The Vatican Information Service is a news service, founded in the Holy See Press Office, that provides information about the Magisterium and the pastoral activities of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia...[+]
Monday, November 29, 2010
CHURCH IN PHILIPPINES:
CONTINUE TO BE A LEAVEN IN SOCIETY
VATICAN CITY, 29 NOV 2010 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received prelates from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, who have just completed their "ad limina" visit. Addressing them in English, the Pope referred to the close ties that for four centuries have united the Philippines and the See of Peter, highlighting the benefits the leaven of faith has brought to the Filipino people and their culture.
"To be such a leaven, the Church must always seek to find her proper voice, because it is by proclamation that the Gospel brings about its life-changing fruits", he said. "Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".
"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will. I also note with appreciation the Church's work to abolish the death penalty in your country.
"A specific area in which the Church must always find her proper voice comes in the field of social communications and the media", Pope Benedict added. "It is important that the Catholic laity proficient in social communications take their proper place in proposing the Christian message in a convincing and attractive way. If the Gospel of Christ is to be a leaven in Filipino society, then the entire Catholic community must be attentive to the force of the truth proclaimed with love".
Finally the Holy Father turned his attention to "a third aspect of the Church's mission of proclaiming the life-giving word of God: ... her commitment to economic and social concerns, in particular with respect to the poorest and the weakest in society". The Church in the Philippines, he said, takes "a special interest in devoting herself more fully to care for the poor. It is heartening to see that this undertaking has borne fruit, with Catholic charitable institutions actively engaged throughout the country. Many of your fellow citizens, however, remain without employment, adequate education or basic services, and so your prophetic statements and your charitable action on behalf of the poor continue to be greatly appreciated. In addition to this effort", he concluded, "you are rightly concerned that there be an ongoing commitment to the struggle against corruption, since the growth of a just and sustainable economy will only come about when there is a clear and consistent application of the rule of law throughout the land".
AL/ VIS 20101129 (600)
Published by VIS - Holy See Press Office - Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Business World
Opinion NOVEMBDER 26, 2010
Posted on 08:26 PM, November 25, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Right off the bat, let’s get this out of the way: Pope Benedict XVI modified the Church’s stand on condoms. NO, HE DIDN’T. This is quite clear when one reads the actual remarks of the Pope in his interview with Peter Seewald. He even asserts that the "fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality." I suggest people read the commentaries of Janet Smith or George Weigel (available in the Internet) for a complete explanation of the Pope’s remarks.
However, let me just zero in on this: the Pope’s given example was in relation to "male prostitutes," who one can reasonably say mainly ply in homosexual activities. The use of the condom in relation to that immoral act is obviously not for contraceptive purposes. And it’s precisely that contraceptive function that the Church is against.
So, it means that the Pope justifies condom use to stop AIDS. No. As the Pope clearly said "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."
But it’s ridiculous to believe that popes don’t make mistakes or commit sins. Of course it’s ridiculous. Popes are humans too. They do make mistakes. It’s only when the Pope speaks under his authority of "infallibility" (given under very specific conditions and only with regard to matters of morals or faith) that no mistakes are said to be made (e.g., the prohibition on contraceptives). And, yes, pope’s do sin. Note that popes actually go to confession regularly. They must be asking forgiveness for sins; otherwise, they’re just making a mockery of the sacrament of confession. That’s why we should all be humble, avoiding self-righteousness, because, except for Mother Mary and Jesus, we are all merely sinners trying (hopefully) our best.
Excommunication reveals the Church’s intolerance. Wrong. Excommunication is a technical canon law matter (coming in various forms and exercised rarely) but essentially means Church recognition that somebody, by his own acts, separated himself from the community of the faithful. In short, the Church didn’t kick anybody out, it merely recognized that one voluntary placed himself out. It’s like the LTO not granting a driver’s license because you’re blind. The LTO’s refusal didn’t make you blind, it merely recognized that fact. So, it’s therefore logical for an excommunicant not to receive the sacraments because he obviously turned his back on the Church. It’s like breaking up with your spouse but still demanding sex. It cheapens the whole thing. For lack of space, let me just say, however, that the concept and process of excommunication is designed to wean the excommunicant back and the Church will welcome him with open arms. But the sincere decision to come back (like the decision to part with the Church) lies with the individual.
The Church is intolerant for filing criminal charges. No. The Church, like everybody else, has every right to avail of the rights that the law provides. Furthermore, while the Church is indeed merciful, it also advocates for justice. Which means accountability for any wrongdoing. Mercy without justice is not a loving mercy as it encourages repeated wrongs. That’s why God, who is infinitely merciful, also requires accountability ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead"). So, for example, if somebody disrupts a Mass in a church, in a manner contrary to our criminal laws, it is but just that accountability for it be made (particularly if the transgressor is not even sorry for the acts he did). We must remember that in a Mass, God is present. Any act of disrespect made during a Mass is not only a disrespect to the priest or to us but also to God. Ask the Muslims how they would feel if somebody does an act of disrespect in a mosque. Or even a family member if somebody does something boorish in a family celebration. Forgiveness? Definitely. But justice too.
Contraceptives protect female health. No. They harm it. Various research institutions (including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization) and medical journals already attributed (particularly to oral contraceptives) dangers such as cancer (specifically breast cancer), stroke, and heart disease.
Better condoms than AIDS or abortions later. No. Research upon research has already shown that resort to contraceptives (condoms in particular) has actually resulted in the increase of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions. The reason is simple: rather than make people behave better, condoms give a false sense of security, encouraging the illusion of "safe sex." But condoms fail at least 5% of the time. Say you have 100,000 condom users, 5,000 of them are highly vulnerable to AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. And imagine what 5,000 AIDS carriers can do. Let us also emphasize this point: the perils of cancer, stroke, heart disease, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies are there regardless of whether you’re a Catholic or not.
Have fun defending the faith. Although, as St. Peter says, do it with "respect and gentleness."
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=19892
October 21, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomic arguments
One problem with the public debate involving pro-choice advocates is that it’s difficult to grasp their logic due to their making assertions that tend to be scatterbrained, misleading, or -- worse -- fictional. This article is intended to help Catholic and pro-life advocates easily rebut some of the more common arguments raised by condom supporters.
The Church has no business dealing in government matters. False. Everybody has a right, a duty even, to engage in matters dealing with government. The pro-choice advocates misunderstand the concept of Church and State separation. Note that the Constitution’s preamble, as well as the oaths of office of public officials, all invoke God. The Supreme Court also recognizes the right to advocate one’s religious views.
-The Catholic Church’s position on contraception has changed and is evolving. Untrue. Ever since Onan used a primitive form of contraception (see Genesis), the Church’s teaching has been consistent. So from scripture, to the Church fathers (e.g., Barnabas, St. Basil), to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, to Popes Pius XI and John Paul II, the Church’s position has been unwavering.
The contraception ban was merely invented by priests. No. It is a truth, as per our faith, revealed through scripture and by the Holy Spirit. As much as they’d like to, the priests can’t compromise because one can’t compromise on truth.
Pope Pius XI improperly ignored the 1963 Pontifical Birth Control Commission. Not true. The Church is not a democracy. In matters of faith, it boils down to one vote: the Pope’s (if you don’t like that setup, complain to the guy who made it: Jesus Christ). The commission’s function is purely advisory. Pope Pius XI simply decided, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that nothing in the commission’s findings justified deviating from the Church’s established doctrine.
People have the right to their own bodies. True. You also have the right to smell other people’s butts and act like a dog but that wouldn’t be sane. However, for Catholics, the belief is that God owns your bodies and the Church is simply pointing out that there’s a better way to exercise your rights. The Church won’t coerce you to not act stupid (Like how? Pull a gun?).
The Church is against the right to choose. No. It’s saying there’s a better choice. The problem with pro-choice is that it worships choice without even bothering (or being misleading) in guiding you how to properly use the right to choose.
The RH Bill merely allows choice. No. One reason why the RH Bill is offensive is that it forces Catholics to support (through its compulsory implementation without consideration of conscience, as well as the duty to pay taxes) something they believe is immoral. Note that contraceptives are not illegal. If the pro-contraception group is really concerned for the welfare of the poor (albeit in a misguided way), nothing is stopping them from donating contraceptives instead of demanding public funds. That’s better than violating the constitutional rights of the Church.
You can be a good Catholic while knowingly fighting the Church’s teachings. No you can’t. The simple reason is that the Church’s teachings are unified and inter-related. You cannot pick and choose the teachings you like and those you don’t. If you do, you are in essence creating your own religion. Again, the Church won’t force you to obey. You’re free to leave. But it’s hypocritical and flaky to say you’re a good Catholic but be against the Church.
Contraception helps solve poverty. No, it doesn’t. That’s ridiculous. And that’s the point. Our population isn’t exploding and its present size is due more to increased life expectancy than more babies. Experts have long pinpointed our social system that fosters unequal wealth distribution as the reason for poverty (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) and not really the population. The Church prefers solving the root of the inequality rather than spreading condoms around.
Contraception effectively prevents AIDS. Then how come the Philippines, which has a low rate of condom use, has one of the world’s lowest HIV infection rate? Whereas countries with high condom use register higher HIV cases? The same goes for teenage pregnancy numbers. Again, the Church is pointing to a better, more fundamental way; focusing on the cause and not the symptom.
The Catholic Church hates sex. No. The Church values sex and does not want it cheapened. Contraception, because it does not fulfill the two purposes of sex (love and procreation), cheapens sex and, consequently, cheapens the person too. And if the person is cheapened, society suffers.
The Catholic Church makes no allowance for people’s individual consciences. It does. The Church merely emphasizes that before you rely on your conscience get the guidance first of the Bible, Holy Tradition, and the Church. Why? Because of man’s capacity for self-deception. Anybody who repeatedly tried to diet or quit smoking knows this.
Have fun defending the faith.
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Opinion NOVEMBDER 26, 2010
Posted on 08:26 PM, November 25, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Right off the bat, let’s get this out of the way: Pope Benedict XVI modified the Church’s stand on condoms. NO, HE DIDN’T. This is quite clear when one reads the actual remarks of the Pope in his interview with Peter Seewald. He even asserts that the "fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality." I suggest people read the commentaries of Janet Smith or George Weigel (available in the Internet) for a complete explanation of the Pope’s remarks.
However, let me just zero in on this: the Pope’s given example was in relation to "male prostitutes," who one can reasonably say mainly ply in homosexual activities. The use of the condom in relation to that immoral act is obviously not for contraceptive purposes. And it’s precisely that contraceptive function that the Church is against.
So, it means that the Pope justifies condom use to stop AIDS. No. As the Pope clearly said "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."
But it’s ridiculous to believe that popes don’t make mistakes or commit sins. Of course it’s ridiculous. Popes are humans too. They do make mistakes. It’s only when the Pope speaks under his authority of "infallibility" (given under very specific conditions and only with regard to matters of morals or faith) that no mistakes are said to be made (e.g., the prohibition on contraceptives). And, yes, pope’s do sin. Note that popes actually go to confession regularly. They must be asking forgiveness for sins; otherwise, they’re just making a mockery of the sacrament of confession. That’s why we should all be humble, avoiding self-righteousness, because, except for Mother Mary and Jesus, we are all merely sinners trying (hopefully) our best.
Excommunication reveals the Church’s intolerance. Wrong. Excommunication is a technical canon law matter (coming in various forms and exercised rarely) but essentially means Church recognition that somebody, by his own acts, separated himself from the community of the faithful. In short, the Church didn’t kick anybody out, it merely recognized that one voluntary placed himself out. It’s like the LTO not granting a driver’s license because you’re blind. The LTO’s refusal didn’t make you blind, it merely recognized that fact. So, it’s therefore logical for an excommunicant not to receive the sacraments because he obviously turned his back on the Church. It’s like breaking up with your spouse but still demanding sex. It cheapens the whole thing. For lack of space, let me just say, however, that the concept and process of excommunication is designed to wean the excommunicant back and the Church will welcome him with open arms. But the sincere decision to come back (like the decision to part with the Church) lies with the individual.
The Church is intolerant for filing criminal charges. No. The Church, like everybody else, has every right to avail of the rights that the law provides. Furthermore, while the Church is indeed merciful, it also advocates for justice. Which means accountability for any wrongdoing. Mercy without justice is not a loving mercy as it encourages repeated wrongs. That’s why God, who is infinitely merciful, also requires accountability ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead"). So, for example, if somebody disrupts a Mass in a church, in a manner contrary to our criminal laws, it is but just that accountability for it be made (particularly if the transgressor is not even sorry for the acts he did). We must remember that in a Mass, God is present. Any act of disrespect made during a Mass is not only a disrespect to the priest or to us but also to God. Ask the Muslims how they would feel if somebody does an act of disrespect in a mosque. Or even a family member if somebody does something boorish in a family celebration. Forgiveness? Definitely. But justice too.
Contraceptives protect female health. No. They harm it. Various research institutions (including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization) and medical journals already attributed (particularly to oral contraceptives) dangers such as cancer (specifically breast cancer), stroke, and heart disease.
Better condoms than AIDS or abortions later. No. Research upon research has already shown that resort to contraceptives (condoms in particular) has actually resulted in the increase of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions. The reason is simple: rather than make people behave better, condoms give a false sense of security, encouraging the illusion of "safe sex." But condoms fail at least 5% of the time. Say you have 100,000 condom users, 5,000 of them are highly vulnerable to AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. And imagine what 5,000 AIDS carriers can do. Let us also emphasize this point: the perils of cancer, stroke, heart disease, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies are there regardless of whether you’re a Catholic or not.
Have fun defending the faith. Although, as St. Peter says, do it with "respect and gentleness."
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=19892
October 21, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomic arguments
One problem with the public debate involving pro-choice advocates is that it’s difficult to grasp their logic due to their making assertions that tend to be scatterbrained, misleading, or -- worse -- fictional. This article is intended to help Catholic and pro-life advocates easily rebut some of the more common arguments raised by condom supporters.
The Church has no business dealing in government matters. False. Everybody has a right, a duty even, to engage in matters dealing with government. The pro-choice advocates misunderstand the concept of Church and State separation. Note that the Constitution’s preamble, as well as the oaths of office of public officials, all invoke God. The Supreme Court also recognizes the right to advocate one’s religious views.
-The Catholic Church’s position on contraception has changed and is evolving. Untrue. Ever since Onan used a primitive form of contraception (see Genesis), the Church’s teaching has been consistent. So from scripture, to the Church fathers (e.g., Barnabas, St. Basil), to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, to Popes Pius XI and John Paul II, the Church’s position has been unwavering.
The contraception ban was merely invented by priests. No. It is a truth, as per our faith, revealed through scripture and by the Holy Spirit. As much as they’d like to, the priests can’t compromise because one can’t compromise on truth.
Pope Pius XI improperly ignored the 1963 Pontifical Birth Control Commission. Not true. The Church is not a democracy. In matters of faith, it boils down to one vote: the Pope’s (if you don’t like that setup, complain to the guy who made it: Jesus Christ). The commission’s function is purely advisory. Pope Pius XI simply decided, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that nothing in the commission’s findings justified deviating from the Church’s established doctrine.
People have the right to their own bodies. True. You also have the right to smell other people’s butts and act like a dog but that wouldn’t be sane. However, for Catholics, the belief is that God owns your bodies and the Church is simply pointing out that there’s a better way to exercise your rights. The Church won’t coerce you to not act stupid (Like how? Pull a gun?).
The Church is against the right to choose. No. It’s saying there’s a better choice. The problem with pro-choice is that it worships choice without even bothering (or being misleading) in guiding you how to properly use the right to choose.
The RH Bill merely allows choice. No. One reason why the RH Bill is offensive is that it forces Catholics to support (through its compulsory implementation without consideration of conscience, as well as the duty to pay taxes) something they believe is immoral. Note that contraceptives are not illegal. If the pro-contraception group is really concerned for the welfare of the poor (albeit in a misguided way), nothing is stopping them from donating contraceptives instead of demanding public funds. That’s better than violating the constitutional rights of the Church.
You can be a good Catholic while knowingly fighting the Church’s teachings. No you can’t. The simple reason is that the Church’s teachings are unified and inter-related. You cannot pick and choose the teachings you like and those you don’t. If you do, you are in essence creating your own religion. Again, the Church won’t force you to obey. You’re free to leave. But it’s hypocritical and flaky to say you’re a good Catholic but be against the Church.
Contraception helps solve poverty. No, it doesn’t. That’s ridiculous. And that’s the point. Our population isn’t exploding and its present size is due more to increased life expectancy than more babies. Experts have long pinpointed our social system that fosters unequal wealth distribution as the reason for poverty (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) and not really the population. The Church prefers solving the root of the inequality rather than spreading condoms around.
Contraception effectively prevents AIDS. Then how come the Philippines, which has a low rate of condom use, has one of the world’s lowest HIV infection rate? Whereas countries with high condom use register higher HIV cases? The same goes for teenage pregnancy numbers. Again, the Church is pointing to a better, more fundamental way; focusing on the cause and not the symptom.
The Catholic Church hates sex. No. The Church values sex and does not want it cheapened. Contraception, because it does not fulfill the two purposes of sex (love and procreation), cheapens sex and, consequently, cheapens the person too. And if the person is cheapened, society suffers.
The Catholic Church makes no allowance for people’s individual consciences. It does. The Church merely emphasizes that before you rely on your conscience get the guidance first of the Bible, Holy Tradition, and the Church. Why? Because of man’s capacity for self-deception. Anybody who repeatedly tried to diet or quit smoking knows this.
Have fun defending the faith.
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching
Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching
By John L Allen Senior correspondent, National Catholic Reporter
Pope Benedict XVI, file pic The Vatican has long opposed the use of condoms as a form of contraception
Careful distinctions are the hallmark of Catholic moral reasoning, but they can be a tough sell in a world with little patience for subtlety.
A few carefully qualified words from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms offer proof of the point, as they have been "sexed up" in some commentary as an earthquake in Catholic teaching.
In reality, the Church's broad opposition to artificial birth control has not changed, and there's no indication that it will give way under Benedict XVI, rightly seen as a champion of Catholic orthodoxy.
Instead, Benedict XVI has said in a book-length interview with a German journalist that while condoms are not the solution to the HIV/Aids crisis, there may nevertheless be individual cases where use of a condom can represent the first stirrings of a sense of moral responsibility, if the intent is to save someone's life.
Even then the use a condom is still not the Pope's moral ideal (especially, of course, where the sex takes place outside marriage), but Benedict has said that it can be a step in the right direction - the dawning of awareness that "one cannot do whatever one wants."
Non-binding
In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, "Is it okay to use a condom?" the answer is still supposed to be "No." Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God's plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life.
We're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts”
If the question, however, is, "I'm HIV-positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?" the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say "Yes," while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a "real or moral solution."
In other words, we're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts.
That point needs to be qualified in a couple of important ways.
First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict's language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.
Second, Catholic pastoral counselling on condoms in the context of HIV/Aids has never been quite as absolute as outsiders generally take it to be.
Since the advent of the Aids crisis, many Catholic theologians, and even a few cardinals, have debated whether the use of a condom in some limited circumstances might be tolerated. The usual example is that of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn't, and the intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent infection.
The 'open question'
In recent years, both a Swiss cardinal who served as the theologian of the papal household and a Mexican cardinal who was the Vatican's point man on health care issues have argued in favour of the acceptability of condoms in such cases, while others have demurred.
The Vatican The Vatican has not issued an official statement along the lines of the Pope's comments
It is a classic instance of what Catholic theology calls an "open question," meaning one which has not been officially resolved.
Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal.
In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."
For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope's interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.
Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a "revolution," who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.
John L Allen Jr is the Senior Correspondent for the US-based National Catholic Reporter and author of two books on Pope Benedict XVI.
By John L Allen Senior correspondent, National Catholic Reporter
Pope Benedict XVI, file pic The Vatican has long opposed the use of condoms as a form of contraception
Careful distinctions are the hallmark of Catholic moral reasoning, but they can be a tough sell in a world with little patience for subtlety.
A few carefully qualified words from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms offer proof of the point, as they have been "sexed up" in some commentary as an earthquake in Catholic teaching.
In reality, the Church's broad opposition to artificial birth control has not changed, and there's no indication that it will give way under Benedict XVI, rightly seen as a champion of Catholic orthodoxy.
Instead, Benedict XVI has said in a book-length interview with a German journalist that while condoms are not the solution to the HIV/Aids crisis, there may nevertheless be individual cases where use of a condom can represent the first stirrings of a sense of moral responsibility, if the intent is to save someone's life.
Even then the use a condom is still not the Pope's moral ideal (especially, of course, where the sex takes place outside marriage), but Benedict has said that it can be a step in the right direction - the dawning of awareness that "one cannot do whatever one wants."
Non-binding
In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, "Is it okay to use a condom?" the answer is still supposed to be "No." Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God's plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life.
We're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts”
If the question, however, is, "I'm HIV-positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?" the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say "Yes," while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a "real or moral solution."
In other words, we're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts.
That point needs to be qualified in a couple of important ways.
First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict's language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.
Second, Catholic pastoral counselling on condoms in the context of HIV/Aids has never been quite as absolute as outsiders generally take it to be.
Since the advent of the Aids crisis, many Catholic theologians, and even a few cardinals, have debated whether the use of a condom in some limited circumstances might be tolerated. The usual example is that of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn't, and the intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent infection.
The 'open question'
In recent years, both a Swiss cardinal who served as the theologian of the papal household and a Mexican cardinal who was the Vatican's point man on health care issues have argued in favour of the acceptability of condoms in such cases, while others have demurred.
The Vatican The Vatican has not issued an official statement along the lines of the Pope's comments
It is a classic instance of what Catholic theology calls an "open question," meaning one which has not been officially resolved.
Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal.
In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."
For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope's interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.
Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a "revolution," who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.
John L Allen Jr is the Senior Correspondent for the US-based National Catholic Reporter and author of two books on Pope Benedict XVI.
Merci bids farewell to her readers in BusinessWorld
Opinion
Posted on 08:22 PM, November 23, 2010
Capital View -- By Mercedes B. Suleik
Ave, vale!
Goodbyes are always sweetly painful. I never realized that writing this column had become such a part of me, that when I received the shocking letter from Vergel O. Santos disengaging me from BusinessWorld (along with other columnists, I was made to understand in subsequent e-mails) due to a new editorial policy, I was stupefied. Of course, no mention was made of the criteria by which the selection of "non-retainables" was made clear, only that they were keeping only a few and were opening a new letters section. Okay, ayos lang.
The column was never bread and butter for me, and I suppose if I did not love writing so much, and if I did not then think that this broadsheet was the most objective of all Philippine dailies, I guess I myself would not have persevered.
Leaving another column I had written for -- as faculty member of the De La Salle Graduate School of Economics and Business, for which I was one of the original mainstays of the weekly column "The View from Taft" (together with Dante Sy who took the first Thursday slot, while I did the last Thursday of the month, when faculty members were as yet not quite ready to contribute regularly) -- was not such a wrench. Since I had stopped teaching, and new faculty members were now contributing their articles, I bowed out. It was then that I started doing my own column, "Capital View," thanks to the late Letty Locsin who gave me this opportunity.
Having been for the longest time with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the Central Bank of the Philippines), and later with the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Capital Market Council, and still later as consultant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, my articles generally focused on economic and capital market development. Eventually, having trained on Corporate Governance and becoming a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Philippine counterpart, the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), I turned to my new advocacy -- corporate governance.
My very first article in June 2005 was about the ICD and its efforts to promote corporate governance (CG) among the country’s listed companies, which article was subsequently followed in the succeeding years with discussions on its program for training company directors, the scorecard system it had begun to rate companies in their observance of the CG principles, and cities that had begun to implement their own CG road maps with the help of ICD’s sister organization, the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA). Unforgettable too for me was my second article on the newly installed governor of BSP, Amando Tetangco, Jr. (whose six-year term will end in July 2011, just as I am ending my column after 5-1/2 years) with whom I worked in the Department of Economic Research (DER) of the BSP in the past. Of course I also wrote about one of the icons of the DER, Mrs. Escolastica B. Bince, our former boss who influenced and shaped much of the policies that were advocated by the previous governors of the BSP.
I continued to devote my column to current economic and development issues and topics, including comments on the worst corporate scandals in the United States, which I considered basically the result of greed (referring to the infamous statement of the character Gordon Ghekko of the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good"). I also noted the phenomenon of the "Black Swan" and the theory that many of the unexpected things that occur, including financial debacles, are "black swans" come from the common propensity to think that all swans are white. (I also recall having written about a MAP-FINEX-sponsored meeting with Maria Ressa and Maritess Vitug who spoke on the role of media in the past elections, and when a question came from the audience about why they were not able to predict the outcome of the vice-presidential race, Ms. Vitug said, tongue in cheek, that it was a "black swan event, no pun intended").
I had also written about some of my pet beliefs about the role of media on society, particularly the youth, since it seems to me that the tri-media -- print, radio, and television -- and its latest form, the Internet, has contributed in many ways to the decline of mores in our present age. Violence, the uninhibited emphasis on sex, consumerism, and the glorification of the human body (especially through advertising...and all those offensive billboards) are among those "modern" developments I deplore. Perhaps because I recall that in my youth, society was more family-oriented, and there prevailed respect for Christian beliefs. Moral and proper ways of behavior was the norm, rather than the exception.
And speaking of my youth, I often got teased mercilessly by good friends about in effect revealing my age -- I once wrote about being trapped in a time warp, recalling movies and music in the springtime of my life, as well as writing about going "home" to my school reunions in St. Theresa’s College. Of course, STC was a huge part of my life and formation, and so I also did not hesitate to write about my favorite saint, Teresa of Avila, who in my opinion should be the role model for modern woman, since even in her century, she was the epitome of womanly courage, feistiness, intelligence, and spirituality.
In this connection, I also wrote about the lives of some saints among them: St. Paul, Christianity’s greatest missionary when the Holy Father proclaimed the Pauline year, St. Josemaria Escriva whose teachings about making one’s daily life a means to becoming a saint (with a lower case "s"), following St. Paul’s message about God’s call to universal holiness, and St. John Marie Vianney when the Holy Father again proclaimed a year for the priests, and how it is our duty to pray for them, as they, being human beings like the rest of us, face more difficulties in their efforts to be saints for us. I guess this affection for my faith has also led me to often quoting from the Holy Father’s encyclicals and messages (especially about his take on communication as one of the ways which must be used to form conscience and deflect the evils of wrong communication as well as the emphasis of all our Popes on the sanctity of human life).
This had led me to my strong advocacy for the protection of human life, and the fight against misguided attempts to solve poverty in this country by means of promoting contraception, condoms, and even "justified abortion," the proponents wilfully using twisted economics about over-population to support the RH bill. I had recently written about the "clear and present danger" of this effort, citing fears about how the West, through the United Nations (whose biggest voices are of course Western) is in fact promoting depopulation in the world, especially in developing countries...eugenics revisited, if we must be blunt about it. (I have therefore come to the niggling suspicion that this strong advocacy against the RH bill had anything to do with my being axed? Just asking.)
Of course, in the course of my memorable almost half-decade of this column with this broadsheet, I had occasionally gone on what might be my flights of fancy -- writing about some of the books, poetry, and beautiful encounters with some of the people that have been part of my life. I wrote about one favorite teacher, Sr. Josefina delos Reyes, whom we called our "jo" ( jo meaning sweetheart, after the poem, "John Anderson, my Jo"), my father, Victor E. Balota, in whose memory I had written a book about the lives of the first 12 Filipino-educated mining engineers who called themselves the "dirty dozen," and people I admired (written up in some books published by my friend, Bing Carrion). One of my most favorite columns was one I had written on Francis Thompson’s "The Hound of Heaven," my eternally favorite poem, whose beauty, cadence, and graphic portrayal of our Lord as the relentless lover and pursuer, resonates forever in my heart.
And so I must bid farewell to my dear readers and friends who have faithfully followed my columns, including those who have at one time or another vociferously objected to some of my advocacies. I have appreciated all feedback, positive as well as negative. And certainly, I sincerely thank BusinessWorld for providing me with a venue for my comments. As Shakespeare has said, parting is such sweet sorrow ... Yet, there may well be another morrow. Thank you all, and God bless!
merci.suleik@gmail.com
Posted on 08:22 PM, November 23, 2010
Capital View -- By Mercedes B. Suleik
Ave, vale!
Goodbyes are always sweetly painful. I never realized that writing this column had become such a part of me, that when I received the shocking letter from Vergel O. Santos disengaging me from BusinessWorld (along with other columnists, I was made to understand in subsequent e-mails) due to a new editorial policy, I was stupefied. Of course, no mention was made of the criteria by which the selection of "non-retainables" was made clear, only that they were keeping only a few and were opening a new letters section. Okay, ayos lang.
The column was never bread and butter for me, and I suppose if I did not love writing so much, and if I did not then think that this broadsheet was the most objective of all Philippine dailies, I guess I myself would not have persevered.
Leaving another column I had written for -- as faculty member of the De La Salle Graduate School of Economics and Business, for which I was one of the original mainstays of the weekly column "The View from Taft" (together with Dante Sy who took the first Thursday slot, while I did the last Thursday of the month, when faculty members were as yet not quite ready to contribute regularly) -- was not such a wrench. Since I had stopped teaching, and new faculty members were now contributing their articles, I bowed out. It was then that I started doing my own column, "Capital View," thanks to the late Letty Locsin who gave me this opportunity.
Having been for the longest time with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the Central Bank of the Philippines), and later with the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Capital Market Council, and still later as consultant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, my articles generally focused on economic and capital market development. Eventually, having trained on Corporate Governance and becoming a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Philippine counterpart, the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), I turned to my new advocacy -- corporate governance.
My very first article in June 2005 was about the ICD and its efforts to promote corporate governance (CG) among the country’s listed companies, which article was subsequently followed in the succeeding years with discussions on its program for training company directors, the scorecard system it had begun to rate companies in their observance of the CG principles, and cities that had begun to implement their own CG road maps with the help of ICD’s sister organization, the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA). Unforgettable too for me was my second article on the newly installed governor of BSP, Amando Tetangco, Jr. (whose six-year term will end in July 2011, just as I am ending my column after 5-1/2 years) with whom I worked in the Department of Economic Research (DER) of the BSP in the past. Of course I also wrote about one of the icons of the DER, Mrs. Escolastica B. Bince, our former boss who influenced and shaped much of the policies that were advocated by the previous governors of the BSP.
I continued to devote my column to current economic and development issues and topics, including comments on the worst corporate scandals in the United States, which I considered basically the result of greed (referring to the infamous statement of the character Gordon Ghekko of the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good"). I also noted the phenomenon of the "Black Swan" and the theory that many of the unexpected things that occur, including financial debacles, are "black swans" come from the common propensity to think that all swans are white. (I also recall having written about a MAP-FINEX-sponsored meeting with Maria Ressa and Maritess Vitug who spoke on the role of media in the past elections, and when a question came from the audience about why they were not able to predict the outcome of the vice-presidential race, Ms. Vitug said, tongue in cheek, that it was a "black swan event, no pun intended").
I had also written about some of my pet beliefs about the role of media on society, particularly the youth, since it seems to me that the tri-media -- print, radio, and television -- and its latest form, the Internet, has contributed in many ways to the decline of mores in our present age. Violence, the uninhibited emphasis on sex, consumerism, and the glorification of the human body (especially through advertising...and all those offensive billboards) are among those "modern" developments I deplore. Perhaps because I recall that in my youth, society was more family-oriented, and there prevailed respect for Christian beliefs. Moral and proper ways of behavior was the norm, rather than the exception.
And speaking of my youth, I often got teased mercilessly by good friends about in effect revealing my age -- I once wrote about being trapped in a time warp, recalling movies and music in the springtime of my life, as well as writing about going "home" to my school reunions in St. Theresa’s College. Of course, STC was a huge part of my life and formation, and so I also did not hesitate to write about my favorite saint, Teresa of Avila, who in my opinion should be the role model for modern woman, since even in her century, she was the epitome of womanly courage, feistiness, intelligence, and spirituality.
In this connection, I also wrote about the lives of some saints among them: St. Paul, Christianity’s greatest missionary when the Holy Father proclaimed the Pauline year, St. Josemaria Escriva whose teachings about making one’s daily life a means to becoming a saint (with a lower case "s"), following St. Paul’s message about God’s call to universal holiness, and St. John Marie Vianney when the Holy Father again proclaimed a year for the priests, and how it is our duty to pray for them, as they, being human beings like the rest of us, face more difficulties in their efforts to be saints for us. I guess this affection for my faith has also led me to often quoting from the Holy Father’s encyclicals and messages (especially about his take on communication as one of the ways which must be used to form conscience and deflect the evils of wrong communication as well as the emphasis of all our Popes on the sanctity of human life).
This had led me to my strong advocacy for the protection of human life, and the fight against misguided attempts to solve poverty in this country by means of promoting contraception, condoms, and even "justified abortion," the proponents wilfully using twisted economics about over-population to support the RH bill. I had recently written about the "clear and present danger" of this effort, citing fears about how the West, through the United Nations (whose biggest voices are of course Western) is in fact promoting depopulation in the world, especially in developing countries...eugenics revisited, if we must be blunt about it. (I have therefore come to the niggling suspicion that this strong advocacy against the RH bill had anything to do with my being axed? Just asking.)
Of course, in the course of my memorable almost half-decade of this column with this broadsheet, I had occasionally gone on what might be my flights of fancy -- writing about some of the books, poetry, and beautiful encounters with some of the people that have been part of my life. I wrote about one favorite teacher, Sr. Josefina delos Reyes, whom we called our "jo" ( jo meaning sweetheart, after the poem, "John Anderson, my Jo"), my father, Victor E. Balota, in whose memory I had written a book about the lives of the first 12 Filipino-educated mining engineers who called themselves the "dirty dozen," and people I admired (written up in some books published by my friend, Bing Carrion). One of my most favorite columns was one I had written on Francis Thompson’s "The Hound of Heaven," my eternally favorite poem, whose beauty, cadence, and graphic portrayal of our Lord as the relentless lover and pursuer, resonates forever in my heart.
And so I must bid farewell to my dear readers and friends who have faithfully followed my columns, including those who have at one time or another vociferously objected to some of my advocacies. I have appreciated all feedback, positive as well as negative. And certainly, I sincerely thank BusinessWorld for providing me with a venue for my comments. As Shakespeare has said, parting is such sweet sorrow ... Yet, there may well be another morrow. Thank you all, and God bless!
merci.suleik@gmail.com
Pacquiao Catholic bishops' new 'champ' vs condoms
Pacquiao Catholic bishops' new ‘champ’ vs condoms
11/24/2010 | 09:01 AM
To the world, he is a boxing champ but Sarangani Rep. Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao has become a new champion of sorts for Catholic bishops as well.
Pacquiao received praise from retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz for remaining firm on his stand against artificial contraception.
“I was amused and I admired his courage for saying what he believes in. I think the man is very much conscious with his relationship with God and the Church," Cruz said in an article posted on Wednesday on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
Cruz was referring to Pacquiao’s statement on Monday where he said he is for natural family planning, particularly abstinence.
In that interview, Pacquiao urged couples to control their sexual urges because condoms and abortions are sinful.
“Magtiis tayo, dapat may pagtitiis tayo. Makasalanan yung paggamit ng condom at pagpapalaglag ng bata (We should control ourselves. Condoms and abortions are sinful)," he said.
He also said there is nothing in the Bible that tells parents to limit their children to two.
“Why not teach them? If a family doesn’t want a lot of children, they should abstain. It’s a sin to use a condom. It’s a sin to have an abortion because you can’t have a baby," he said.
The People's Champ
Aside from the recent victory over Margarito, Pacquiao had won the World Boxing Council (WBC) Flyweight Champion in 1998-1999; International Boxing Federation (IBF) Super Bantamweight Champion in 2001-2004; RING Featherweight Champion in 2003-2005; WBC and RING Super Featherweight Champion in 2008; and WBC Lightweight Champion, 2008-2009.
He is also the current champion of the International Boxing Organization (IBO) and RING Junior Welterweight Champion as well as in the World Boxing Organization, and reigning World Boxing Organization (WBO) Welterweight Champion.
Pacquiao’s record in the ring now stands at 57 fights, of which 52 are wins (38 by way of knockout), three losses, and two draws.
Bishop: Do not distort Pope's message
In an earlier CBCP report, Cruz encouraged the public not to distort the Pope's message.
“When we argue let’s not take half-truths because we will lose that way. I’m sorry to disappoint people who are hoping otherwise," he said.
Cruz lamented that some individuals were distorting the Pope’s statement to advance their own interests.
“Our only appeal is that for them to just stick with the truth…" he said.
A CBCP report quoted Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ramon Carandang as saying the Palace is hoping that the local Catholic hierarchy would follow the Vatican because “they cannot be more popish than the pope."
“That’s a good step. I think our own clergy should be informed by the views of the Vatican because they’ve always referred to the Vatican when they stated their position, now that the Vatican’s position is such then I think that should result in a corresponding flexibility on the part of our Church," Carandang said.
Pope still against contraceptives
Fr. Joel Jason, head of the Manila Archdiocese’s Commission on Family and Life, said the pope remains firm on the Church’s stand against contraceptives.
He said the Pope only said that when male prostitutes use condoms, it could be a sign that they are starting to realize that it is not right to have sex without thinking of the consequences.
Jason noted that the Pope said abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope also said sex is not a drug intended for pleasure.
“They (pro-RH) respect the pope but our concern is that they are acting upon a misconception. We are hoping that they listen to corrections," Jason said.
“We tend to take things out of context… before they make a conclusion they should first get the whole context of what the Holy Father really said," he added.
Jason is the Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe in Makati City and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics.
Jason said the church is still firm in its position that AIDS must be fought through moral fidelity and sexual abstinence.
“Risk reduction is not even an option. Let’s not take the minimal option but the maximum option. Let’s not take condom as a solution," Jason added.
“Thorough infidelity and abstinence, there’s no way you can get AIDS if you practice these," he said.
Prolife groups reiterate stance vs RH bill
Meanwhile, prolife groups reiterated their stance against the RH bill in Congress.
The group "Couples for Christ" said the bill that aims to give free access to contraceptives violates the right to life and the Constitution.
“Thus, we say no to contraceptives and yes to natural family planning," said CFC chairman Joe Tale in a statement posted on the CBCP news site.
“Parents have the primary right and responsibility in rearing up their children. We thus say no to compulsory sex education in schools," he added.
He also insisted that population is not the cause of poverty but “greed, corruption and bad governance."
The CFC also voiced support for House Bill 13 filed by Rep. Roilo Golez and Senate Bill 2497 authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, which seek “to protect the rights of the unborn."
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
Drive vs artificial contraception
The Catholic Church’s drive against artificial contraception received flak from reproductive health (RH) advocates after a news report quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying condom use by certain people, such as male prostitutes, may be a step toward a more responsible sexuality.
An Associated Press (AP) article on Sunday quoted the Pope as saying that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS but in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
The Pope, however, also reiterated the Church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope made the statement in response to a German journalist's general question about Africa, where heterosexual HIV spread is rampant.
The Pope's comment will be published in a book entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times."
A matter of exceptions
Proponents of the RH bill said the Pope's statements reflect a shift in Church policy on artificial contraception.
However, according to the AP article, Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican's longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, said the Pope's stand pertains only to cases where condom use "is the only way to save a life."
Quoting Sgreccia on the Italian news agency ANSA, the AP report said the Pope's stand on the condom issue was "in the realm of the exceptional."
"If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted ... and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated," Sgreccia said.
In the same AP report, Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said the Pope was clearly not encouraging condom use.
"I think the pope has been very strong in saying condoms do not solve the problem of morality and do not solve the problem of good sex education. But if a person chooses not to follow the teaching of Christ in the church, they are at least obliged to prevent another person from contracting a disease that is deadly," he said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
11/24/2010 | 09:01 AM
To the world, he is a boxing champ but Sarangani Rep. Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao has become a new champion of sorts for Catholic bishops as well.
Pacquiao received praise from retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz for remaining firm on his stand against artificial contraception.
“I was amused and I admired his courage for saying what he believes in. I think the man is very much conscious with his relationship with God and the Church," Cruz said in an article posted on Wednesday on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
Cruz was referring to Pacquiao’s statement on Monday where he said he is for natural family planning, particularly abstinence.
In that interview, Pacquiao urged couples to control their sexual urges because condoms and abortions are sinful.
“Magtiis tayo, dapat may pagtitiis tayo. Makasalanan yung paggamit ng condom at pagpapalaglag ng bata (We should control ourselves. Condoms and abortions are sinful)," he said.
He also said there is nothing in the Bible that tells parents to limit their children to two.
“Why not teach them? If a family doesn’t want a lot of children, they should abstain. It’s a sin to use a condom. It’s a sin to have an abortion because you can’t have a baby," he said.
The People's Champ
Aside from the recent victory over Margarito, Pacquiao had won the World Boxing Council (WBC) Flyweight Champion in 1998-1999; International Boxing Federation (IBF) Super Bantamweight Champion in 2001-2004; RING Featherweight Champion in 2003-2005; WBC and RING Super Featherweight Champion in 2008; and WBC Lightweight Champion, 2008-2009.
He is also the current champion of the International Boxing Organization (IBO) and RING Junior Welterweight Champion as well as in the World Boxing Organization, and reigning World Boxing Organization (WBO) Welterweight Champion.
Pacquiao’s record in the ring now stands at 57 fights, of which 52 are wins (38 by way of knockout), three losses, and two draws.
Bishop: Do not distort Pope's message
In an earlier CBCP report, Cruz encouraged the public not to distort the Pope's message.
“When we argue let’s not take half-truths because we will lose that way. I’m sorry to disappoint people who are hoping otherwise," he said.
Cruz lamented that some individuals were distorting the Pope’s statement to advance their own interests.
“Our only appeal is that for them to just stick with the truth…" he said.
A CBCP report quoted Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ramon Carandang as saying the Palace is hoping that the local Catholic hierarchy would follow the Vatican because “they cannot be more popish than the pope."
“That’s a good step. I think our own clergy should be informed by the views of the Vatican because they’ve always referred to the Vatican when they stated their position, now that the Vatican’s position is such then I think that should result in a corresponding flexibility on the part of our Church," Carandang said.
Pope still against contraceptives
Fr. Joel Jason, head of the Manila Archdiocese’s Commission on Family and Life, said the pope remains firm on the Church’s stand against contraceptives.
He said the Pope only said that when male prostitutes use condoms, it could be a sign that they are starting to realize that it is not right to have sex without thinking of the consequences.
Jason noted that the Pope said abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope also said sex is not a drug intended for pleasure.
“They (pro-RH) respect the pope but our concern is that they are acting upon a misconception. We are hoping that they listen to corrections," Jason said.
“We tend to take things out of context… before they make a conclusion they should first get the whole context of what the Holy Father really said," he added.
Jason is the Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe in Makati City and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics.
Jason said the church is still firm in its position that AIDS must be fought through moral fidelity and sexual abstinence.
“Risk reduction is not even an option. Let’s not take the minimal option but the maximum option. Let’s not take condom as a solution," Jason added.
“Thorough infidelity and abstinence, there’s no way you can get AIDS if you practice these," he said.
Prolife groups reiterate stance vs RH bill
Meanwhile, prolife groups reiterated their stance against the RH bill in Congress.
The group "Couples for Christ" said the bill that aims to give free access to contraceptives violates the right to life and the Constitution.
“Thus, we say no to contraceptives and yes to natural family planning," said CFC chairman Joe Tale in a statement posted on the CBCP news site.
“Parents have the primary right and responsibility in rearing up their children. We thus say no to compulsory sex education in schools," he added.
He also insisted that population is not the cause of poverty but “greed, corruption and bad governance."
The CFC also voiced support for House Bill 13 filed by Rep. Roilo Golez and Senate Bill 2497 authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, which seek “to protect the rights of the unborn."
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
Drive vs artificial contraception
The Catholic Church’s drive against artificial contraception received flak from reproductive health (RH) advocates after a news report quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying condom use by certain people, such as male prostitutes, may be a step toward a more responsible sexuality.
An Associated Press (AP) article on Sunday quoted the Pope as saying that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS but in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
The Pope, however, also reiterated the Church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope made the statement in response to a German journalist's general question about Africa, where heterosexual HIV spread is rampant.
The Pope's comment will be published in a book entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times."
A matter of exceptions
Proponents of the RH bill said the Pope's statements reflect a shift in Church policy on artificial contraception.
However, according to the AP article, Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican's longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, said the Pope's stand pertains only to cases where condom use "is the only way to save a life."
Quoting Sgreccia on the Italian news agency ANSA, the AP report said the Pope's stand on the condom issue was "in the realm of the exceptional."
"If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted ... and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated," Sgreccia said.
In the same AP report, Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said the Pope was clearly not encouraging condom use.
"I think the pope has been very strong in saying condoms do not solve the problem of morality and do not solve the problem of good sex education. But if a person chooses not to follow the teaching of Christ in the church, they are at least obliged to prevent another person from contracting a disease that is deadly," he said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
RH bill faces uphill climb at Lower House
RH bill faces uphill climb at Lower House
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/10/rh-bill-faces-uphill-climb-lower-house
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 11/24/2010 3:52 PM | Updated as of 11/24/2010 3:52 PM
Tweet
MANILA, Philippines - The controversial Reproductive Health Bill faces an uphill climb in the House of Representatives after a lawmaker said he will not expedite deliberations on the reproductive health legislation.
Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, chair of the House committee on population and family relations, said he has not received instructions from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to expedite deliberations on the RH bill despite the latter's statement that bills on 2nd reading in the 14th Congress should be fast-tracked.
“Wala pong ganung directive to me. Wala pang instruction sa akin, I don’t know with sponsors, but as chairman of the committee, wala. Hindi po natin magagawa yun. Gusto po natin malaman lahat ng sides and mahirap naman na iharap yan sa ating mga kababayan na hindi talaga napag-usapan kung ano talaga ang nilalaman ng bills na ito," he told reporters.
Espina said the committee will consult all stakeholders before they consolidate 6 different reproductive health bills pending in the Lower House. This is despite the repetitive nature of the debates, rehashing issues already discussed in the last Congress.
”Actually may ibang positions na bago. Although it was discussed regarding population management bills, reproductive health bills, two decades ago na nag-start yun, 8th congress pa pero on this 15th congress may changes sa data and presentations of various stakeholders”
Espina says they cannot commit to submit a consolidated bill to plenary anytime soon.
The House committee on population and family relations spent 4 hours on Wednesday hearing speeches from various reproductive health stakeholders ranging from religious groups, women’s groups, medical groups and even government offices like the justice and social welfare departments.
One religious group, Apostles of Mary, brought out a small statuette of St Joseph to implore the power of the saint to block the passage of the RH bill.
The Committee spent almost its whole 1st hour discussing whether or not the committee has jurisdiction over the bill. Anti-RH lawmakers such as Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez both argued the more appropriate committee would be the Committee on Health because it is about reproductive health and the lead implementing agency would be the health department.
'Bad feng shui'
Garcia said the RH bills must have had bad feng shui in the health committee, which is why it was taken away from the committee on health. He said the population committee may want to consider tackling this jointly with the health committee.
"Now I’m going to say this transfer of referral was premeditated to change real intention…Perhaps it was thought this is more defensible less difficult to defend if it is a population measure…But it is not defensible as a health issue because the World Health Organization issued an advisory that contraceptives are carcinogenic materials and substances," he said.
Golez said the population committee could be mismatched when faced by the resource persons.
Minority Leader and RH bill author Edcel Lagman rebutted them, saying the bill would be more germane to the population committee since it is more about population control and family planning.
"This bill is basically a population bill and a family planning measure..Whereas jurisdiction of the committee on health is very generic. It says all matter relating to public health," he said.
RP 12th most populous country
Lagman asserted the need for the RH law since the Philippines is now the 12th most populous country in the world. He said 54% of women don’t want additional child, 49% of women don’t use family planning and 22% of women have unmet need for family planning services.
Lagman said at the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice as neither Church nor state has any place to tell people what to do on reproductive health.
He said that unless the committee chairman asks the rules committee to reconsider the referral to his committee, the RH bills stays in this committee.
For his part, Espina said there were no objections when the bill was referred to his committee by the plenary. He then ruled to just let the Rules Committee decide upon the jurisdiction upon the motion of the protesting lawmakers. However, Espina continued the debates.
Garcia said it was not correct to say the change of referral cannot be initiated by the house in plenary. "A motion can be filed, I will concede it will also be referred to committee on population but it must be jointly referred," he said.
Espina and Golez figured in a light moment when the former looked for a spokesperson for the pope and Golez responded by saying religious leaders should not be mocked.
Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairwoman of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, said the debate on jurisdiction was a dilatory tactic.
She said the RH bill would be doomed if it is referred to the health committee since many of its members are against the measure.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/10/rh-bill-faces-uphill-climb-lower-house
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 11/24/2010 3:52 PM | Updated as of 11/24/2010 3:52 PM
Tweet
MANILA, Philippines - The controversial Reproductive Health Bill faces an uphill climb in the House of Representatives after a lawmaker said he will not expedite deliberations on the reproductive health legislation.
Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, chair of the House committee on population and family relations, said he has not received instructions from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to expedite deliberations on the RH bill despite the latter's statement that bills on 2nd reading in the 14th Congress should be fast-tracked.
“Wala pong ganung directive to me. Wala pang instruction sa akin, I don’t know with sponsors, but as chairman of the committee, wala. Hindi po natin magagawa yun. Gusto po natin malaman lahat ng sides and mahirap naman na iharap yan sa ating mga kababayan na hindi talaga napag-usapan kung ano talaga ang nilalaman ng bills na ito," he told reporters.
Espina said the committee will consult all stakeholders before they consolidate 6 different reproductive health bills pending in the Lower House. This is despite the repetitive nature of the debates, rehashing issues already discussed in the last Congress.
”Actually may ibang positions na bago. Although it was discussed regarding population management bills, reproductive health bills, two decades ago na nag-start yun, 8th congress pa pero on this 15th congress may changes sa data and presentations of various stakeholders”
Espina says they cannot commit to submit a consolidated bill to plenary anytime soon.
The House committee on population and family relations spent 4 hours on Wednesday hearing speeches from various reproductive health stakeholders ranging from religious groups, women’s groups, medical groups and even government offices like the justice and social welfare departments.
One religious group, Apostles of Mary, brought out a small statuette of St Joseph to implore the power of the saint to block the passage of the RH bill.
The Committee spent almost its whole 1st hour discussing whether or not the committee has jurisdiction over the bill. Anti-RH lawmakers such as Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez both argued the more appropriate committee would be the Committee on Health because it is about reproductive health and the lead implementing agency would be the health department.
'Bad feng shui'
Garcia said the RH bills must have had bad feng shui in the health committee, which is why it was taken away from the committee on health. He said the population committee may want to consider tackling this jointly with the health committee.
"Now I’m going to say this transfer of referral was premeditated to change real intention…Perhaps it was thought this is more defensible less difficult to defend if it is a population measure…But it is not defensible as a health issue because the World Health Organization issued an advisory that contraceptives are carcinogenic materials and substances," he said.
Golez said the population committee could be mismatched when faced by the resource persons.
Minority Leader and RH bill author Edcel Lagman rebutted them, saying the bill would be more germane to the population committee since it is more about population control and family planning.
"This bill is basically a population bill and a family planning measure..Whereas jurisdiction of the committee on health is very generic. It says all matter relating to public health," he said.
RP 12th most populous country
Lagman asserted the need for the RH law since the Philippines is now the 12th most populous country in the world. He said 54% of women don’t want additional child, 49% of women don’t use family planning and 22% of women have unmet need for family planning services.
Lagman said at the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice as neither Church nor state has any place to tell people what to do on reproductive health.
He said that unless the committee chairman asks the rules committee to reconsider the referral to his committee, the RH bills stays in this committee.
For his part, Espina said there were no objections when the bill was referred to his committee by the plenary. He then ruled to just let the Rules Committee decide upon the jurisdiction upon the motion of the protesting lawmakers. However, Espina continued the debates.
Garcia said it was not correct to say the change of referral cannot be initiated by the house in plenary. "A motion can be filed, I will concede it will also be referred to committee on population but it must be jointly referred," he said.
Espina and Golez figured in a light moment when the former looked for a spokesperson for the pope and Golez responded by saying religious leaders should not be mocked.
Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairwoman of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, said the debate on jurisdiction was a dilatory tactic.
She said the RH bill would be doomed if it is referred to the health committee since many of its members are against the measure.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Call to Vigil for Nascent Human Life
My dear FRIENDS,
Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on earth, is calling you, your family and all your acquaintances to this unprecedented vigil for nascent human life, life that is just beginning to exist and develop.
It is a vigil to save the youngest human beings, the youngest children of our nation. These beloved babies are now threatened by the worst evil that can endanger this nation: a proposed law, the RH Bill, that will enforce the nationwide distribution of devices that include scientifically proven abortifacients, devices that truly kill young human beings.
MY DEAR FRIENDS, IF THERE IS TIME TO ACT AND FIGHT,
IT IS NOW!!!
Let us show our leaders that there are thousands of staunch men and women of goodwill who will rise up to save our babies, to save women from cancer-causing drugs, and to stop the spread of grave sexual immorality that goes with a contraceptive lifestyle.
Let us rise up and protect our children, our families, the morality and spirituality of our nation, and the very existence of the Catholic Church in this country.
This Saturday, let us heed the voice of the Vicar of Christ. Let us be active pro-life and pro-family citizens of our democracy, this government by the Filipino people, of the Filipino people, and for the Filipino people, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.
By being together and praying together, we stop the great evil that threatens to explode upon us.
Be there. And bring as many people as you can. Bring thousands!
Call on them. Now!
[if you intend to forward this, you may put in your name in personally inviting your friends]
Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on earth, is calling you, your family and all your acquaintances to this unprecedented vigil for nascent human life, life that is just beginning to exist and develop.
It is a vigil to save the youngest human beings, the youngest children of our nation. These beloved babies are now threatened by the worst evil that can endanger this nation: a proposed law, the RH Bill, that will enforce the nationwide distribution of devices that include scientifically proven abortifacients, devices that truly kill young human beings.
MY DEAR FRIENDS, IF THERE IS TIME TO ACT AND FIGHT,
IT IS NOW!!!
Let us show our leaders that there are thousands of staunch men and women of goodwill who will rise up to save our babies, to save women from cancer-causing drugs, and to stop the spread of grave sexual immorality that goes with a contraceptive lifestyle.
Let us rise up and protect our children, our families, the morality and spirituality of our nation, and the very existence of the Catholic Church in this country.
This Saturday, let us heed the voice of the Vicar of Christ. Let us be active pro-life and pro-family citizens of our democracy, this government by the Filipino people, of the Filipino people, and for the Filipino people, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.
By being together and praying together, we stop the great evil that threatens to explode upon us.
Be there. And bring as many people as you can. Bring thousands!
Call on them. Now!
[if you intend to forward this, you may put in your name in personally inviting your friends]
Holy Father Urges Participation in Pro-Life Vigil
Holy Father Urges Participation in Pro-Life Vigil
VATICAN CITY, (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is calling on all Catholics to join in a Vigil for All Nascent Human Life, to be celebrated in local parishes and dioceses Nov. 27.
The Pope will celebrate the vigil in St. Peter's Basilica on the eve of the First Sunday of Advent, and is requesting "all diocesan bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements."
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments and the Pontifical Council for the Family collaborated in creating an outline for the vigil.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, highlighted the "unprecedented" nature of this request from the Pontiff.
The prelate said, "I heartily encourage all Catholics... to take part in this special prayer."
He noted that the purpose "according to the Holy See is to 'thank the Lord for his total self-giving to the world and for his Incarnation which gave every human life its real worth and dignity,' and to 'invoke the Lord's protection over every human being called into existence.'"
Cardinal DiNardo affirmed, "Becoming a voice for the child in the womb, and for the embryonic human being... is one of many ways we can teach our fellow citizens that 'The Measure of Love is to Love Without Measure.'"
VATICAN CITY, (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is calling on all Catholics to join in a Vigil for All Nascent Human Life, to be celebrated in local parishes and dioceses Nov. 27.
The Pope will celebrate the vigil in St. Peter's Basilica on the eve of the First Sunday of Advent, and is requesting "all diocesan bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements."
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments and the Pontifical Council for the Family collaborated in creating an outline for the vigil.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, highlighted the "unprecedented" nature of this request from the Pontiff.
The prelate said, "I heartily encourage all Catholics... to take part in this special prayer."
He noted that the purpose "according to the Holy See is to 'thank the Lord for his total self-giving to the world and for his Incarnation which gave every human life its real worth and dignity,' and to 'invoke the Lord's protection over every human being called into existence.'"
Cardinal DiNardo affirmed, "Becoming a voice for the child in the womb, and for the embryonic human being... is one of many ways we can teach our fellow citizens that 'The Measure of Love is to Love Without Measure.'"
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???
The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???
Share by Jimmy Akin Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:09 PM Comments (68)
Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times, isn’t even officially out yet but is already at the center of an online media controversy.
The controversy erupted Saturday morning when L’Osservatore Romano unilaterally violated the embargo on the book by publishing Italian-language extracts of various papal statements, much to the chagrin of publishers around the world, who had been working on a carefully orchestrated launch for the book on Tuesday.
Among the extracts was one dealing with the use of condoms in trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and the press immediately seized on this (e.g., Reuters, Associated Press , BBC online).
And so we were treated to headlines like:
* Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS
* Pope: condoms can be justified in some cases
* Pope says condoms can be used in the fight against AIDS
Particularly egregious is this statement by William Crawley of the BBC:
Pope Benedict appears to have changed the Vatican’s official stance on the use of condoms to a moral position that many Catholic theologians have been recommending for quite some time.
GAH!
Okay, first of all, this is an interview book. The pope is being interviewed. He is not engaging his official teaching capacity. This book is not an encyclical, an apostolic constitution, a papal bull, or anything of the kind. It is not published by the Church. It is an interview conducted by a German-language journalist. Consequently, the book does not represent an act of the Church’s Magisterium and does not have the capacity to “change[] the Vatican’s official stance” on anything. It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force. The book (which is fascinating and unprecedented, though that’s a subject for another post) constitutes the Pope’s personal opinions on the questions he is asked by interviewer Peter Seewald.
And, as Pope Benedict himself notes in the book:
It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong.
I don’t point this out to suggest that what Pope Benedict says regarding condoms is wrong (we’ll get to that in a moment) but to point out the status of private papal opinions. They are just that: private opinions. Not official Church teaching. So let’s get that straight.
Among the disservices L’Osservatore Romano performed by breaking the book’s embargo in the way it did was the fact that it only published a small part of the section in which Pope Benedict discussed condoms. As a result, the reader could not see the context of his remarks, giving the reader no way to see the context and guaranteeing that the secular press would take the Pope’s remarks out of context (which they would have anyway, but perhaps not this much). Especially egregious is the fact that L’Osservatore Romano omits material in which Benedict clarified his statement on condoms in a follow-up question.
So L’Osservatore Romano has performed a great disservice to both the Catholic and non-Catholic communities.
Fortunately, now you can read the full text of the Pope’s remarks.
Also, in anticipation of the controversy that these statement would produce, Dr. Janet Smith has prepared a helpful guide to what the Pope did and did not say.
Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.
Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.
Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:
1) People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.
2) The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.
3) The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.
So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:
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. [EMPHASIS ADDED]
There are several things to note here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”
In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,
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.
At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).
Second, note that the Pope immediately follows his statement regarding homosexual prostitutes using condoms with the statement, “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.”
By “a humanization of sexuality,” the Pope means recognizing the truth about human sexuality—that it must be exercised in a loving, faithful way between a man and a woman united in matrimony. That is the real solution, not putting on a condom and engaging in promiscuous sex with those infected with a deadly virus.
At this point in the interview, Seewald asks a follow-up question, and it is truly criminal that L’Osservatore Romano did not print this part:
Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict: 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.
So Benedict reiterates that this is not a real (practical) solution to the AIDS crisis, nor is it a moral solution. Nevertheless, in some cases the use of a condom displays “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” which is “a first step in a movement toward . . . a more human way of living sexuality.”
He thus isn’t saying that the use of condoms is justified but that they can display a particular intent and that this intent is a step in the right direction.
Janet Smith provides a helpful analogy:
If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.
There is more that can be said about all this, but what we’ve already seen makes it clear that the Pope’s remarks must be read carefully and that they do not constitute the kind of license for condom use that the media would wish.
More to come.
Share by Jimmy Akin Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:09 PM Comments (68)
Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and The Signs Of The Times, isn’t even officially out yet but is already at the center of an online media controversy.
The controversy erupted Saturday morning when L’Osservatore Romano unilaterally violated the embargo on the book by publishing Italian-language extracts of various papal statements, much to the chagrin of publishers around the world, who had been working on a carefully orchestrated launch for the book on Tuesday.
Among the extracts was one dealing with the use of condoms in trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and the press immediately seized on this (e.g., Reuters, Associated Press , BBC online).
And so we were treated to headlines like:
* Pope says condoms sometimes permissible to stop AIDS
* Pope: condoms can be justified in some cases
* Pope says condoms can be used in the fight against AIDS
Particularly egregious is this statement by William Crawley of the BBC:
Pope Benedict appears to have changed the Vatican’s official stance on the use of condoms to a moral position that many Catholic theologians have been recommending for quite some time.
GAH!
Okay, first of all, this is an interview book. The pope is being interviewed. He is not engaging his official teaching capacity. This book is not an encyclical, an apostolic constitution, a papal bull, or anything of the kind. It is not published by the Church. It is an interview conducted by a German-language journalist. Consequently, the book does not represent an act of the Church’s Magisterium and does not have the capacity to “change[] the Vatican’s official stance” on anything. It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force. The book (which is fascinating and unprecedented, though that’s a subject for another post) constitutes the Pope’s personal opinions on the questions he is asked by interviewer Peter Seewald.
And, as Pope Benedict himself notes in the book:
It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong.
I don’t point this out to suggest that what Pope Benedict says regarding condoms is wrong (we’ll get to that in a moment) but to point out the status of private papal opinions. They are just that: private opinions. Not official Church teaching. So let’s get that straight.
Among the disservices L’Osservatore Romano performed by breaking the book’s embargo in the way it did was the fact that it only published a small part of the section in which Pope Benedict discussed condoms. As a result, the reader could not see the context of his remarks, giving the reader no way to see the context and guaranteeing that the secular press would take the Pope’s remarks out of context (which they would have anyway, but perhaps not this much). Especially egregious is the fact that L’Osservatore Romano omits material in which Benedict clarified his statement on condoms in a follow-up question.
So L’Osservatore Romano has performed a great disservice to both the Catholic and non-Catholic communities.
Fortunately, now you can read the full text of the Pope’s remarks.
Also, in anticipation of the controversy that these statement would produce, Dr. Janet Smith has prepared a helpful guide to what the Pope did and did not say.
Let’s look at the Pope’s remarks and see what he actually said.
Seewald: . . . In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.
Benedict: . . . In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. [EMPHASIS ADDED] Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
Note that the Pope’s overall argument is that condoms will not solve the problem of AIDS. In support of this, he makes several arguments:
1) People can already get condoms, yet it clearly hasn’t solved the problem.
2) The secular realm has proposed the ABC program, where a condom is used only if the first two, truly effective procedures (abstinence and fidelity) have been rejected. Thus even the secular ABC proposal recognizes that condoms are not the unique solution. They don’t work as well as abstinence and fidelity. The first two are better.
3) The fixation on condom use represents a banalization (trivialization) of sexuality that turns the act from being one of love to one of selfishness. For sex to have the positive role it is meant to play, this trivialization of sex—and thus the fixation on condoms—needs to be resisted.
So that’s the background to the statement that the press seized on:
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. [EMPHASIS ADDED]
There are several things to note here: First, note that the Pope says that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals,” not that there is a basis. This is the language of speculation. But what is the Pope speculating about? That condom use is morally justified? No, that’s not what he’s said: that there may be cases “where this [condom use] can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way to recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed.”
In other words, as Janet Smith puts it,
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.
At least this is the most one can reasonably infer from the Pope’s remarks, which could be phrased more clearly (and I expect the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon).
Second, note that the Pope immediately follows his statement regarding homosexual prostitutes using condoms with the statement, “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.”
By “a humanization of sexuality,” the Pope means recognizing the truth about human sexuality—that it must be exercised in a loving, faithful way between a man and a woman united in matrimony. That is the real solution, not putting on a condom and engaging in promiscuous sex with those infected with a deadly virus.
At this point in the interview, Seewald asks a follow-up question, and it is truly criminal that L’Osservatore Romano did not print this part:
Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict: 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.
So Benedict reiterates that this is not a real (practical) solution to the AIDS crisis, nor is it a moral solution. Nevertheless, in some cases the use of a condom displays “the intention of reducing the risk of infection” which is “a first step in a movement toward . . . a more human way of living sexuality.”
He thus isn’t saying that the use of condoms is justified but that they can display a particular intent and that this intent is a step in the right direction.
Janet Smith provides a helpful analogy:
If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.
There is more that can be said about all this, but what we’ve already seen makes it clear that the Pope’s remarks must be read carefully and that they do not constitute the kind of license for condom use that the media would wish.
More to come.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases'
Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases': book
AFP - Sunday, November 21
BERLIN (AFP) - – Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.
In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."
"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.
"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," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.
The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.
Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.
Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.
"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.
"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."
Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. "More must happen," he said.
"Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug."
Other than condoms, the book, set to be translated into 18 languages, addresses many other sensitive issues, including the paedophile priest scandals, celibacy and female ordination.
Concerning the paedophile scandal that has rocked Benedict's native Germany as well as other countries around the world, the pope said he was "deeply shocked" by it.
Benedict raised the possibility of a "sincere" dialogue with Islam, adding that a controversial speech he gave on the subject was an attempt at an academic discourse rather than a political lecture.
In a September 2006 speech in Regensburg in his native Bavaria, the pope provoked outrage among sections of the Muslim community for appearing to question the rational basis of Islam and associating it with violence.
Benedict also criticised a French law banning Muslim women from wearing full-face veils such as the burqa and the niqab in public.
"Some women do not wear the burqa entirely voluntarily and it is correct to talk of a violation against that woman. Of course one cannot agree with that," he said.
"But if they want to wear it voluntarily, I don't know why one must ban them.
The new book is the first collection of interviews with the pontiff since the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became pope in April 2005.
Seewald asked more than 90 questions on three major themes during conversations conducted July 26-31 at the pope's summer residence in the Italian town of Castel Gandolfo.
The pontiff also discusses the case of the Holocaust-denying bishop Roger Williamson, the danger of a schism in the Church and the possibility of a Vatican III Council on Church reforms, which has for now been put off.
A former communist, Seewald became Catholic after meeting Cardinal Ratzinger, with whom he produced two earlier volumes of interviews.
AFP - Sunday, November 21
BERLIN (AFP) - – Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.
In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."
"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.
"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," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.
The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.
Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.
Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.
"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.
"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."
Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. "More must happen," he said.
"Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug."
Other than condoms, the book, set to be translated into 18 languages, addresses many other sensitive issues, including the paedophile priest scandals, celibacy and female ordination.
Concerning the paedophile scandal that has rocked Benedict's native Germany as well as other countries around the world, the pope said he was "deeply shocked" by it.
Benedict raised the possibility of a "sincere" dialogue with Islam, adding that a controversial speech he gave on the subject was an attempt at an academic discourse rather than a political lecture.
In a September 2006 speech in Regensburg in his native Bavaria, the pope provoked outrage among sections of the Muslim community for appearing to question the rational basis of Islam and associating it with violence.
Benedict also criticised a French law banning Muslim women from wearing full-face veils such as the burqa and the niqab in public.
"Some women do not wear the burqa entirely voluntarily and it is correct to talk of a violation against that woman. Of course one cannot agree with that," he said.
"But if they want to wear it voluntarily, I don't know why one must ban them.
The new book is the first collection of interviews with the pontiff since the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became pope in April 2005.
Seewald asked more than 90 questions on three major themes during conversations conducted July 26-31 at the pope's summer residence in the Italian town of Castel Gandolfo.
The pontiff also discusses the case of the Holocaust-denying bishop Roger Williamson, the danger of a schism in the Church and the possibility of a Vatican III Council on Church reforms, which has for now been put off.
A former communist, Seewald became Catholic after meeting Cardinal Ratzinger, with whom he produced two earlier volumes of interviews.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Subject: RH bill supporters are morally 'lost' - Cardinal Rosales
Subject: RH bill supporters are morally ‘lost’—Cardinal Rosales
Cardinal Rosales' evaluation of the pro-RH legislators is probably the strongest expression of disapproval of the RH Bills in recent months. It is not just a commentary on some lawmakers. Notice that sapul din si Noy. But if Belmonte, Garin, Lagman and gang truly believe in the separation of Church and State, why should they be so touchy about what Church leaders say to their congregations? It was a homily given to Catholics. Hindi naman sila ang kausap ni Cardinal, di ba?
There is also the principle of freedom of speech and worship. To lament the deformed consciences of national leaders is not name-calling. It is a legitimate perception from someone who is competent about conscience. And that the expression of that perception is the right and prerogative of any citizen, especially when there is a danger to the common good. By merely issuing a clear pastoral observation, the Cardinal has not violated any moral or legal precept, and has in no way engaged in name-calling. If some politicians feel alluded to, that's their problem. If you listen carefully, Rosales' remarks are actually kind. He did not call them evil, but just lost -- the ones Jesus Christ precisely came to save (Mt18:11; Lk19:10).
NB: And if some Catholic dissenters are crying ouch, then maybe they should rethink their "talking points", kasi sapul din sila. Rosales is an alumnus of the Jesuit-run San Jose Seminary (for diocesans) -- but he graduated before theological dissent became fashionable. He is well aware that his loyalty to the Church should exceed his loyalty to his alma mater.
The evidence shows that Belmonte is not neutral at all. He had been consistently pro-RH as Mayor of QC. He and the pro-RH gang can always wash their hands and say "We see nothing wrong with the Bill". If they railroad the RH deliberations, they will only prove Cardinal Rosales right. And if it is blocked in the Senate, the shame that will befall them may translate into (1) a political shellacking, and/or (2) diminished FP/RH payolas and perks from their paymasters, or (3) a career knockout. If they feel threatened, then they should listen to their fears. If they are hurting, they should listen to their pain. It is the same valid fear and pain that President Marcos felt once upon a time.
Again, the USGov't, Council of Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg liberals will not take this sitting down. Why do you think they're bringing the "other" Clinton into town? Clinton's poking his bill on Filipinos reminds us of the dark side of the Liberation of Manila. Watch closely and take note of who will snuggle up to Uncle Bill. Make no mistake about it: both Bills -- Clinton and the RH one -- are bad news. Strip down the flower talking and you will find both Bills worthy of a thick shellacking.
Pro-RH is driven more by mammon than by conviction. Pro-life is driven more by faith than money. Multiplying both sides of the equation by the same factor, the conflict comes down to Mammon vs. Faith. You cannot serve both, as dissenters and compromisors are wont do (Mt6:24). If we choose to serve Faith, let us do so well. If Faith can turn lepers clean, then by God, it can turn even our adversaries into friends. And amidst the whirl of events, let us pro-lifers focus on the particular mission that the Spirit of Life has whispered to us daily, both in the silence of our hearts, and in the din work.
Z
Cardinal Rosales' evaluation of the pro-RH legislators is probably the strongest expression of disapproval of the RH Bills in recent months. It is not just a commentary on some lawmakers. Notice that sapul din si Noy. But if Belmonte, Garin, Lagman and gang truly believe in the separation of Church and State, why should they be so touchy about what Church leaders say to their congregations? It was a homily given to Catholics. Hindi naman sila ang kausap ni Cardinal, di ba?
There is also the principle of freedom of speech and worship. To lament the deformed consciences of national leaders is not name-calling. It is a legitimate perception from someone who is competent about conscience. And that the expression of that perception is the right and prerogative of any citizen, especially when there is a danger to the common good. By merely issuing a clear pastoral observation, the Cardinal has not violated any moral or legal precept, and has in no way engaged in name-calling. If some politicians feel alluded to, that's their problem. If you listen carefully, Rosales' remarks are actually kind. He did not call them evil, but just lost -- the ones Jesus Christ precisely came to save (Mt18:11; Lk19:10).
NB: And if some Catholic dissenters are crying ouch, then maybe they should rethink their "talking points", kasi sapul din sila. Rosales is an alumnus of the Jesuit-run San Jose Seminary (for diocesans) -- but he graduated before theological dissent became fashionable. He is well aware that his loyalty to the Church should exceed his loyalty to his alma mater.
The evidence shows that Belmonte is not neutral at all. He had been consistently pro-RH as Mayor of QC. He and the pro-RH gang can always wash their hands and say "We see nothing wrong with the Bill". If they railroad the RH deliberations, they will only prove Cardinal Rosales right. And if it is blocked in the Senate, the shame that will befall them may translate into (1) a political shellacking, and/or (2) diminished FP/RH payolas and perks from their paymasters, or (3) a career knockout. If they feel threatened, then they should listen to their fears. If they are hurting, they should listen to their pain. It is the same valid fear and pain that President Marcos felt once upon a time.
Again, the USGov't, Council of Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg liberals will not take this sitting down. Why do you think they're bringing the "other" Clinton into town? Clinton's poking his bill on Filipinos reminds us of the dark side of the Liberation of Manila. Watch closely and take note of who will snuggle up to Uncle Bill. Make no mistake about it: both Bills -- Clinton and the RH one -- are bad news. Strip down the flower talking and you will find both Bills worthy of a thick shellacking.
Pro-RH is driven more by mammon than by conviction. Pro-life is driven more by faith than money. Multiplying both sides of the equation by the same factor, the conflict comes down to Mammon vs. Faith. You cannot serve both, as dissenters and compromisors are wont do (Mt6:24). If we choose to serve Faith, let us do so well. If Faith can turn lepers clean, then by God, it can turn even our adversaries into friends. And amidst the whirl of events, let us pro-lifers focus on the particular mission that the Spirit of Life has whispered to us daily, both in the silence of our hearts, and in the din work.
Z
Speaker to Catholic Church on contraceptives bill - Peace
By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, Reporter
INQUIRER.net/Posted date: November 09, 2010
MANILA, Philippines—Lawmakers on Tuesday balked at fresh attacks from the Catholic Church for pushing the reproductive health bill in the House of Representatives, and told their religious critics to look at their backyard first before hurling criticisms.
“Let’s not stoop to name-calling,” Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said in a text message when asked to react to the statement of Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales that lawmakers have poorly-formed conscience.
“If you fail, you will reap the kind of people that we have now in most of our institutions, including Congress,” Rosales said in his homily at a mass Monday, the culmination of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life, and Family at the Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati City.
Rosales later replied when asked if he meant that lawmakers have poorly-formed conscience: “Ay talaga. Wala tayong problema kung lahat ay may konsyensya (Really. We won’t have a problem if they have a conscience.)”
Belmonte has yet to make clear his stand on the reproductive health bill, but said he would like to see it voted on the floor, unlike the past congresses.
At least seven bills and resolutions on reproductive health bill are pending in the House.
Iloilo Representative Janette Garin, author of one of the bills seeking to promote the use of artificial means of family planning, advised Rosales “to look into their backyards first.”
“Much as I don’t want to be disrespectful to CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) leaders, hypocrisy in their institution is pulling them down,” she said in a separate text message.
Garin, a medical doctor, said the Church should accept the reality that most Filipinos are not adverse to reproductive health.
“We object to impositions brought about by stone-age beliefs, not intended for the good of the many but is there merely to protect the reputation of a few,” she added.
Gabriela party-list Representative Luz Ilagan said the Catholic Church should discuss the issue with proponents of the reproductive health bill instead of resorting to name-calling.
“Doing so is an indication of the bankruptcy of ideas or reason. The public is entitled to a rational debate, and emotional outbursts and threats are great disservice to the people,” she said.
Ilagan also cautioned the Church against name-calling, saying “the same insult can be thrown back at them.”
“Think of the scandals or morality the church has been accused of. Let he who is not without sin cast the first stone,” she added.
Bacolod Representative Anthony Golez said Congress should now decide whether the services to be given under the reproductive health policy are lawful.
Golez filed a resolution seeking to determine when life begins.
“The question, if answered will settle all emotional issues at hand,” he said.
INQUIRER.net/Posted date: November 09, 2010
MANILA, Philippines—Lawmakers on Tuesday balked at fresh attacks from the Catholic Church for pushing the reproductive health bill in the House of Representatives, and told their religious critics to look at their backyard first before hurling criticisms.
“Let’s not stoop to name-calling,” Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said in a text message when asked to react to the statement of Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales that lawmakers have poorly-formed conscience.
“If you fail, you will reap the kind of people that we have now in most of our institutions, including Congress,” Rosales said in his homily at a mass Monday, the culmination of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life, and Family at the Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati City.
Rosales later replied when asked if he meant that lawmakers have poorly-formed conscience: “Ay talaga. Wala tayong problema kung lahat ay may konsyensya (Really. We won’t have a problem if they have a conscience.)”
Belmonte has yet to make clear his stand on the reproductive health bill, but said he would like to see it voted on the floor, unlike the past congresses.
At least seven bills and resolutions on reproductive health bill are pending in the House.
Iloilo Representative Janette Garin, author of one of the bills seeking to promote the use of artificial means of family planning, advised Rosales “to look into their backyards first.”
“Much as I don’t want to be disrespectful to CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) leaders, hypocrisy in their institution is pulling them down,” she said in a separate text message.
Garin, a medical doctor, said the Church should accept the reality that most Filipinos are not adverse to reproductive health.
“We object to impositions brought about by stone-age beliefs, not intended for the good of the many but is there merely to protect the reputation of a few,” she added.
Gabriela party-list Representative Luz Ilagan said the Catholic Church should discuss the issue with proponents of the reproductive health bill instead of resorting to name-calling.
“Doing so is an indication of the bankruptcy of ideas or reason. The public is entitled to a rational debate, and emotional outbursts and threats are great disservice to the people,” she said.
Ilagan also cautioned the Church against name-calling, saying “the same insult can be thrown back at them.”
“Think of the scandals or morality the church has been accused of. Let he who is not without sin cast the first stone,” she added.
Bacolod Representative Anthony Golez said Congress should now decide whether the services to be given under the reproductive health policy are lawful.
Golez filed a resolution seeking to determine when life begins.
“The question, if answered will settle all emotional issues at hand,” he said.
RH bill supporters are morally 'lost' - Cardinal Rosales
MANILA, Nov. 8, 2010—Those who support the reproductive health bill are “lost” and do not have proper formation of conscience, the head of Manila Roman Catholic Church said Monday.
Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales said one of the country’s biggest problems is the lack of values, which is prevalent among public officials.
According to him, contraception issue wouldn’t be much of an issue had the country elected lawmakers with good conscience.
“There are consciences that are not well formed. They were not brought up properly and that is always certain,” said Rosales.
The cardinal made the statement in his homily during the closing Mass of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family held at the Dusit Hotel in Makati City.
A well-formed Christian conscience, he said, does not permit one to support for a political program or a law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.
The Manila archbishop stressed that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.
Whatever the decision of the lawmakers on the controversial measure, he said, would reflect on how they were brought up by their parents who are the “first teacher of conscience.”
Healthy conscience formation depends on a trusting relation with the parents, who must also learn how to be such a parent, he pointed out.
Rosales said it is great help for parents to maintain the good values at home and start teaching kids as early as possible.
“If you fail (in guiding your children properly), you will reap the kind of people that you have now in most of our institutions, including Congress,” Rosales said earning applause from the audience.
The cardinal said the Catholic hierarchy will continue to oppose the RH bill and other measures that would violate the moral law.
He also called on the lawmakers to make serious examination of conscience before they cast their vote in favor of the bill because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of Filipinos. (Roy Lagarde/CBCPNews)
CBCP News :: Official news service of Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines Media Office
Source URL (retrieved on 11/10/2010 - 04:30): http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/13646
Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales said one of the country’s biggest problems is the lack of values, which is prevalent among public officials.
According to him, contraception issue wouldn’t be much of an issue had the country elected lawmakers with good conscience.
“There are consciences that are not well formed. They were not brought up properly and that is always certain,” said Rosales.
The cardinal made the statement in his homily during the closing Mass of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family held at the Dusit Hotel in Makati City.
A well-formed Christian conscience, he said, does not permit one to support for a political program or a law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.
The Manila archbishop stressed that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.
Whatever the decision of the lawmakers on the controversial measure, he said, would reflect on how they were brought up by their parents who are the “first teacher of conscience.”
Healthy conscience formation depends on a trusting relation with the parents, who must also learn how to be such a parent, he pointed out.
Rosales said it is great help for parents to maintain the good values at home and start teaching kids as early as possible.
“If you fail (in guiding your children properly), you will reap the kind of people that you have now in most of our institutions, including Congress,” Rosales said earning applause from the audience.
The cardinal said the Catholic hierarchy will continue to oppose the RH bill and other measures that would violate the moral law.
He also called on the lawmakers to make serious examination of conscience before they cast their vote in favor of the bill because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of Filipinos. (Roy Lagarde/CBCPNews)
CBCP News :: Official news service of Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines Media Office
Source URL (retrieved on 11/10/2010 - 04:30): http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/13646
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Prolife group to hold anti-RH vigil November 20
Prolife group to hold anti-RH vigil November 20
11/09/2010 | 05:06 PM
Prolife groups will hold a prayer vigil in Manila on November 20 to express their opposition to the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill in Congress.
Led by the Sangguniang Laiko ng Pilipinas, the vigil dubbed “Prayers and Reflections on Human Life" will be held at the Manila Cathedral from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on November 20.
“As a Church, we cannot just be complacent and allow this insidious attempt to ruin the moral and spiritual fabric of our society," Laiko national president Edgardo Tirona said in an article posted Tuesday afternoon on the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
He said now is the time for the laity to defend the Catholic faith “against those who are trying to propagate the culture of death in the guise of alleviating the lives" of the poor.
Next week's prayer vigil will also serve as a spiritual prelude to a prayer vigil called by Pope Benedict XVI.
The vigil, for “All Nascent of Human Life," will be conducted in all dioceses and parishes on November 27, the eve of the first Sunday of Advent.
Tirona urged all lay organizations to participate in both activities and affirm their “commitment to the sacredness of family and life."
Bishop questions consciences of RH bill supporters
Meanwhile, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales said the Catholic hierarchy will continue to oppose the RH bill and other measures that they consider to be violating the moral law.
He also called on the lawmakers to make serious examination of conscience before casting their votes for the RH bill because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of Filipinos.
Rosales said RH bill supporters are “lost" and do not have "well-formed" consciences.
“There are consciences that are not well formed. They were not brought up properly and that is always certain," Rosales said in an article posted on the CBCP news site on Monday.
Rosales made the statement in his homily during the closing Mass of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family at the Dusit Hotel in Makati City.
Rosales said one of the country’s biggest problems is the lack of values, which he said is prevalent among public officials.
He said contraception would probably not have been much of an issue if the country elected lawmakers with good consciences.
According to Rosales, a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit a person to support a political program or a law that contradicts faith and morals.
Those involved in lawmaking have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life, he added.
Rosales said the decision of the lawmakers on the RH bill will reflect how they were brought up by their parents, who are the “first teacher of conscience."
“If you fail (in guiding your children properly), you will reap the kind of people that you have now in most of our institutions, including Congress," Rosales said.
Rosales' statement came barely two days after CBCP president Nereo Odchimar said they will consult with legal and medical experts to prepare them for a dialogue with government on reproductive health.
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
The Catholic Church promotes only natural family planning and is opposed to the use of artificial birth control methods such as condoms and birth-control pills, saying these could lead to promiscuity and a rise in abortion cases.
On the other hand, RH advocates say natural family planning methods are not as reliable as artificial means of birth control
.
End contraceptive mentality
The Catholic Church accepts only natural family planning (NFP) methods. The NFP has two distinct forms:
* Ecological breastfeeding (a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average), and
* Systematic NFP (a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle).
–VVP, GMANews.TV
11/09/2010 | 05:06 PM
Prolife groups will hold a prayer vigil in Manila on November 20 to express their opposition to the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill in Congress.
Led by the Sangguniang Laiko ng Pilipinas, the vigil dubbed “Prayers and Reflections on Human Life" will be held at the Manila Cathedral from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on November 20.
“As a Church, we cannot just be complacent and allow this insidious attempt to ruin the moral and spiritual fabric of our society," Laiko national president Edgardo Tirona said in an article posted Tuesday afternoon on the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
He said now is the time for the laity to defend the Catholic faith “against those who are trying to propagate the culture of death in the guise of alleviating the lives" of the poor.
Next week's prayer vigil will also serve as a spiritual prelude to a prayer vigil called by Pope Benedict XVI.
The vigil, for “All Nascent of Human Life," will be conducted in all dioceses and parishes on November 27, the eve of the first Sunday of Advent.
Tirona urged all lay organizations to participate in both activities and affirm their “commitment to the sacredness of family and life."
Bishop questions consciences of RH bill supporters
Meanwhile, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales said the Catholic hierarchy will continue to oppose the RH bill and other measures that they consider to be violating the moral law.
He also called on the lawmakers to make serious examination of conscience before casting their votes for the RH bill because their choice will have long-lasting consequences on the lives of Filipinos.
Rosales said RH bill supporters are “lost" and do not have "well-formed" consciences.
“There are consciences that are not well formed. They were not brought up properly and that is always certain," Rosales said in an article posted on the CBCP news site on Monday.
Rosales made the statement in his homily during the closing Mass of the three-day 17th Asia-Pacific Congress on Faith, Life and Family at the Dusit Hotel in Makati City.
Rosales said one of the country’s biggest problems is the lack of values, which he said is prevalent among public officials.
He said contraception would probably not have been much of an issue if the country elected lawmakers with good consciences.
According to Rosales, a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit a person to support a political program or a law that contradicts faith and morals.
Those involved in lawmaking have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life, he added.
Rosales said the decision of the lawmakers on the RH bill will reflect how they were brought up by their parents, who are the “first teacher of conscience."
“If you fail (in guiding your children properly), you will reap the kind of people that you have now in most of our institutions, including Congress," Rosales said.
Rosales' statement came barely two days after CBCP president Nereo Odchimar said they will consult with legal and medical experts to prepare them for a dialogue with government on reproductive health.
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
The Catholic Church promotes only natural family planning and is opposed to the use of artificial birth control methods such as condoms and birth-control pills, saying these could lead to promiscuity and a rise in abortion cases.
On the other hand, RH advocates say natural family planning methods are not as reliable as artificial means of birth control
.
End contraceptive mentality
The Catholic Church accepts only natural family planning (NFP) methods. The NFP has two distinct forms:
* Ecological breastfeeding (a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average), and
* Systematic NFP (a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle).
–VVP, GMANews.TV
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Aquino to face lay pax on birth control
Aquino to face lay pax on birth control
By RAYMUND F. ANTONIO
November 6, 2010, 7:30pm
Manila Bulletin
MANILA, Philippines — In his next dialogue with the bishops on the issue of population control, President Aquino will not only be facing the guardians of morality.
He will also be dealing with a phalanx of lay experts on the medical, legal and economics fields to help the Church convince the President that a high population rate does not often mean high incidence of poverty.
And perhaps, with this, possibly coax him to go slow in pushing for artificial birth control methods.
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) President Nereo Odchimar said legal, medical and economics experts will be on hand when they meet the President again to explain the Church’s position on reproductive health and family planning.
“We would be enlisting help from the lay people who would be with us, representing their specific expertise. This is also a presentation that the Church is not only composed of bishops. That the majority of the church in the Philippines is composed of lay people,” Odchimar said.
“So this would be a concerted presentation of the position of the Church not only by the bishops, not only by the CBCP, but in the totality,” he added.
Odchimar said the lay experts will help enlighten the President that corruption is the major cause of poverty and not overpopulation.
Population as the root cause of poverty has been the fallacious argument trumpeted by those against the Church position.
“We’re trying to approach it for example (from the point of view of) corruption which could be one of the causes of poverty in the Philippines. Also, as the President himself has said, kung walang corrupt walang mahirap so to be pinpointing the population as the primary and the sole cause of poverty int he Philippines is I think lopsided,” Odchimar said.
The issue of curbing the runaway population rate has re-emerged shortly after Aquino assumed office. During the campaign, Aquino has hinted he favored the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill, which seeks to expand sex education in schools and access to other methods of family planning.
At one point, a bishop was wrongly reported of having threatened to excommunicate Aquino if he pushes through with an aggressive population control program. The bishop has denied issuing excommunication to the President.
By RAYMUND F. ANTONIO
November 6, 2010, 7:30pm
Manila Bulletin
MANILA, Philippines — In his next dialogue with the bishops on the issue of population control, President Aquino will not only be facing the guardians of morality.
He will also be dealing with a phalanx of lay experts on the medical, legal and economics fields to help the Church convince the President that a high population rate does not often mean high incidence of poverty.
And perhaps, with this, possibly coax him to go slow in pushing for artificial birth control methods.
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) President Nereo Odchimar said legal, medical and economics experts will be on hand when they meet the President again to explain the Church’s position on reproductive health and family planning.
“We would be enlisting help from the lay people who would be with us, representing their specific expertise. This is also a presentation that the Church is not only composed of bishops. That the majority of the church in the Philippines is composed of lay people,” Odchimar said.
“So this would be a concerted presentation of the position of the Church not only by the bishops, not only by the CBCP, but in the totality,” he added.
Odchimar said the lay experts will help enlighten the President that corruption is the major cause of poverty and not overpopulation.
Population as the root cause of poverty has been the fallacious argument trumpeted by those against the Church position.
“We’re trying to approach it for example (from the point of view of) corruption which could be one of the causes of poverty in the Philippines. Also, as the President himself has said, kung walang corrupt walang mahirap so to be pinpointing the population as the primary and the sole cause of poverty int he Philippines is I think lopsided,” Odchimar said.
The issue of curbing the runaway population rate has re-emerged shortly after Aquino assumed office. During the campaign, Aquino has hinted he favored the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill, which seeks to expand sex education in schools and access to other methods of family planning.
At one point, a bishop was wrongly reported of having threatened to excommunicate Aquino if he pushes through with an aggressive population control program. The bishop has denied issuing excommunication to the President.
Enrile: A pro-life statesman
Enrile: A pro-life statesman
By BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
November 7, 2010, 2:41pm
Manila Bulletin
MANILA, Philippines – I remember feeling a little nervous when I faced the panel constituted by the Jaycees to interview the candidates for the Ten Outstanding Men for 1972. A member of the panel of judges was then Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile, the most powerful man after President Ferdinand Marcos who had just declared martial law. One of the judges (not Enrile) asked me what I thought about population control (at that time President Marcos still used to quote Pope Paul VI in the famous lines of Humanae Vitae, "we should not limit the number of participants in the banquet of life"). I replied with conviction, as I do now, that a large population means human resources with hands and minds to work and an attractive domestic market for goods and services. To my relief, Defense Secretary Enrile added with approval, "and a large pool of men for the military." As a master of the art of the possible, Secretary Enrile was being pragmatic and common sensical.
Today, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile continues to be pro-life. His reasons go beyond pragmatism. They are both philosophical and theological. In introducing Senate Bill No. 2497, the good senator intends "to give life to the Constitutional right of the unborn child to protection, to accord the unborn child the basic right to life, to the protection of his or her welfare and against acts which place the unborn child in danger of being harmed, injured, or killed, bearing n mind that the unborn is totally incapable of protecting itself."
S.B. No. 2497 comes at an opportune time when all over the world, leaders are discussing the attainment of the so-called Millennium Development Goals. In fact, that was the main reason President Benigno Aquino III traveled to New York. He attended a meeting, the main agenda of which was the assessment of how countries are coping with the challenge of meeting the MDGs set for 2015. Very prominent among these goals is maternal health. It must be pointed out, however, as Senator Enrile comments in the Explanatory Note to the Bill that "a 2008 gender study emphasized that the health of the mother and child are inextricably linked for biological and social reasons. While the government has called for the strengthening of maternal and child health care and nutrition and has, in fact, included the same among the top 10 priority areas of reproductive health, the promotion of the right and welfare of unborn children, the most defenseless as they are, has not received adequate attention."
The bill also comes at a time when a country like Mexico, fearful of contamination of the pro-abortion mindset and culture of death now rampant in the country to its north, is seeing more and more of its states passing laws that would criminalize the killing of the fetus from the moment of conception. This very positive pro-life trend in Mexico, in which society has been secularized for more than a century and in which religion hardly influences political decision making, can only be attributed to leaders using their natural gift of reasoning to arrive at the unquestionable fact that human life begins at conception. The Mexicans, whose culture is the closest to that of the Philippines for historical reasons, are wittingly or unwittingly emulating the contents of our 1987 Constitution which states in Article II, Section 12 that as a matter of national principle and State policy the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."
As a consummate lawyer, Senator Enrile cites the very concrete circumstances that motivated him to sponsor the bill: "Over the years, many incidents of abortion have been reported, with mothers resorting to induced abortion for various reasons, while others suffered from spontaneous abortions, or miscarriage, due to acts, violent or otherwise, and practices that are harmful and fatal to the unborn child. Worse, the deleterious and often fatal consequences to the mothers of such acts of abortion performed in abortion clinics or elsewhere and by abortion practitioners that have proliferated, while clearly criminal in nature, have been used as a convenient excuse to advance the population control under the euphemism called 'reproductive health.'"
Not leaving things to free interpretation by those who want to define the beginning of human life at implantation, rather than conception, Section 5 of the proposed bill gets down to specifics: "The unborn child shall be protected from abortifacients, abortive acts and practices that induce abortion, including the use, administration, dispensing, injection or delivery by whatever means of substances, medicines in any form which endanger or expose the unborn child to damage, injury or death, whether committed with or without violence, and whether committed with or without the consent of the mother."
Not content with motherhood statements about the evils of killing the unborn child during any of the stages from conception to birth, Senator Enrile is making sure that the bill will impose heavier penalties for abortive acts defined under Articles 256, 257, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code. For intentional abortion, for example, the penalty has been increased from "reclusion temporal" to "reclusion perpetua" for those convicted of using violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. Penalties--both imprisonment and fines--will be imposed on physicians, midwives, pharmacists and other health workers who practise abortion.
Let me set a target for all pro-life members of Congress, whether in the lower or upper houses. They should give the highest priority to the passing of this bill, consolidating it with House Bill No. 13 sponsored by Congressman Roilo Golez. Asking for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially under the advocation of Our Lady of Guadalupe, let the bill be enacted into law by December 12, 2010, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Secondary Patroness of the Philippines and the Patroness of Mexico and the entire Americas. I have no doubt that Mrs. Cristina Castaner Ponce Enrile will be our ally in praying to the Mother of God for the successful passing of this Bill. I still remember her as a beauteous colegiala from St. Paul's College, Manila, playing the role of the Blessed Virgin in a tableau directed by Fr. James Reuter, S.J., on the occasion of the centennial of the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1954. Our Lady will never despise our petition, as we say in the Memorare. For comments, my email address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.
By BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
November 7, 2010, 2:41pm
Manila Bulletin
MANILA, Philippines – I remember feeling a little nervous when I faced the panel constituted by the Jaycees to interview the candidates for the Ten Outstanding Men for 1972. A member of the panel of judges was then Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile, the most powerful man after President Ferdinand Marcos who had just declared martial law. One of the judges (not Enrile) asked me what I thought about population control (at that time President Marcos still used to quote Pope Paul VI in the famous lines of Humanae Vitae, "we should not limit the number of participants in the banquet of life"). I replied with conviction, as I do now, that a large population means human resources with hands and minds to work and an attractive domestic market for goods and services. To my relief, Defense Secretary Enrile added with approval, "and a large pool of men for the military." As a master of the art of the possible, Secretary Enrile was being pragmatic and common sensical.
Today, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile continues to be pro-life. His reasons go beyond pragmatism. They are both philosophical and theological. In introducing Senate Bill No. 2497, the good senator intends "to give life to the Constitutional right of the unborn child to protection, to accord the unborn child the basic right to life, to the protection of his or her welfare and against acts which place the unborn child in danger of being harmed, injured, or killed, bearing n mind that the unborn is totally incapable of protecting itself."
S.B. No. 2497 comes at an opportune time when all over the world, leaders are discussing the attainment of the so-called Millennium Development Goals. In fact, that was the main reason President Benigno Aquino III traveled to New York. He attended a meeting, the main agenda of which was the assessment of how countries are coping with the challenge of meeting the MDGs set for 2015. Very prominent among these goals is maternal health. It must be pointed out, however, as Senator Enrile comments in the Explanatory Note to the Bill that "a 2008 gender study emphasized that the health of the mother and child are inextricably linked for biological and social reasons. While the government has called for the strengthening of maternal and child health care and nutrition and has, in fact, included the same among the top 10 priority areas of reproductive health, the promotion of the right and welfare of unborn children, the most defenseless as they are, has not received adequate attention."
The bill also comes at a time when a country like Mexico, fearful of contamination of the pro-abortion mindset and culture of death now rampant in the country to its north, is seeing more and more of its states passing laws that would criminalize the killing of the fetus from the moment of conception. This very positive pro-life trend in Mexico, in which society has been secularized for more than a century and in which religion hardly influences political decision making, can only be attributed to leaders using their natural gift of reasoning to arrive at the unquestionable fact that human life begins at conception. The Mexicans, whose culture is the closest to that of the Philippines for historical reasons, are wittingly or unwittingly emulating the contents of our 1987 Constitution which states in Article II, Section 12 that as a matter of national principle and State policy the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."
As a consummate lawyer, Senator Enrile cites the very concrete circumstances that motivated him to sponsor the bill: "Over the years, many incidents of abortion have been reported, with mothers resorting to induced abortion for various reasons, while others suffered from spontaneous abortions, or miscarriage, due to acts, violent or otherwise, and practices that are harmful and fatal to the unborn child. Worse, the deleterious and often fatal consequences to the mothers of such acts of abortion performed in abortion clinics or elsewhere and by abortion practitioners that have proliferated, while clearly criminal in nature, have been used as a convenient excuse to advance the population control under the euphemism called 'reproductive health.'"
Not leaving things to free interpretation by those who want to define the beginning of human life at implantation, rather than conception, Section 5 of the proposed bill gets down to specifics: "The unborn child shall be protected from abortifacients, abortive acts and practices that induce abortion, including the use, administration, dispensing, injection or delivery by whatever means of substances, medicines in any form which endanger or expose the unborn child to damage, injury or death, whether committed with or without violence, and whether committed with or without the consent of the mother."
Not content with motherhood statements about the evils of killing the unborn child during any of the stages from conception to birth, Senator Enrile is making sure that the bill will impose heavier penalties for abortive acts defined under Articles 256, 257, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code. For intentional abortion, for example, the penalty has been increased from "reclusion temporal" to "reclusion perpetua" for those convicted of using violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. Penalties--both imprisonment and fines--will be imposed on physicians, midwives, pharmacists and other health workers who practise abortion.
Let me set a target for all pro-life members of Congress, whether in the lower or upper houses. They should give the highest priority to the passing of this bill, consolidating it with House Bill No. 13 sponsored by Congressman Roilo Golez. Asking for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially under the advocation of Our Lady of Guadalupe, let the bill be enacted into law by December 12, 2010, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Secondary Patroness of the Philippines and the Patroness of Mexico and the entire Americas. I have no doubt that Mrs. Cristina Castaner Ponce Enrile will be our ally in praying to the Mother of God for the successful passing of this Bill. I still remember her as a beauteous colegiala from St. Paul's College, Manila, playing the role of the Blessed Virgin in a tableau directed by Fr. James Reuter, S.J., on the occasion of the centennial of the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1954. Our Lady will never despise our petition, as we say in the Memorare. For comments, my email address is bvillegas@uap.edu.ph.
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say
Published Date: November 9, 2010
Tags: Henry Kissinger, reproductive health, USA
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say
Filipino Catholics join a protest march against the passage of the Reproductive Health bill outside Quiapo Church in Manila
An international “pro-life group” has linked efforts to promote reproductive health legislation in the Philippines to United States economic interests in the country.
Virginia-based Human Life International (HLI) claims that the proposed legislation will also promote a depopulation policy which aims to protect access to the natural resources of developing economies.
Brian Clowes, HLI director for research and training, said the administration of President Barack Obama continues to implement a once-secret security memorandum on world population control.
“It is still the same US policy on population control because it has never been repudiated,” Clowes told ucanews.com during the 17th Asia Pacific Congress on Faith and Family over the weekend.
The US government’s primary motivation has nothing to do with altruism or poverty alleviation, said Clowes.
“The memorandum… says that we have to repress the populations because … [poor] countries would want to use their own natural resources. So we need to hold down their populations,” he added.
The 123-page “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,” was prepared by the US National Security Council under Henry Kissinger in 1974.
It was formally adopted as US policy in 1975 and was declassified in 1989.
Chapter III of the NSSM 200, which discusses concerns on minerals and fuels, states that “the US economy will require increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
“Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interest of the United States,” the document says.
The Philippines was among the 13 countries identified in NSSM 200 that needed “assistance for population moderation.”
It says that the Philippines was among the “largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic interest.”
Clowes said Filipinos should be fully aware of the intentions behind the passage of the reproductive health bill.
“This not just about fighting for human rights or women’s rights, it is also about the economic interest of the US government in the Philippines,” he said.
SOURCE
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say (ucanews.com)
Published Date: November 9, 2010
Tags: Henry Kissinger, reproductive health, USA
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say
Filipino Catholics join a protest march against the passage of the Reproductive Health bill outside Quiapo Church in Manila
An international “pro-life group” has linked efforts to promote reproductive health legislation in the Philippines to United States economic interests in the country.
Virginia-based Human Life International (HLI) claims that the proposed legislation will also promote a depopulation policy which aims to protect access to the natural resources of developing economies.
Brian Clowes, HLI director for research and training, said the administration of President Barack Obama continues to implement a once-secret security memorandum on world population control.
“It is still the same US policy on population control because it has never been repudiated,” Clowes told ucanews.com during the 17th Asia Pacific Congress on Faith and Family over the weekend.
The US government’s primary motivation has nothing to do with altruism or poverty alleviation, said Clowes.
“The memorandum… says that we have to repress the populations because … [poor] countries would want to use their own natural resources. So we need to hold down their populations,” he added.
The 123-page “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,” was prepared by the US National Security Council under Henry Kissinger in 1974.
It was formally adopted as US policy in 1975 and was declassified in 1989.
Chapter III of the NSSM 200, which discusses concerns on minerals and fuels, states that “the US economy will require increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
“Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interest of the United States,” the document says.
The Philippines was among the 13 countries identified in NSSM 200 that needed “assistance for population moderation.”
It says that the Philippines was among the “largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special US political and strategic interest.”
Clowes said Filipinos should be fully aware of the intentions behind the passage of the reproductive health bill.
“This not just about fighting for human rights or women’s rights, it is also about the economic interest of the US government in the Philippines,” he said.
SOURCE
Philippine bill part of US plan, activists say (ucanews.com)
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Archbishop Criticizes UN
Archbishop criticizes United Nations for failing to respect life
La Plata, Argentina, Oct 20, 2010 / 03:06 am (CNA).- Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata, Argentina has criticized the United Nations for spreading ideologies that fail to respect fundamental human rights and the family.
In his weekly television program, “Keys to a Better World,” Archbishop Aguer pointed to the cultural changes that are taking place in Argentina through laws put forth by the self-proclaimed “progressive” minority.
He added that the changes are totally foreign to the nation's cultural tradition.
One such change took place in July, when the country legalized same-sex “marriage.”
The archbishop said these ideas are part of a global plan that is based at “the United Nations and a series of its satellite organizations.”
He said huge amounts of money are behind the attempts to change Argentina and to alter fundamental human rights. “Thus, we can see that there is a conspiracy here in the worst sense of the word,” the archbishop added.
“There is a conspiracy that tends to homogenize thought and conduct in the entire world, and this comes from the centers of world power, especially from the centers of political power, which are sustained by the centers of financial power,” said Archbishop Aguer.
“If this is not a new form of colonialism, a new imperialism, I don’t know what to call it,” he warned.
The archbishop denounced the U.N. for its anti-human and anti-Christian positions and for undermining natural law.
“For several years - at least 15 - we could say, ideologies that are contrary to the nature of the human person, and therefore, man’s dignity, authentic rights and corresponding duties, have been imposed on these world centers of power,” he stated.
Archbishop Aguer noted that at diverse international forums, U.N. officials promote “contraception, abortion and other supposed women’s rights founded upon gender ideology.”
La Plata, Argentina, Oct 20, 2010 / 03:06 am (CNA).- Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata, Argentina has criticized the United Nations for spreading ideologies that fail to respect fundamental human rights and the family.
In his weekly television program, “Keys to a Better World,” Archbishop Aguer pointed to the cultural changes that are taking place in Argentina through laws put forth by the self-proclaimed “progressive” minority.
He added that the changes are totally foreign to the nation's cultural tradition.
One such change took place in July, when the country legalized same-sex “marriage.”
The archbishop said these ideas are part of a global plan that is based at “the United Nations and a series of its satellite organizations.”
He said huge amounts of money are behind the attempts to change Argentina and to alter fundamental human rights. “Thus, we can see that there is a conspiracy here in the worst sense of the word,” the archbishop added.
“There is a conspiracy that tends to homogenize thought and conduct in the entire world, and this comes from the centers of world power, especially from the centers of political power, which are sustained by the centers of financial power,” said Archbishop Aguer.
“If this is not a new form of colonialism, a new imperialism, I don’t know what to call it,” he warned.
The archbishop denounced the U.N. for its anti-human and anti-Christian positions and for undermining natural law.
“For several years - at least 15 - we could say, ideologies that are contrary to the nature of the human person, and therefore, man’s dignity, authentic rights and corresponding duties, have been imposed on these world centers of power,” he stated.
Archbishop Aguer noted that at diverse international forums, U.N. officials promote “contraception, abortion and other supposed women’s rights founded upon gender ideology.”
Church Siege Kills 58
Iraqi Christians mourn after church siege kills 58
AFP – Iraqi security forces survey the scene outside the Sayidat al-Nejat Catholic Cathedral, or Syrian Catholic …
By BARBARA SURK and HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Barbara Surk And Hamid Ahmed, Associated Press – 1 hr 16 mins ago
BAGHDAD – Iraq's dwindling Christian community was grieving and afraid on Monday after militants seized a Baghdad church during evening Mass, held the congregation hostage and triggered a raid by Iraqi security forces. The bloodbath left at least 58 people killed and 78 wounded — nearly everyone inside.
The attack, claimed by an al-Qaida-linked organization, was the deadliest ever recorded against Iraq's Christians, whose numbers have plummeted since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion as the community has fled to other countries.
Outside Our Lady of Salvation church, Raed Hadi leaned against the car carrying his cousin's coffin, waiting for the police to let him bury him on church grounds.
"It was a massacre in there and now they are cleaning it up," he said Monday morning. "We Christians don't have enough protection. ... What shall I do now? Leave and ask for asylum?"
"Now they make a show," said Jamal Jaju, who watched as Iraqi forces pushed back observers. "What can I say? I lost at least 20 friends in there."
Pope Benedict XVI denounced the assault as "ferocious" and called for renewed international efforts to broker peace in the region.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also condemned the siege, saying it was an attempt to drive more Christians out of the country.
Islamic militants have systematically attacked Christians in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, effectively chasing more than 1 million people out of the country, according to estimates from an adviser to Iraq's top Catholic prelate, Chaldean Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly. He shared the figures with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
In an interview, the cardinal encouraged the country's remaining 1.5 million remaining Christians not to be driven off by the militants.
Sunday's carnage began at dusk, when a deadly car bomb went off in the area. Militants wearing suicide vests and armed with grenades then attacked the Iraqi stock exchange, injuring two guards.
The car bombing and the attack on the stock exchange may have been an attempt by the militants to divert attention from their real target — the nearby church in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood.
That attack soon followed. The gunmen went inside the church and took about 120 Christians hostage.
At least 58 people were killed, including 12 policemen as well as five bystanders thought to have been killed by the car bombing and blasts outside the church before the attackers stormed inside. Forty-one Christians inside the church also died, including two priests. Iraqi officials had initially provided a much lower death toll.
Witnesses said hostages died both before and during the rescue. They described a terrifying scene in which they desperately tried to shield themselves from the violence.
One parishioner, Rauf Naamat, said militants began by throwing several grenades and spraying the crowd inside the church with gunfire. After the initial violence and chaos died down, the militants walked up to the priest leading the mass, told him to lie down and shot him, he said.
An Iraqi official said he talked on a cell phone with one of the hostages during the siege. He said the hostage described how insurgents began shooting wildly when they went into the church and that he could see about 40 wounded people lying around him on the floor.
During the hours that followed, an eerie quiet descended on the building, punctuated only by quiet weeping, according to Naamat.
"Most people were too afraid to produce a sound. They feared militants would kill them if they heard them," Naamat said.
Naamat said he heard one of the attackers talking to what he thought was Iraqi security, threatening to blow themselves up if Iraqi forces stormed the building.
The Iraqi official who spoke by phone with one of the hostages said he also had a four-minute phone conversation with a militant, who demanded that authorities release all al-Qaida-linked prisoners starting with the women. The official said he judged by the militant's accent and speech that he was not Iraqi.
The militants also called an Egyptian television station, al-Baghdadia, during the hostage siege, repeating their demand that their colleagues be released.
When Iraqi special forces joined police and other officials already on the scene, they heard gunshots and decided to enter the church "to prevent the further loss of innocent lives," said Lt. Col. Terry L. Conder, a spokesman for U.S. special forces.
Naamat said the lights went out — turned off by Iraqi forces surrounding the building — and he heard the voices of Iraqi forces saying: "We will save you," as they entered the building wearing black uniforms and carrying rifles.
He said he then saw a militant approach the security forces as they made their way to the alter. The militant blew himself up, unleashing a massive blast.
The Iraqi official said that when the security forces stormed the church, the militants were shooting at the hostages.
According to two security officials, most of the deaths took place in the basement where a gunman killed about 30 hostages when Iraqi forces began to enter the church. One official said the gunman set off an explosives vest he was wearing, but the other said the gunman threw two grenades at his hostages.
A member of the commando force that went into the church said security forces found three explosives vests and grenades.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to journalists.
Video footage from an American drone showed a black plume of smoke pouring out of the church followed by flashes before security forces charged inside. U.S. forces often supply air support to Iraqi forces conducting operations on the ground, feeding them video footage from their aircraft.
Conder said Iraqi forces rescued 70 hostages, and Baghdad military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said they arrested five suspects, some of whom were not Iraqi.
Others, however, questioned whether the raid was wise.
Younadem Kana, a Christian member of the Iraqi parliament, condemned the operation as "hasty" and "not professional."
"We have no clear picture yet whether the worshippers were killed by the security forces' bullets or by terrorists, but what we know is that most of them were killed when the security forces started to storm the church," Kana said.
About 4 1/4 hours passed between the car bombing and the end of the siege shortly after 10 p.m., said an American military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
A cryptically worded statement posted late Sunday on a militant website allegedly by the Islamic State of Iraq appeared to claim responsibility for the attack.
The group, which is linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, said it would "exterminate Iraqi Christians" if Muslim women in Egypt were not freed.
It specifically mentioned two women that extremists maintain have converted to Islam and are being held against their will in Egypt.
Iraqi authorities on Monday took extra measures to protect Christian neighborhoods and churches in Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad. Additional police cars and checkpoints were seen near many churches, and authorities were conducting extensive searches on cars and pedestrians heading to churches.
"This is more than a tragedy," said Iraq's Human Rights minister, Wijdan Mikheil, who is a Christian.
Choking back tears as she spoke with reporters outside Our Lady of Salvation church, she said: "What is happening to Iraqis in general and Christians in particular is an attempt to push them out of the country, but we hope Iraqis remain united."
Our Lady of Salvation is a Syrian Catholic church.
Karim Khalil, a 49-year-old Iraqi Christian, said he moved to Syria with his family last year because he felt his religion made him a target in Baghdad.
"Iraqi militias threatened me, saying I was on the side of the Americans because I am Christian," Karim told the AP. "They said I would be killed if I stayed in Iraq."
Now he lives in Damascus with his wife and five children.
"I have left behind my house and everything to escape with my family," he said.
Many other Iraqi Christians living in Syria refused to speak to the AP. They said they fear militias may exact revenge on their families in Iraq.
___
Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, Sinan Salaheddin and Lara Jakes in Baghdad, Sameer N. Yacoub in Amman, Jordan and Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Boston contributed to this report.
AFP – Iraqi security forces survey the scene outside the Sayidat al-Nejat Catholic Cathedral, or Syrian Catholic …
By BARBARA SURK and HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Barbara Surk And Hamid Ahmed, Associated Press – 1 hr 16 mins ago
BAGHDAD – Iraq's dwindling Christian community was grieving and afraid on Monday after militants seized a Baghdad church during evening Mass, held the congregation hostage and triggered a raid by Iraqi security forces. The bloodbath left at least 58 people killed and 78 wounded — nearly everyone inside.
The attack, claimed by an al-Qaida-linked organization, was the deadliest ever recorded against Iraq's Christians, whose numbers have plummeted since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion as the community has fled to other countries.
Outside Our Lady of Salvation church, Raed Hadi leaned against the car carrying his cousin's coffin, waiting for the police to let him bury him on church grounds.
"It was a massacre in there and now they are cleaning it up," he said Monday morning. "We Christians don't have enough protection. ... What shall I do now? Leave and ask for asylum?"
"Now they make a show," said Jamal Jaju, who watched as Iraqi forces pushed back observers. "What can I say? I lost at least 20 friends in there."
Pope Benedict XVI denounced the assault as "ferocious" and called for renewed international efforts to broker peace in the region.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also condemned the siege, saying it was an attempt to drive more Christians out of the country.
Islamic militants have systematically attacked Christians in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, effectively chasing more than 1 million people out of the country, according to estimates from an adviser to Iraq's top Catholic prelate, Chaldean Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly. He shared the figures with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
In an interview, the cardinal encouraged the country's remaining 1.5 million remaining Christians not to be driven off by the militants.
Sunday's carnage began at dusk, when a deadly car bomb went off in the area. Militants wearing suicide vests and armed with grenades then attacked the Iraqi stock exchange, injuring two guards.
The car bombing and the attack on the stock exchange may have been an attempt by the militants to divert attention from their real target — the nearby church in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood.
That attack soon followed. The gunmen went inside the church and took about 120 Christians hostage.
At least 58 people were killed, including 12 policemen as well as five bystanders thought to have been killed by the car bombing and blasts outside the church before the attackers stormed inside. Forty-one Christians inside the church also died, including two priests. Iraqi officials had initially provided a much lower death toll.
Witnesses said hostages died both before and during the rescue. They described a terrifying scene in which they desperately tried to shield themselves from the violence.
One parishioner, Rauf Naamat, said militants began by throwing several grenades and spraying the crowd inside the church with gunfire. After the initial violence and chaos died down, the militants walked up to the priest leading the mass, told him to lie down and shot him, he said.
An Iraqi official said he talked on a cell phone with one of the hostages during the siege. He said the hostage described how insurgents began shooting wildly when they went into the church and that he could see about 40 wounded people lying around him on the floor.
During the hours that followed, an eerie quiet descended on the building, punctuated only by quiet weeping, according to Naamat.
"Most people were too afraid to produce a sound. They feared militants would kill them if they heard them," Naamat said.
Naamat said he heard one of the attackers talking to what he thought was Iraqi security, threatening to blow themselves up if Iraqi forces stormed the building.
The Iraqi official who spoke by phone with one of the hostages said he also had a four-minute phone conversation with a militant, who demanded that authorities release all al-Qaida-linked prisoners starting with the women. The official said he judged by the militant's accent and speech that he was not Iraqi.
The militants also called an Egyptian television station, al-Baghdadia, during the hostage siege, repeating their demand that their colleagues be released.
When Iraqi special forces joined police and other officials already on the scene, they heard gunshots and decided to enter the church "to prevent the further loss of innocent lives," said Lt. Col. Terry L. Conder, a spokesman for U.S. special forces.
Naamat said the lights went out — turned off by Iraqi forces surrounding the building — and he heard the voices of Iraqi forces saying: "We will save you," as they entered the building wearing black uniforms and carrying rifles.
He said he then saw a militant approach the security forces as they made their way to the alter. The militant blew himself up, unleashing a massive blast.
The Iraqi official said that when the security forces stormed the church, the militants were shooting at the hostages.
According to two security officials, most of the deaths took place in the basement where a gunman killed about 30 hostages when Iraqi forces began to enter the church. One official said the gunman set off an explosives vest he was wearing, but the other said the gunman threw two grenades at his hostages.
A member of the commando force that went into the church said security forces found three explosives vests and grenades.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to journalists.
Video footage from an American drone showed a black plume of smoke pouring out of the church followed by flashes before security forces charged inside. U.S. forces often supply air support to Iraqi forces conducting operations on the ground, feeding them video footage from their aircraft.
Conder said Iraqi forces rescued 70 hostages, and Baghdad military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said they arrested five suspects, some of whom were not Iraqi.
Others, however, questioned whether the raid was wise.
Younadem Kana, a Christian member of the Iraqi parliament, condemned the operation as "hasty" and "not professional."
"We have no clear picture yet whether the worshippers were killed by the security forces' bullets or by terrorists, but what we know is that most of them were killed when the security forces started to storm the church," Kana said.
About 4 1/4 hours passed between the car bombing and the end of the siege shortly after 10 p.m., said an American military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
A cryptically worded statement posted late Sunday on a militant website allegedly by the Islamic State of Iraq appeared to claim responsibility for the attack.
The group, which is linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, said it would "exterminate Iraqi Christians" if Muslim women in Egypt were not freed.
It specifically mentioned two women that extremists maintain have converted to Islam and are being held against their will in Egypt.
Iraqi authorities on Monday took extra measures to protect Christian neighborhoods and churches in Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad. Additional police cars and checkpoints were seen near many churches, and authorities were conducting extensive searches on cars and pedestrians heading to churches.
"This is more than a tragedy," said Iraq's Human Rights minister, Wijdan Mikheil, who is a Christian.
Choking back tears as she spoke with reporters outside Our Lady of Salvation church, she said: "What is happening to Iraqis in general and Christians in particular is an attempt to push them out of the country, but we hope Iraqis remain united."
Our Lady of Salvation is a Syrian Catholic church.
Karim Khalil, a 49-year-old Iraqi Christian, said he moved to Syria with his family last year because he felt his religion made him a target in Baghdad.
"Iraqi militias threatened me, saying I was on the side of the Americans because I am Christian," Karim told the AP. "They said I would be killed if I stayed in Iraq."
Now he lives in Damascus with his wife and five children.
"I have left behind my house and everything to escape with my family," he said.
Many other Iraqi Christians living in Syria refused to speak to the AP. They said they fear militias may exact revenge on their families in Iraq.
___
Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, Sinan Salaheddin and Lara Jakes in Baghdad, Sameer N. Yacoub in Amman, Jordan and Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Boston contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)