Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Fr. Bernas’ latest controversial piece: BISHOPS AT WAR

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

The “Catholic vote….is simply a myth.”

– Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

This piece written by Jesuit priest-lawyer Joaquin Bernas spread like wildfire today on Facebook. Read why.

I wonder what the bishops will say about this. My guess – some of them will probably mutter that he is being jesuitic.

In the wake of the controversy about the RH Bill a couple of bishops have gone to war against university professors and in the process have issued dire warnings against universities themselves. They threaten stripping universities of the title Catholic. I doubt that the bishops were thinking about what is happening to the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru because there is only one Pontifical Catholic University in the Philippines, and it is not the Ateneo. At any rate, are the bishops waging a just war? I will not attempt to answer that question. I will simply say that the professors and the universities can take care of themselves.

But, as election time approaches, there is also a threatening war against defenders of the RH Bill who might dare run for public office in the coming elections. And since we, and not only bishops, are interested in the Church teaching on church and politics, we might all learn something from what a young Jesuit colleague of mine has put together in a piece from which I will freely quote or paraphrase. (Let this mention of my young colleague count as the required acknowledgment of sources needed to avoid accusations of plagiarism!)

Will a holy war against candidates who support the RH bill get the support of Benedict XVI? In Deus est Caritas Benedict XVI emphasized the old Catholic teaching that the formation of a just society as a political task is not a direct duty of the Church; this task belongs properly to the laity. The role of the Church is indirect: to purify reason and inspire ethical political participation leading to the building of a more just society.

The CBCP itself as a plenary body does not endorse nor disapprove candidates, but it allows individual bishops to do so. Such a two-level approach to granting or denying political blessings to candidates may prove to be confusing for Filipino Catholic voters who usually identify the statements and actions of individual bishops as the moral position of the entire hierarchy. But that is the price we pay for freedom of expression which, when not properly used by a church leader, can work even against the Church itself.

It is also good to recall what the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines PCP2 taught. My young colleague shared these quotations from PCP2:

“The public defense of gospel values, however, especially when carried into the arena of public policy formulation, whether through the advocacy of lay leaders or the moral suasion by pastors, is not without limit. It needs emphasizing, that, although pastors have the liberty to participate in policy debate and formulation, that liberty must not be exercised to the detriment of the religious freedom of non-communicants, or even of dissenting communicants. This is a clear implication of Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae. This is not just a matter of prudence; it is a matter of justice.”

Fr. Joaquin Bernas celebrating the Holy Mass – from Facebook

There may even be some Catholic believers who in all honesty do not see the truth the way the Church‘s magisterium discerns, interprets, and teaches it. In such a situation, the Church must clearly and firmly teach what it believes is the truth and require its members to form their consciences accordingly. Yet the church must also, with all charity and justice, hold on to its doctrine on religious freedom — that the human person is bound to follow his or her conscience faithfully, and must not be forced to act contrary to it.”

When a bishop tells his pro-RH Bill congressional candidate that his diocese will campaign against him or her in future elections, the bishop is no longer seeking to persuade the legislator about the reasonableness of the Church’s position but rather the bishop is simply appealing to the legislator’s instinct of self-preservation. Such a tactic is counter-productive to the formation of a kind of politics that is based on principles because it reinforces a way of practicing politics that values expediency rather than service, justice, and the common good.

Besides, the threat against candidates would be meaningful if there were such a thing as a Catholic vote. The CBCP itself, in its Catechism on Church and Politics for the 1998 elections, had denied the existence of a Catholic vote: “there is generally no such thing as a ‘Catholic vote’ or ‘the Bishops’ candidates’. This is simply a myth. It still is today.

The CBCP Catechism provided for an extraordinary exception when a prelate can order the lay faithful to vote for one concrete political option:

This happens when a political option is clearly the only one demanded by the Gospel. An example is when a presidential candidate is clearly bent to destroy the Church and its mission of salvation and has all the resources to win, while hiding his malevolent intentions behind political promises. In this case the Church may authoritatively demand the faithful, even under pain of sin, to vote against this particular candidate. But such situations are understandably very rare.

The CBCP intended this exception to be used only on rare and grave occasions such as when the survival of the Church and its mission would be at stake. I doubt that the CBCP would apply this to a bishop’s desire to apply political pressure on a legislator to vote against the RH Bill.

 

Comments

  1. Check this out……..it’s going around.

    ” In his talk show Bottomline, Boy Abunda conducted an interview with a CBCP spokesperson. The spokesperson admitted that a reduction in the population would lead to a reduction of their tithe.
    It was quite an admission that Boy Abunda had to restrain his reaction and repeat what he heard.”

    http://www.asianjournal.com/lifestyle/prosy-abarquez-delacruz-jd/16904-ph-catholic-bishops-should-see-rh-bill-as-womens-civil-rights.html

    • Wouldn’t that be analogous to – If Congressman does not send vehicles to bring the voters to the precincts, his voters would be reduced?

  2. Excerpt.

    “A Catholic university or college must make a specific contribution to the Church and to society through high-quality scientific research, in-depth study of problems, and a just sense of history, together with the concern to show the full meaning of the human person regenerated in Christ, thus favoring the complete development of the person. Furthermore, the Catholic university or college must train young men and women of outstanding knowledge who, having made a personal synthesis of faith and culture, are both capable and willing to assume tasks in the service of the community and of society in general, and to bear witness to their faith before the world. And finally, to be what it ought to be, a Catholic college or university must set up, among its faculty and students, a real community which bears witness to a living and operative Christianity, a community where sincere commitment to scientific research and study goes together with a deep commitment to authentic Christian living.

    “This is your identity. This is your vocation. . . . The term ‘Catholic’ will never be a mere label, either added or dropped according to the pressures of varying factors.” – Pope John Paul II … In a speech before Catholic universities in the United States

    Sounding Board

    Understanding Catholic universities

    By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:58 pm | Sunday, September 2nd, 2012

    In discussing Catholic universities one must begin with Canon 808 of the Code of Canon Law which says: “Even if it really be Catholic, no university may bear the title or name Catholic university without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.” In that technical juridical sense, the Ateneo and almost all other institutions in the Philippines, save one perhaps, which are publicly regarded as Catholic, are not in juridical terms Catholic. But are they Catholic in any other sense?

    Even Canon 808 suggests that institutions which do not have the ecclesiastical title of Catholic can in fact be “really Catholic.” The appellation of Catholic can come from various sources. It can come, for instance, from its origins as founded by various religious orders of men and women. That in fact is how most Catholic institutions in the Philippines started. The appellation also comes from what in fact they do. For this reason these institutions are recognized as affiliated with the Church even if not “canonically Catholic.”

    It must also be said that a canonical title is not the litmus test for being truly Catholic. Pope John Paul II in fact looks for more in a Catholic university. In a speech before Catholic universities in the United States, both canonically recognized and not, he said:

    “A Catholic university or college must make a specific contribution to the Church and to society through high-quality scientific research, in-depth study of problems, and a just sense of history, together with the concern to show the full meaning of the human person regenerated in Christ, thus favoring the complete development of the person. Furthermore, the Catholic university or college must train young men and women of outstanding knowledge who, having made a personal synthesis of faith and culture, are both capable and willing to assume tasks in the service of the community and of society in general, and to bear witness to their faith before the world. And finally, to be what it ought to be, a Catholic college or university must set up, among its faculty and students, a real community which bears witness to a living and operative Christianity, a community where sincere commitment to scientific research and study goes together with a deep commitment to authentic Christian living.

    “This is your identity. This is your vocation. . . . The term ‘Catholic’ will never be a mere label, either added or dropped according to the pressures of varying factors.”

    Briefly, a Catholic university is not just an institute for teaching catechism.

    Further, in the same speech, John Paul II emphasized the importance of academic freedom: “As one who for long years have been a university professor, I will never tire of insisting on the eminent role of the university, which is to instruct but also to be a place of scientific research. In both these fields, its activity is deeply related to the deepest and noblest aspiration of the human person: the desire to come to the knowledge of truth. No university can rightfully deserve the esteem of the world of higher learning unless it applies the highest standards of scientific research, constantly updating the methods and working instruments, and unless it excels in seriousness, and therefore in freedom of investigation.”

    It is in this context that Fr. Jose “Jett” Villarin has defended what the Ateneo professors have been doing. At the same time, this is the measuring rod according to which Ateneo professors, and other professors of Catholic universities, must examine their individual consciences. Similarly, those who criticize them must meet them in the context of the field of expertise from which they write and not only in the limited context of the Baltimore Catechism.

    One might also ask, is Father Jett being faithful to the teachings of the Society of Jesus? We Jesuits tend to disagree among ourselves about almost everything. As an Italian saying goes, Tre

    Jesuiti, quattro opinioni. Perhaps cinque or even more. But I think if we surveyed the opinion of Jesuits in school work we will find them overwhelmingly in agreement with the words of the superior general of the Jesuits, Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach in an address titled “The Jesuit University in the Light of Ignatian Charism.” He said: “Far be it from us to try to convert the university into a mere instrument of evangelization or, worse still, for proselytizing. The university has its own purposes which cannot be subordinated to other objectives. It is important to respect institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and to safeguard personal and community rights.” Father Kolvenbach goes on to insist that there is no inherent schizophrenia in the identity of a Jesuit college or university. “In a Catholic university, or one of Christian inspiration, under the responsibility of the Society of Jesus, there does not exist—nor can there exist—incompatibility between the goals proper to the university and the Christian and Ignatian inspiration that should characterize any apostolic institution of the Society of Jesus.”

    Father Jett told me at supper that Archbishop Chito Tagle, at the wake for Jesse Robredo, condoled and commiserated with him (probably with a wink!) as he parries the slings and arrows coming his way from “loyal Catholic catechists.” Jett can take it. He is young and was valedictorian of the same Ateneo college batch as Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

  3. fr. j. bernas is just towing the jesuit line.
    as expressed by the late Italiano jesuit cardinal martini that the ‘roman catholic is 200 years behind civilization and in need of urgent reforms.

    nowadays, most churches all over the world are mostly empty of its congregation. a very concrete sign that the vatican cannot ignore.

  4. all catholics around the world, except the philippines, are wrong or have sinned for practicing family planning or just by taking contraceptives. but, only the bishops in the philippines + tito sotto + manny pacquiao are righteous and wise for taking the other side

      • eh di as soon as they reach puberty, ubusin ng bawat babae ang eggs to fertilize into babies para maraming magpunas ng sapatos mo sa jeep or kakatok sa kotse mo. at ang mga lalake ubusin din ang sperm to impregnate women as soon as they reach puberty. o, hindi na makasalanan ang pilipinas nyan?

  6. Im a catholic and educated in one of the catholic university in the Philippines. I am presently living now here in Europe. Here in Europe majority of the people are hard catholics and here is the centre of catholicism. But most countries here have programs for the family planning using contraceptives etc. I think that the mindset of some of the religious in the Philippines are still way back the Spanish era. In my opinion as long as there is no legalisation of abortion, people are intelligent enough to choose what kind of method they want to use for family planning. There are just loads of politicians who just taking a ride on these issues be aware to those kind of politicians….

  7. Comment No. 20.3

    springwoodman concludes:
    August 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    From the above, there appears to be a convincing correlation among poverty, educational level and birth rates. Family planning is multi-faceted and breaks that correlation by providing free contraception and reproductive health information to the poor.

    Therefore, Yes to the RH Bill.

    My only quibble is that contraception should be, as much as possible, female-based as women are more evolved and responsible in these matters. They can be easily educated and empowered. Even if a male pill were available, I would not trust men. Men are like Nike shoes.

    Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines
    Guttmacher Institute, 2009

    • Without contraceptive use in the Philippines, there would be 1.3 million more unplanned births, 0.9 million more induced abortions and 3,500 more maternal deaths each year.

    • More than half of all pregnancies in the Philippines are unintended, with the highest proportions in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Central and Eastern Visayas, and Caraga.

    • Three in 10 Filipino women at risk for unintended pregnancy do not practice contraception. These women account for nearly seven in 10 unintended pregnancies.

    • Poor women are especially likely to need assistance in preventing unintended pregnancy. The 35% of women aged 15–49 who are poor account for 53% of unmet need for contraception.

    • Investing in increased access to the full range of modern contraceptive methods and services to support effective use would reap savings on medical care for pregnant women and newborns. Reducing unintended pregnancy would help women have the number of children they desire and would save money that could be directed toward improving and expanding other needed services.

    • All levels of the Philippine government, the private sector and the international community should increase their investment in modern contraception—for poor Filipino women in particular—to save women’s lives and support healthy families.

    (Note: The preceding was a boxed message from the article cited with links below this comment.)

    In the text…

    Contraceptive use saves money.

    Although providing contraception to all who need it may seem costly, the expenses associated with unintended pregnancies are even higher.

    (As mentioned, links are supplied below this comment.)

  8. Raissa,

    Every now and then i feel i have to thank you for a blog that is so intelligent and relevant that it hurts. :)

    And the commenters? Wala halos itatapon.

    Keep it up and more power.

    Tristan

  9. Enlish poet/dramatist once said – “MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING”.
    Let me share with you my visit to the Algarve (South Portugal). There is a catholic church lavishly adorned but also may be considered the spookiest. It has a bone chapel with skeletal remains of 1,245 former Catholic monks. Artistically arranged in neat rows, the arm and leg bones form frames for hundreds of toothy skulls that grin out at visitors.
    This macabre Capela de Ossos was the work of the Carmelite monks who built the baroque church here in 1816. Its construction displaced a cemetery where hundreds of their earlier brethren lay buried, so the bones were salvaged and recycled into this somewhat bizarre reminder of mortality.. An inscriptions on the doorway translated from Portuguese to English : STOP HERE AND THINK OF THE FATE THAT WILL BEFALL YOU!” Would it be pointless to argue with RH BILL?

    • “To argue….with” means to support it then. In any issue or case, there are always two sides, argument for one and the other. It pays to argue for either side.

      But those “bones” with that scary announcement quoted, is that for the Carmelite nuns as caretakers? How many skulls there of the nuns?

      I remember the story of my dear cousin (who already passed away couple of years ago) during our haydays getting the coke drinks hidden by our grandpa in the dark bodega…my cousin was using his hands in the darkness to find the coke drinks and touched on a rounded object, got it out and LO! BEHOLD THE FATE THAT WILL BEFALL YOU! infront of his thieving eyes…A SKULL! …dropped it and ran like a squirrel with its tail on fire!….that skull belonged to our dead uncle (may he RIP) loved by our grandpa…

      …like our grandpa kept a Capela de Ossiosero!

  10. It maybe useful to direct the discussion on the RH bill on things that are much more substantial.

    There is a landmark paper by Lant H. Pritchett, “Desired fertility and the impact of population policies” in 1994 where he concluded that

    “desired levels of fertility account for ninety percent of differences across countries in total fertility rates. Reducing the demand for children – for instance by giving girls more education – is vastly more important to reducing fertility than providing more contraceptives or family planning services.”

    Pritchett did add at the end of the paper:

    “…even if contraceptive access has a small effect on ferdlity, this is certainly no reason for govemments to limit the availability of contraception, and there may yet be valid reasons for a subsidy. Just because family planning is of marginal relevance for population change does not mean it does not have other beneficial impacts. Moreover, a reduction in the focus of family planning programs on population growth will allow greater attentiveness in the design of contraceptive supply to other considerations, such as child and matemal health, the timing of first births, and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases….”

    The RH bill must be examined on scientific grounds and weighed against its goals. There is no argument against improving child and maternal health. But we must be careful with regard to the details of fertility and population growth.

    • To understand better Pritchett’s work, one may begin with the following realization. The only justification for funding or subsidizing artificial contraceptives is an “unmet need” for such services/medicine by poor couples. There is no other justification unless one desires to go beyond freedom of choice, which I hope no one is implying. Forced birth control is unethical.

      So to address the merits of the RH bill, one needs to examine the “unmet need”. Pritchett first acknowledges the difficulty of getting data on “unmet need”. Reading the entire paper provides clear explanations on why this is particularly difficult. Pritchett then examines what factor does correlate with fertility or birth rate. And his work (and the finding is not confined to any specific region or country, this is supposed to be universal) shows that what correlates strongly with birth rate or fertility is the desire of couples to have children. It does not matter whether artificial contraceptives are available or not – what matters is what each individual chooses. If an individual wants to have a big family, that individual will still have a big family.

      To help understand this, one can ask the question; what is more costly, getting artificial contraceptives or actually conceiving a child, giving birth and rearing one. The cost of having an additional child is far greater than the cost of any contraceptive. There is obviously no comparison. And this maybe the reason why limited access to artificial contraceptives or their costs are unlikely to be the real factors behind high birth rates. If a couple do not really want to have a child, the couple would find ways to do so.

      I quoted an important paragraph from Pritchett to show that the above is not the complete story. Artificial contraceptives have other purposes. And there are alternative ways of looking at how the government can better address reproductive health.

      Nonetheless, these are the discussions that are warranted: A closer look at the aims of the bill and what it can actually achieve. The Philippines is not a rich country and it cannot afford to waste funds on programs that will not work.

      Attaining responsible parenthood and good stewardship of our limited resources is ethical. But we must protect choice. How we guide people to make the choice that is good for every individual and for the society as a whole is the difficult part. Giving away free contraceptives does not work according to Pritchett.

      • Forced birth control is unethical — Yes, it is. And that is why nobody is going to force the bishops to exercise birth control. The RH bills gives the population options.

        If an individual wants to have a big family, that individual will still have a big family. — Okay, let’s grant that. How about teenage pregnancy. I hear those are usually “accidental pregnancies.”

        If a couple do not really want to have a child, the couple would find ways to do so. — well, there was this documentary about this couple with 21 kids. They weren’t happy about it.

        Giving away free contraceptives does not work according to Pritchett. — I agree. And that is why there’s sex education along with having contraceptives readily available at the health center.

        • Anecdotes are unfortunately of little help in an enlightened discussion of the RH bill. There is one well cited study (Matlab, Bangladesh) that maybe of help. It maybe useful to see if the RH bill manages to learn from these previous scientific studies. With regard to teenage pregnancy, I think that is one of the alternative points Pritchett mentions. Sex education, in my opinion, may be lumped into access (since that includes both cost and information) and the same conclusion holds, education on contraceptives does not change the choice a couple makes. This is what the data reveal. And these are not jst individual stories.

        • Our Constitution forbids the State to promote or prohibit religion and its practices. (The Separation of Church and State)

          Offer BOTH natural family planning and artificial methods.

          Our Constitution also dictates the State to protect the mother and the unborn from conception.

          Prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Prevent abortion.

          Prevent unintended pregnancies and STDs by appropriate sex education across all reproductive age groups. (Sexual or coital debut is reported at 13 years old. Start sex education 1-2 years earlier than that. Responsible parenthood, aside from sex education, needs to be stressed for the adults.)

          The surest way to prevent abortion is by not allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg. The benchmark here by natural process is abstinence from sexual intercourse. (It is a behavioral process, we must accept, that is not to everyone’s liking.)

          How to approximate such process artificially? Combine barrier method (e.g., condom for male) and hormonal drug (e.g., injectable contraceptive for female) during and before sexual intercourse, respectively.

          raissarobles.com/2012/08/05/fr-bernas-quietly-writes-on-rh-bill-on-the-very-day-that-bishops-lambast-it/#comment-69505

          On Comprehensive Sex Education

          Please read my comments here:

          stuartsantiago.com/face-off-2/

        • The surest way to prevent abortion is by not allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg. The benchmark here by natural process is abstinence from sexual intercourse. (It is a behavioral process, we must accept, that is not to everyone’s liking.)

          @mr baycas.. I admire you a lot and we learned so many things from you……but you are misleading us in your write-ups and please show us your true color if you are ANTI or PRO.

          The surest way to prevent CONCEPTION ( not ABORTION as you wrote ) is by not allowing the sperm to fertilize eggs. Its because only in conception when human life began.

          Contraceptives when taken prior to conception can never be equated to any ABORTION, cause their was no HUMAN LIFE to speak off.

          You lay your cards sir, since it had been discussed and justified by many of us PRO here in the blog, why we are on the PRO SIDE.

        • Precisely, contraception IS anti-conception.

          The Constitution pegged the beginning of life (conception) to fertilization. Plain meaning and statutory construction of the provision of law will attest to this assertion.

          Preventing fertilization is the key to avoid unintended pregnancy.

          How?

          Abstinence is the benchmark. However, that is natural. It can be done by artificial means, that is, consistent and proper use of hormonal contraceptives before intercourse and use of condoms during intercourse.

          Please note that in so doing, sexually transmitted diseases and, of course, abortions are avoided as well.

          Proper education via the Comprehensive Sex Education is to be incorporated with a policy of Natural Family Planning and Artificial Contraception in order to obtain INFORMED DECISION from everyone concerned.

          The State being separated from the Church, MUST offer both Natural and Artificial means of ANTI-CONCEPTION.

          Therefore, as I have said and wrote in the past, I AM PRO Reproductive Health aka Responsible Parenthood.

          @Victin,

          I invite you to read my posts here…

          http://stuartsantiago.com/face-off-2/

        • @sir baycas…… I accept your explanation. I am not journalist nor an english major, but since this RH BILL is a very critical issue , I suggest you to write us paragraphs in sequence so that we as a PRO also the ANTI comprehend very well that, what we are fighting for is in the RH BILL contraceptives is taken to prevent conception ( no human life yet , so no abortion to speak off ) and should not be taken when their is already conception even though contraceptives are not abortifacients , this is now some provisions of the responsible parenthood will teach us. MALINAW ay MADALING INTINDIHIN ng MAHINA ng INGLISH na katulad ko po sir BAYCAS. Thnks

        • But I like anecdotes. I tend to stay away from abstractions and statistical data. I have a short attention span and — ooh, shiny. :)

          Besides, I think I kinda covered some of your points there. Couples with lots of children didn’t really plan on having lots of children.

          As long as nobody forces any birth control method on anybody, we should be okay.

        • It is not okay if there is plenty of public funds involved or additional foreign loans, and if the bill will only benefit manufacturers of contraceptives. This is the rationale why Pritchett did the study. The Philippines has other problems where the money could be better spent.

        • The reason I posted this above…

          baycas says:
          August 28, 2012 at 7:42 am

          Resources to “Desired fertility and the impact of population policies”

          …(with the link) is because Bongaarts and Knowles commented on Pritchett (please follow supplied Google Scholar link above). I don’t have time to read them all including Pritchett’s reply to Bongaarts and Knowles.

          Well, anyway, a recent reference to Pritchett is this item…

          http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/26/experts-no-need-to-spend-billions-on-family-planning-contraception/

          Bongaarts was likewise mentioned in the blog post.

          However, in my very limited search, Boongarts got involved with Das Gupta (together with Cleland) and came up with this…

          http://hivandsrh.org/system/files/WPS5719.pdf

          Abstract

          There is a very large but scattered literature debating the economic implications of high fertility.

          This paper reviews the literature on three themes: (a) Does high fertility affect low-income countries’ prospects for economic growth and poverty reduction? (b) Does population growth exacerbate pressure on natural resources? and (c) Are family planning programs effective at lowering fertility, and should they be publicly funded?

          The literature shows broad consensus that while policy and institutional settings are key in shaping the prospects of economic growth and poverty reduction, the rate of population growth also matters. Recent studies find that low dependency ratios (as fertility declines) create
          an opportunity for increasing productivity, savings and investment in future growth.

          They find that lower fertility is associated with better child health and schooling, and better health and greater labor-force participation for women. They also indicate that rapid population growth can constrain economic growth, especially in low-income countries with poor policy environments.

          Population growth also exacerbates pressure on environmental common property resources. Studies highlight the deep challenges to aligning divergent interests for managing these resources. However, part of the pressure on these resources can be mitigated by reducing the rate of population growth.

          Although family planning programs are only one policy lever to help reduce fertility, studies find them effective. Such programs might help especially in the Sub-Saharan African region, where high fertility and institutional constraints on economic growth combine to slow rises in living standards.

          As I said, I have no time to read them all. Let readers do the rest and perhaps research further.

          May this just serve as some sort of a CAVEAT to what information may be gathered on the web. Lest we become Sotto and get entangled with his web of lies.

        • Hi. Thank you for providing the links. But this shows what type of discussions is really necessary. We need not antagonize each other on arguments that do not really tackle the issue. There is data all over the world that can help us determine what really works. The comments of Knowles, Akin, Guilkey and that of Bongaarts are worth reading. And the reply of Pritchett to these comments is equally important. These studies were made not because of driving interests, but mainly on an objective to evaluate the efficiency and cost-benefit analysis of the programs. The reply of Pritchett to these comments tackle these questions in great detail. And it would be unfortunate if the country puts billions of pesos into a program without studying first if the program will in fact achieve the desired goals.

        • Key messages in the 3rd link posted above at…

          baycas says:
          Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          August 28, 2012 at 11:13 pm

          …are as follows:

          Key messages

          • Family planning programmes can reduce fertility in resource-poor settings such as rural Bangladesh and Ghana

          • Fertility declines are associated with an increase in women’s health, earnings, and participation in paid employment

          • The children of women who have had frequent home access to family planning and health services are healthier and better educated children than are those of women without such access

          • Reduced fertility and child mortality lead to an increased proportion of working-age people within the population, with positive outcomes for economic growth

          • Household-level behavioural effects on the female labour supply, child health, and education can lead to large macroeconomic demographic benefits

          Note: This was copy-pasted from a boxed message from the work of David Canning and T Paul Schultz

        • Baycas,

          If you have access to WebofScience, this is what you should use so that the articles you find are indeed coming from peer-reviewed journals. Also, the citation count is more accurate than what GoogleScholar provides – and the citation count correlates with the quality of the paper. Highly cited papers mean that these have been read and quoted by other experts on the field. Otherwise, as you said, the web is full of misinformation. Scientists can tell but others who are not familiar with scientific publications would not know the difference.

        • Baycas,

          It is a lot of effort and I am not sure if it is in fact really useful for the readers of this blog. It is somewhat difficult to elevate the discussion on the bill. Bongaarts and Pritchett both have valid points – and that is why 18 years later, there is still no agreement between the two scientists. Bongaarts is a demographer, by the way, while Pritchaart is an economist so these two are coming from two different backgrounds and expertise.

          However, there are major points that the two agree on – that the issue carries multiple factors. To reach something useful, one actually has to read a series of papers on this topic, which I cannot do at the moment. The most useful insight I could gain from the limited papers that I have read is to listen closely to what Shareen Joshi wrote in the discussion forum in 2011 at the World Bank forum site, responding to the comments made by Bongaarts and Pritchett. Shareen Joshi is one of the research workers in Matlab, Bangladesh (And I quote it here):


          Further thoughts on “unmet need”
          SUBMITTED BY SHAREEN JOSHI ON THU, 2011-06-16 14:39.
          This is a rather fascinating exchange. At the very outset, I should be clear that I am one of the researchers who has worked on Matlab (with Paul Schultz) and have also written some review articles on the rationale for family-planning programs lately.
          I agree that we should stop emphasizing “unmet need” as a rationale for family-planning (FP) programs. I agree that it does not correspond to what any economist would call demand. I also agree that framing the rationale for contraception on the basis of “unmet need” has been counter-productive. The rationale for such programs should be much simpler: Easy and low-cost access to modern contraception give couples the opportunity to regulate their fertility and control when they have children. They make it possible for parents to have children when they most want them and choose to have them. Isn’t this type of expansion of peoples freedoms and choices the whole point of development?
          A secondary rationale for family-planning programs should be that they have significant spillover effects on a variety of variables that policy-makers care about: female employment, female health, children’s education, etc. We have only learned this recently, from the papers by Schultz, Miller, etc. but the evidence appears to be quite convincing. Since it appears that FP programs (voluntary of course) can reinforce these other programs, that should be a great reason for policy-makers to take them seriously. FP should be viewed as just one more investment in female human capital…. And needless to say, there is tremendous evidence about the importance of female human capital.
          Finally, going back to this issue of “unmet need”…. I agree with Lant Pritchett that we should stop trying to quantify the need for contraception this way. But by that same logic, we should also stop trying to quantify “desired fertility” (a variable featured prominently in writings by economists, including Pritchett’s hugely famous 1994 paper)! Asking a woman her “ideal” number of children is just as complicated as asking her about her need for contraception. Neither question is answered objectively. Responses to both are colored by social norms, preferences of a spouse, past fertility history, and the broader socio-economic environment. So just like you can’t use “unmet need” to justify family-planning programs, we shouldn’t use “desired fertility” to justify their omission from the policy agenda. Again, the rationale for FP programs should simply be that that they (a) expand people’s choices and give them greater control of their fertility; and (b) they are one more investment in female human capital. Lets not worry about unmet need, desired fertility, or ideal fertility!
          shareen

          Shareen makes it clear what the rationales should be with regard to public funding of artificial contraceptives. A useful discussion then should focus on these reasons and not on other quite irrelevant topics. It is not population control. It is not solving the country’s economic woes. It is about giving couples (and most especially women) greater choices and means. It is up to the public and their elected representatives to judge if this rationale does indeed warrant the RH bill. The RH bill and its implementation must reflect this rationale. It makes the points of argument crystal clear.

        • Angel,

          The papers with links above (baycas says: August 28, 2012 at 11:13 pm and baycas says: August 28, 2012 at 11:26 pm) were written by Joshi and Schultz (2005, 2006, and May 2012) except “The economic consequences of reproductive health and family planning” which was written by Canning and Schultz (July 2012).

          I believe these papers are robust and the most authoritative ones…unless you can come up with the latest.

          Canning and Schultz’s paper, citing Matlab, Bangladesh and Ghana studies, says…

          This is the fourth in a Series of five papers about family planning
          Department of Global Health
          and Population, Harvard
          School of Public Health,
          Boston, MA, USA
          (Prof D Canning PhD); and
          Department of Economics, Yale
          University, New Haven, CT,
          USA (Prof T P Schultz PhD)

          Their search strategy and selection criteria (presented in a boxed message) reads…

          Search strategy and selection criteria

          We searched Web of Science and Research Papers in
          Economics (RePEc) for relevant work, published between
          1980 and 2012, in any language, with the search terms
          “population and economic growth”, “demographic dividend”, “family planning and economic outcomes”, and “fertility and economic outcomes”. We also did searches for the two experimental family planning interventions discussed in this paper with the search terms “Navrongo and family planning” and “Matlab and family planning”. We focused our selection on empirical studies that provided evidence of the eff ects of fertility on economic outcomes at the household or macroeconomic level.

          I was hoping you browsed through them.

        • Shareen Joshi perhaps simplified the matter as I had simplified it to myself two years ago in the heat of blog discussion about the RH Bill.

          RH Bill is about informed decision-making (choice) and responsible parenthood (reproductive health of both women and children).

          Hence, I am PRO…

        • baycas,

          For me, the proposed RH bill is not necessarily the same as the family planning program that is described in theory or to the one implemented in Matlab, Bangladesh. As you know, the Matlab project is different from the national family planning program of Bangladesh. One can find specific descriptions of the Matlab program from this page

          http://www.wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/1992/11/01/000009265_3961003174232/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

          This is where constructive discussions are needed. Here in the US, it is amazing how women’s health is helped by Planned Parenthood. The bulk of their services is more on preventive diagnostic services like check-ups and tests. Aside from condoms, the other methods require regular visits to the clinic. And when there is pregnancy, the regular checkups are available to monitor the health and progress of both mother and unborn child. With Matlab, one can see the attention given to diarrhea, measles and other ailments that affect both mother and child in its program – it is not entirely on reproductive health. It is really delivering much needed health care to the poor. So the important question to ask is whether the provisions and expected implementation of the RH bill are similar to those of Matlab?

        • Angel,

          A lot has happened since Matlab and a lot has been studied on FP. The Philippines must locally adapt inasmuch as, I believe, there is no real recipe for it.

          The general principles, as mentioned, are informed decision-making and responsible parenthood. The experts will be able to fill in the details and I quite trust the proponents who are doing their homework rather than the Anti-RHs. Anyway, the Bill is still up for amendments.

      • @Angel C. de Dios

        “Giving away free contraceptives does not work according to Pritchett.”

        This conclusion is unwarranted based on the quote at the end of the paper, which appears in the first post, to wit:

        “…even if contraceptive access has a small effect on ferdlity, this is certainly no reason for govemments to limit the availability of contraception, and there may yet be valid reasons for a subsidy. Just because family planning is of marginal relevance for population change does not mean it does not have other beneficial impacts…”

        My reading is that he says it works in part – but not totally.

        • Read the entire paper to understand what “small effect” really means and do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is worth billions of pesos. At the end of the day, spending billions of pesos needs to be justified by the goals set by the bill. The current driving force or argument behind the RH bill (on contraceptives) is not supported by this scientific study.

      • I agree with @Angel de Dios that Pritchett’s findings can provide good solid ground in rationalising the provision of free contraceptives to the public as may be mandated by the RH Bill.

        We do need to validate the prevailing attitudes toward family size among the general population and not just rely on anecdotal evidence, as de Dios points out. Those with a bacground or general appreciation of research methodologies will be able understand this.

        I suspect that there is still a significant segment of the population who still leave it all up to God or to fate as to the number of children they want to have. Bahala na si Batman as I’ve read some people say in this very forum.

        Maybe there are studies already out there that may or may not validate this. Either way, I don’t see why we should not be interested in finding out.

        • Copy-paste onto address bar…

          scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?hl=tl&as_sdt=0&as_ylo=2008&q=subsidized+contraception+unintended+pregnancy

          scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?q=subsidized+contraceptives+unintended+pregnancy&btnG=&hl=tl&as_sdt=0&as_ylo=2008

        • Thanks for these @baycas, will have a more in-depth look later.

          In the meantime, I did find this study online called the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey by the National Statistics Office and here are some interesting findings:

          Total Fertility Rate (TFR)
          “Women in the Philippines have an average of 3.3 children. The average number of children per woman is 2.8 in urban areas and 3.8 in rural areas. Fertility has gradually decreased over the past 20 years from 5.1 children per woman in 1983 to 3.5 in 2003 and to 3.3 in 2008.
          Fertility varies with mother’s education. Women who have gone to college have an average of 2.3 children, while women with only elementar education have 4.5 children. Similarly, fertility varies with women’s economic status as measured by the wealth index*. The poorest women have more than twice as many children as women who live in the wealthiest households (5.2 versus 1.9 children per woman).”

          Desired family size
          “The mean ideal family size for Filipino women is 2.8 children. Ideal family size varies by region, from a low of 2.6 in CALABARZON and the National Capital Region to a high of 5.1 in ARMM. Women with no education want the most children (5.0), while women with high school or college education want the fewest (2.7).”

          Family Planning
          “Modern contraceptive use increases with women’s education. Thirty-six percent of married women with high school or college education use modern methods compared with 9% of women with no education. Use of modern methods is fairly high, even among women from the poorest households (26%).”

          Note how the findings on the significance of women’s education appears consistent with Pritchett’s position cited by A. de Dios above, that ” giving girls more education – is vastly more important to reducing fertility than providing more contraceptives or family planning services.”

        • From the same study,

          Unmet need for family planning
          “Unmet need for family planning is defined as the percentage of married women who want to space their next birth or stop childbearing entirely but are not using contraception. The 2008 NDHS reveals
          that 22% of married women have an unmet need for family planning—9% for spacing and 13% for limiting. This marks an increase since 2003, when only 17% of women had an unmet need. The increase in unmet need is due mostly to an increase in the desire for limiting births.”

          This is where the RH Bill should come in.

        • Pritchett also has a reply to Bongaart’s comments. And Pritchett has not changed in his understanding of the issue. I will paste here one of the most recent pieces he has written (I do not have the permission to post this, but I am assuming this is “fair use”):

          “No need for “unmet need”
          SUBMITTED BY LANT PRITCHETT ON FRI, 2011-04-08 12:04.
          Source: blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/is-there-an-unmet-need-for-birth-control-0

          There are may distinct issues that are conceptually separable, so let me not talk about fertility impacts of interventions but just address “unmet need.” My claim is that the usual numbers bandied about for estimates of “unmet need” do not correspond to any definition of “unmet need” that any economist (or just common sense) could agree to. They are a advocacy construct that has been successfully used in the overall political agenda for promoting family planning. But ultimately I have also argued the notion of “unmet meed” has been counter-productive even within the movement.
          First, the usual use of the word “need” implies stronger intensity that “want” or “wish” and we usually, for competent adults, don’t say people “need” things they don’t “want.” Yet the usual “unmet need” numbers include every woman of a certain age who says they do not want a child now who is not using contraception was having an “unmet need” for contraception. This is in spite of the fact that the same DHS surveys have responses from women who do not want a child and are not using contraception about why they are not using, which includes answers like that they dislike the side effects, that they are no longer fecund, they are sexually inactive, that they have religious objections, that their husband is out of the country for a year. That is, many women give reasons suggesting they do not want contraception and only a few cite access or price as reasons for their “unmet need” status attributed to them.
          (moreover, the numbers usually include women who are currently pregnant (if their current pregnancy was unwanted or mistimed plus women who haven’t had a period since their most recent birth. I have shown that “unmet need” is 13 percent in France (just as a benchmark) and the numbers commonly reported suggest it is 35 percent in Ghana. But I exclude from the “unmet need” women are are pregnant, amenorhheic, or sexually inactive (all pretty good reasons for not using contraception) the number in Ghana falls to 15 percent (with similar reductions for other countries with high “unmet need”).
          So the notion of “unmet need” might sound like “how many women would use if contraception were available at low cost (in time, trouble, money)”–that is, some point on a demand curve and hence there might seem to be a puzzle between large “unmet need” and low price elasticity of demand (or income elasticity, after all, what economists mean by “need” is something with super high marginal utility at low levels of consumption (perhaps rapidly declining) like water so that the marginal propensity to spend on “needs” should be very high at very low levels of consumption).
          But there isn’t any contradiction because the numbers for “unmet need” consisted (when I last looked at them) predominantly of women who don’t express any current desire to use contraception.
          I am convinced the “unmet need” numbers were created to counter the objection many countries had to expanding family planning programs that women didn’t really want it. But, while appearing to counter that objection, it doesn’t because it doesn’t measure women’s expressed “want” it measures some completely arbitrary attribution of “need.”
          Second, I have argued the concept of “unmet need” has actually been counter-productive for the movement, in two senses.
          One, it is symptomatic of the of the deep disrespect for women and their agency that the demographically driven family planning programs have often displayed. As Matthew Connelly has argued the coercion in the family planning programs in India and China was not a “mistake” it was a logical consequence of people (men mostly) who believed that women needed to use contraception to reduce population growth –whether they wanted to or not. The fact that the movement has consistently attributed “need” for contraception to women who have articulated reasons why they don’t want it reveals the paternalistic approach inherent in demographically driven family planning programs–we population bomb advocates can override what you want with what you need.
          Second, suppose you actually believed your own advocacy and thought that 25 to 35 percent of women having “unmet need” actually meant they had “need” in the usual sense of the word. Then meeting “need” is just logistics–all I have to do is slap the stuff out there and it will fly out the door. I don’t have to worry about the client, don’t have to be nice, don’t have to worry about side effects, don’t have to worry about arrays of methods. There is a huge difference between famine relief (delivering food to people who need it) and selling macaroni and cheese (where people might not want it and need to be sold on it).
          The lesson that actual implementation of family planning programs has consistently found is that getting uptake is hard, not just slapping it out there, which is not at all surprising, it is true of every consumer good. It is only the contradiction between the advocacy needs of the movement (convincing governments that people wanted it) and the implementation needs (actually needing to create demand–and meet much women’s actually desires with more specific demands of methods, convenience, side effects, respectful non-coercive treatment, etc) that created the confusion.
          So I think independently of one’s sophisticated views on topics around fertility and contraception (e.g. how much of women’s expressed reproductive intentions represent “just” social norms), everyone should be able to agree that the usual numbers on “unmet need” are an advocacy tool, not particularly relevant to conceptually or empirically informed discussions.”

        • @Cha

          I believe your suspicion is half-right. I would change significant segment to “more than a significant segment”.

          With all due apology to @angel, do you think an ignorant poor man will have the foresight to pause and think, “Ooh, I should put on a condom because I cannot afford to feed another mouth”? He is driven by immediate need and will only accept immediate gratification. He is seized by the moment and let tomorrow take care of itself.

          I don’t think free condoms will work either. Males cannot be bothered to use one. The gratification is neither immediate nor intense.

          What might work would be concealable contraception used by females. I don’t know that the RH Bill provides for this type of contraception.

        • Discussing a specific instance of an “ignorant poor man with sex drive” is not a scientific treatment of the issue. It is too specific and one cannot design a bill that answers or addresses every circumstance.

    • I believe that the mechanism is totally different: Poverty is the main cause of too high birth rates.. Empowered women are the main contributor in poverty reduction. Contraception empowers women

      In a today’s newspaper of my home country I read that a recent study found that 79% of the couples are happy in their relationship. A good conversation being the most important contributing factor for 42% of the couples, sex only for 2%. People are much more than copulating animals, the bishops should know.

      • @coco….. I agree with you any projects/development programs to alleviate poverty to be or will be introduce by PINOY Government considering the general attitude of Filipinos will be overtaken by population explosion in the Philippines does poverty can never be solved. CONTRACEPTIVES shall be introduce in our Family Planning , but before conception so that their will be no ABORTION such that RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD BILL shall PASS as a LAW to slow down BIRTHS and definitely it will solve POVERTY.

        • Disasters have reduced our population . Will it solve poverty?

          Government has been “bad governance” for a long long time. – Matagal nang politiko at ang pamilya nila sila lang ang yumayaman. Does it now purport that the ills inflicted by the greed of many politicians will be corrected by one fell swoop – legalizing contraception.- for the victims of their greed?

          Aquino is now visibly an OBAMA copycat.He must be consulting video game heroes and not his parents spirits

      • @Coco

        I tend to agree with you about empowered women. Refer to my post to @Cha above.

        I am totally amused by people in your country. Don’t get me wrong. I am full of admiration for them. So intelligent conversation is of great importance – and sex is overrated. Hmmm, the bishops should really know!

        • @coco , @springwoodman,

          From the 2008 study cited above (in reply to @baycas), looks like “empowered women” are also educated women.

    • These are muddy waters. Just looking at the posts and not going into the original source material, there are disagreements on authority, criterion, family planning and family size. The only agreement seems to be on education as a solution.

      1. Disagreement on Authority
      1.1. Initially Pritchett
      1.2. Then Bongaarts, Knowles, Akin, Guilkey and Cleland

      2. Disagreement on Criterion
      2.1. “The only justification for funding or subsidizing artificial contraceptives is an “unmet need” for such services/medicine by poor couples.” (@De Dios)
      2.2. “Unmet need for family planning is defined as the percentage of married women who want to space their next birth or stop childbearing entirely but are not using contraception. …The increase in unmet need is due mostly to an increase in the desire for limiting births.” (@Cha – NDHS)
      2.3. “…everyone should be able to agree that the usual numbers on “unmet need” are an advocacy tool, not particularly relevant to conceptually or empirically informed discussions.” (Pritchett)

      3. Disagreement on Family Planning
      3.1. “Giving away free contraceptives does not work according to Pritchett.” (@De Dios)
      3.2. “Family planning programmes can reduce fertility in resource-poor settings such as rural Bangladesh and Ghana. (@baycas – Matlab, Bangladesh study)
      3.3. “Although family planning programs are only one policy lever to help reduce fertility, studies find them effective. Such programs might help especially in the Sub-Saharan African region, where high fertility and institutional constraints on economic growth combine to slow rises in living standards.” (@baycas – Abstract )
      3.4. “Poverty is the main cause of too high birth rates.” (@Coco)

      4. Disagreement on Family Size
      4.1 What correlates strongly with birth rate or fertility is the desire of couples to have children”. (@De Dios summarizing Pritchett)
      4.2. “There was a documentary about this couple with 21 kids. They weren’t happy about it.” (@tristanism)

      5. Agreement on Education
      5.1. “Reducing the demand for children – for instance by giving girls more education – is vastly more important to reducing fertility than providing more contraceptives or family planning services.” (Pritchett)
      5.2. “They find that lower fertility is associated with better child health and schooling, and better health and greater labor-force participation for women. (@baycas – abstract)
      5.3. “Fertility varies with mother’s education” (@Cha – NDHS)
      5.4. “Women with no education want the most children (5.0), while women with high school or college education want the fewest (2.7)” (@Cha – NDHS)
      5.5. “Empowered women are the main contributor in poverty reduction. Contraception empowers women.” (@Coco)

      From the above, there appears to be a convincing correlation among poverty, educational level and birth rates. Family planning is multi-faceted and breaks that correlation by providing free contraception and reproductive health information to the poor. Therefore, Yes to the RH Bill. My only quibble is that contraception should be, as much as possible, female-based as women are more evolved and responsible in these matters. They can be easily educated and empowered. Even if a male pill were available, I would not trust men. Men are like Nike shoes.

      • Of course, It’s always been a yes to RH Bill for me, too.

        I also have no problem with the government giving away free contraceptives so long as they go to those who really need and want them.

      • I like your outline, but I am most interested with your conlusion which hit the bulls eye.

        “Men are like Nike shoes”, eh?

        Been a pro RH Bill.

  11. Catholic religion is going down, slowly many have been turned off by this bishops who regularly interfere with government, Precisely we have so many religion now, because of people have realize that catholic religion is all for money. It is a commercial version of a christian found in the Bible. Lahat po may bayad, binyag, kasal, patay, blessing, padasal sa mga kaluluwa sa purgatoryo, kaya nag imbento ng .LIMBO, PURGATORYO, walang patawad pagdating sa pera, lahat na na paraan ginagawa, tulad ng Milagro daw, Santo at kung ano ano na laban sa turo ni Kristo, just imagine pag wala kang pera, ung kaluluwa mo daw ay di maka haon sa purgatoryo, kung di ka mag alay ng mesa at mga special na intentions daw, PANGLOLOKO, dapat magising na tayo, wala maidulot sa atin lahat ang katoliko pag dating sa ating kaluluwa, peke ang mga panalangin nila, di katanggaptanggap, GISING PO alamin ang katotohanan, wag padala sa mga mali turo mula pa sa ating mga magulang na wala alam sa Bibliya.

    • Tama ka @kontrapilyo! They made such a long list of that, enjoying it like having a hay day! Even Limbo, I like the rock…LIMBOROCK…now no can do!

      In many things in life, many can be HOCUS POCUS! Watch out for SCAMS!

      But many many out of the BILLIONS of people are NAIVE and FICKLE MINDED, so they get hooked up in these VICES!

      Just live BE HAPPY, live ENJOY, live WATCH OUT, live DON’T BE A VICTIM, ’til the day YOU DIE.

  12. For the record I am not defending the Jesuits, it is just that I give them credit for trying to adapt to the ever changing demands of the modern world. They might not be liberal enough for Protestants but they are the closest thing in reality to effect reforms in the Church if given a chance. Jesuits supported social justice in South America even before the Catholic Church recognized that it is in their interest to promote social equality world wide.

    Another 2 cents, If Catholics followed the Church blindly, a zombie epidemic would likely to happen since the brain cells of the followers will decay into disuse except for the privileged ones. :D

    • Granted that the Jesuits are progressive. They are still the advanced guard of a sectarian power which seeks to impose its beliefs in the secular sphere.

      Why does the Church do this? Why does it not show respect in order to be respected? Why, for instance, does it not voluntarily withdraw its religious imagery from government offices? Why does it not voluntarily refuse to perform non-ecumenical rites in government offices?

      • The Jesuits have no choice in the matter, they made a vow of obedience to the Pope, if they break ranks either they will be disbanded or at worse declared heretics. Although they spearhead the Catholic mission is it not fair to say that that was the purpose of their order?

        Although they champion spearheading the Catholic religion, they are generally more progressive socially than their respective peers under the Catholic organization? And let’s face it, every religion sticks their noses in the affairs of State whether we like it or not. The conservative Catholics are as worst as various fundamental Christian religions, all wanting to shape the society on the way they see fit.

        And we do not know what will happen if ever a Jesuit will become a Pope, like what I said below they can take a leap of faith and usher a revival of the Catholic Faith by enacting reforms they espouse or continue the path of the predecessors which after the 2nd Vatican Council is becoming more regressive with respect to social events.

        • Thank you. I agree that “every religion sticks their noses in the affairs of the State.” And I am thankful we are not a theocracy. My point was/is that the Church has a very long nose.

          And it is preferable that it performs rhinoplasty on its own self, if that is possible.

          Thank you again for your considered commentary.

        • My advice to blind Catholics and other religious fanatics, they should read Dune Messiah, Children of Dune and God Emperor of Dune to realize that not all Messiah or God results in a Utopian society.

  13. It is true! What father Bernas trying to say is that there is no really a command vote of the catholic hierarchy unlike the INK command votes being sought by politicians during election.

    We haven’t heard the catholic hierarchy endorsing or supporting the candidacy of a particular candidates during an election unlike the INK they openly declare their support for a particular candidate.

    I understand the CBCP pro life stand in the RH bill, if they’ll succeed inculcating the minds of the majority about pro life then more catholics will be born more will go to mass and more will shell out donation to the catholic church during mass. There is a regular collection of donation and before the mass will end they pass again the collection urging the faithful to support the church on going projects.

    • By the way, I’ve been meaning to ask you –

      Why do you sell nuts n the freeway?

      What does that exactly mean?

    • oh my god! are you christian? giving donation is not an obligation, its not a kutong too when you give give it with all your heart for your to GOD and not for priest. dont say that to the church unless your not christian. eat all your money church dont need it

  14. Oh wow!

    There must be an inside story to this radical, remarkable, and incredible shift in Fr. JB.s “political” viewpoint.

    To Fr. JB and his young Jesuit colleague, welcome home.

    • JB had been reading a lot of Raissa blog.
      He realized to shift his credo

      If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em
      He he he

    • If this is a “radical, remarkable and incredible shift”, can it be interpreted as just a ploy to stop the hemorrhage in church membership?