the present Gov’t.

        ‘since we cannot control everyone, like you and anybody else,’ It took an oldest profession [sic] as an exemplification to remove the scales that has blinded many a people. If rubbers (and pills for unwanted pregnancy(s)) are good enough for ‘prostitutes’, using your line of reasoning, why is it not sufficient, or good enough for unprepared but clean women, a subservient wife, or faithful mothers?

        Since you wrote earlier, an older system is already in place/practiced since the Marcos era, this pending RH Bill before the Legislature is different by mere details and narrative scope. Yet the goals and purposes are the same.

        Have you come to the realization that people who support the RH Bill are by majority of the same religious faith as yours – members of the RC Church? Have they sinned against your Church’s order by ‘rebellion’, or within their rights as citizens of the Phils. to choose and be given the choice to decide on what is best and good for their own country, including their own families, kin and constituent.

        @AGUEDO, you can quote, spin, twist, skew and stretch selective research materials all you want to support and uphold your RCC (Phils.) Superiors’ stance. But nothing belies the fact that the gov’t sees fit to pass a new law and implement it, irrespective. FOR IT IS THEIR collective RESPONSIBILITY, and not the
        Church’s (only [?]), to protect, serve and support ALL its citizens. Regardless of race, creed, religious beliefs…

        As you often quipped ‘consistent’ thru and through?

        Name as many countries (dominated by RC citizenry) as you like that has similar, shape or form (substance) to the Reproductive Health Bill of the Phils. AND the Vatican and its representatives there at are silent or give a quiet approval to the laws of those countries. Whose civilian authorities has a mandated authority to enact and administer its laws to benefit their own people, first.

        BUT CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN may tap into the RH Budget to line up their own pockets, as you wrote earlier. Then, the RC Church has failed in its moral impetus to reign on their faithfuls to rise above self-aggrandizement. For corrupt congressmen are no different from their spiritual fathers (e.g. Butuan City Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos, Rev. Orlando Quevedo of Cotabato, Monsignor Augusto Laban of Sorsogon and Fr. Roger Lood of the Parish of Iligan City. see www DOT boston DOT com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/13/philippine_bishops_say_sorry_return_donated_suvs/). People change, so it is with Congressmen, Senators, Judges and many others, whose national leader is showing a good example for positive change. Time for the Phils.’ RC Church to follow it’s spiritual son (PNoy) on his road map for change. He is your President too, and a credible one – maybe once in a hundred years or generation.

        (I hope you continue to actively comment here at Raïssa’s blogsite.)

    • Janet Smith, a consultor to the Pontifical Council on the Family who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and has published extensively on the topics of sexuality and bioethics, explained in this interview the source of the controversy and what the Pope is really saying.

      She noted that in the book (p.119), to the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” Pope Benedict replied (This paragraph is at the end of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving the AIDS victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality.):

      “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

      The interviewer asked the Pontiff, “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

      The Holy Father replied, “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

      Smith explains in the following interview, which she sent to ZENIT, how Benedict XVI was advocating conversion, not condoms, in the striving for moral behavior.

      Q: What is Pope Benedict saying?

      Smith: We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts.

      The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.

      He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

      The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

      Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth.

      The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

      Q: So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

      Smith: The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV.

      The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.

      In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted.

      But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

      … http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31026

      • To my dear Thomasian students,

        Kapag ok na kayo, safe at may permiso ng magulang baka pwede kayong mag-volunteer sa ABS-CBN na mag-repack ng goods at iba pang ipamimigay para sa mga kababayan nating nasalanta. Kasiyahan nawa kayo ng Diyos.

  9. Sa mga anti RH BILL…… Kaming mga PRO RH BILL ay maniniwala sa inyo kung maglatag kayo ng ESTIMATE o dili kaya PRICES that the 13.7 billion pesos to be utilized on this BILL is EXCESSIVE or EXCURBETANT. This we believe if proven is CORRUPTION….on the financial side…

    But still the BODY or the PURPOSE of the BILL Is a LAWFUL and MORAL assistance to the FILIPINO PEOPLE.

  10. DATE: 08-AUG.-2012 (UAE|)

    SO MANY COMMENTS, DEBATE, NAME CALLINGS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC OF ALL CONCERNING LIFE AND RIGHT TO LIVE AND WOMENS CARE OF WHICH THIS IS ABOUT THE RH BILL BEING AND BEING DEBATED UPON NOW IN THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS.

    THE AUTHORS OF THIS RH BILL AND IT’S PURPOSE IS FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE MOTHERS AND WOMEN AND THE RIGHT TO LIVE. IF THOSE CRITICS HAVE NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND IT AND HAVE IMMEDIATELY COMMENTED AND OPPOSED ON IT SHOULD MAKE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING FIRST AND WHATEVER TERM THAT IMPLIES AND UPHOLD ABORTION THYE MAY FOUND IN THAT RH BILL THEN THEY MAY ALL MAKE A CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, THIS RH BILL IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS THOSE ALREADY EXISTING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHEREIN IN SOME THEY UPHOLD EVEN ABORTION AND IN ORDER TO HELP BRING DOWN POPULATION (WHERE ABORTION IS LEGALIZED). BUT IN THE PHILIPPINE’s VERSION THIS IS NOT THE CASE. OR IF THEY SEE ANY SINISTER FROM THAT THIS PROPOSED RH BILL IN TERMS OF CORRUPTION AND DISINFORMATION ALSO MUST BE CONDEMNED. HOWEVER, WHAT EVER THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THIS RH BILL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE A STATE FUNDED AFFAIR AND GIVEN BUDGET AND THEREBY THOSE CORUPTIONS WILL BE REDUCED PRECISELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE MANDATED TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THIS RH BILL AND THOSE CORRUPTORS SHALL THEN LOOSE THERE MODE OF MILKING OUT THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET FOR THEY CAN NOT MEDDLE ON IT.

    AND THEN, THOSE OPPOSITIONISTS AND DETRACTORS OF THE RH BILL SHOULD THINK ABOUT THE PRIME PURPOSE OF THE RH BILL, NOT IT’S NEGATIVE SIDE , IF THERE ARE, BUT FOR THE GOOD SIDE. FOR AFTER ALL IT’S THE HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO WILL HAVE TO POWER TO DECIDE TO CONTROL THEIR FAMILY SIZE AND HAVE THE PRIME RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN AND SUPPORT THEM AS WELL. THAT’S RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD. NOT BY THEIR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE AND ABUSES AND WANTON SEX RESULTING TO ABORTIONS AND UNWANTED CHILD AND FOR OTHER CAUSES NOT THEIRS. BUT THEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN HELP AND SUPPORT IN TIMES OF NEED. FURTHER, THOSE HYPOCRITES AS THE TERM IMPLIES SHOULD FACE THE MIRROR AND EXAMINE THEIR CONSCIENCE, IF EVER ONCE OR TWICE OR EVEN MANY TIMES IN THE PAST HAVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER HAVE IN FACT HAVE USED CONTRACEPTIONS KNOWINGLY AND FREELY BEFORE DURING THEIR EARLY LIFE OR THOSE DOING NOW IN THE PRESENT IN PLANNING THEIR OWN FAMILY SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES INSTEAD, ” AM I REAL OR A JOKER OR OTHERWISE A PLAIN HYPOCRITE ” , ” WHO AM I FOOLING AROUND ? ” SO, STONE OR STONES THROWN UP HIGH ABOVE IN THE SKY, DON’T BE ANGRY WHEN YOUR OR SOMEONE IS IMPACTED BY IT ” , AFTER ALL THE SPACE IS BIG AND THE SKY IS WIDE. THIS IS JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, THE PHILIPPINES.

    • Dear Felix,

      Welcome to Cyber Plaza Miranda.

      Just a favor.

      Do you think you could write a copy of this post in caps and lower case?

      It’s really easier to read that way.

      Also, please put paragraphs.

      Thanks,
      Raissa

      • Ma’am Raissa,

        Thank you that i became part of this discussion corner. But what i find funny is that when you are able to show people how inconsistent they are, they begin to cal you with “names.” I see this as personal immaturity which is usually the case when there is not enough training on proper decorum so to speak. I just hope this is not reflective of their moral immaturity, because if it is, then I am inviting them to sit in my class in morality. Moral immaturity is dangerous specially in handling issues like the RH Bill which does not only tackle about the use of things or budget but more so of moral decision-making. Again thank you and may your efforts bear fruit in the lives of our countrymen. INDEED THE BILL IS THE PHYSICAL AND MORAL CORRUPTION OF THE HUMAN PERSON..

        Indeed, Man ought to be for reason of what he is- created by God. As the Little Prince said, “There are reasons of the heart which reason itself cannot explain.” The heart is life, so let us think well how we VALUE LIFE. God bless our journey to life.

        • Professor I can’t help myself answering your message to Raissa. She don’t have any control to anyone who have chosen to write on her blog whatever the writer says on how he/she felt.
          No censor. No editing. No comment from her on what and how we should write. Everyone is welcome here whether you are pro or against the issue. All she do is dig up information and it’s all up to us to comment and write an opinion.
          We are all independent here and if anyone calling you name, is because you well deserve it. Your opinion and reasoning is just something else.
          To tell you frankly sir you are annoying.
          You came up to a conclusion the we are immature? Speak to yourself, I think you are immature. You talk like a little kid that need spanking in order to be disciplined.
          You are only seeing one way. You are not being flexible to see the other side. You think you are right and we are wrong just because we stand on what we believe in and what we think is right.
          To sit in your class and teach us about morality? You must be joking. I will certainly not going to do that ,not in a million years. I can find better things to do than listening to your CRAP. I can imagine how your student can put up with you sir.
          I am glad that you are not my kids professor otherwise I will force them to drop out of your class.
          Sir you need to grow up and learn the basic human rights of individual. Learn how to respect others. You don’t join this blog and start soliciting students to sit in your class. I don’t know if you can convince anyone here to do so, but certainly not me. GOODLUCK.
          As you can see I call you sir because I respect you even though YOU DON’T DESERVE IT ALL, PROFESSOR.

    • Wow!! Naduling ako kababasa.
      I agree to what Raissa’s asking a favor to put Capital letter and small letter. And paragraph to.