Philstar
Turn big population from liability to asset
POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) Updated March 29, 2011 12:00 AM
READ ARTICLE ...
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Official Ateneo's Position: "Neutrality"
I am for academic freedom.
That's why I would rather remain neutral on the issue.
I am personally against abortion and contraception,
but it's OK with me if others want it.
We support the CBCP position,
but we respect the proRH position of our teachers. ~ B.Nebres, SJ
That is the tone of the Ateneo de Manila University's official position
on the RH Bill. It conveys a spirit of "neutrality".
What's wrong with that?
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. ~ Eli Wiesel
To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this:
I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot.
I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm,
neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. ~ Rev 3:15-16
Read and pray for the currently neutered Society of Jesus.
Z
That's why I would rather remain neutral on the issue.
I am personally against abortion and contraception,
but it's OK with me if others want it.
We support the CBCP position,
but we respect the proRH position of our teachers. ~ B.Nebres, SJ
That is the tone of the Ateneo de Manila University's official position
on the RH Bill. It conveys a spirit of "neutrality".
What's wrong with that?
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. ~ Eli Wiesel
To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this:
I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot.
I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm,
neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. ~ Rev 3:15-16
Read and pray for the currently neutered Society of Jesus.
Z
Ateneo on RH issue
Ateneo on RH issue: We respect our educators but we stand behind Catholic Church
CANDICE MONTENEGRO, GMA News
Article posted March 25, 2011 - 03:06 PM
Article posted March 25, 2011 - 03:06 PM
US Jesuits abuse payout
| US Jesuits agree $166 million abuse payout—lawyers |
| By Laura Onstot / Agence France-Presse /Posted date: March 26, 2011 Read Article ... |
Statement on RH Bill 4244
Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 4244
date posted: 2011-03-25 06:35:37
24 March 2011MEMO TO : THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FROM : THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT : STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL 4244
Read Memo ...
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Clarification of Atty. Jo Imbong
Wait a minute. I feel it is time for clarification based on what I saw and heard at the proceedings last night
The ALERT says:
The Lagman amendments have been approved
If the ALERT refers to the provisions on PROHIBITED ACTS, IDEAL FAMILY SIZE, opting out of parents from MANDATORY SEX EDUC, and the OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYERS, proposals to delete these provisions from 4244 and discussions thereon took place LONG BEFORE at the hearing of the bill in the Appropriations Committee where Cong. Nograles and Cong. Bagatsing took made the initiatives for removal of these provisions. The latter also brought up the additional burden of MOBILE HEALTH SERVICES being charged against congressmen/s PDAF. This led also to the idea not to charge MHS to PDAF. These were the "amendments" taken up in that Committee.
Strictly speaking, for our purposes of tracking the bill, it would be more apt to refer to these changes as, well, CHANGES. Or PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS to the bill which amendments can only be taken up during the period of amendments in the plenary, which comes much much later . The process of Interpellation has in fact been agreed to start in May. After Lagman and co. are interpellated, the opponents of the bill will have their time to speak in the Turno en Contra. Another interpellation follows, this time, by the proponents of the bill. The period of amendments follows.
Yesterday's spiel of Tinio and Lagman was, strictly speaking, not an Interpellation in the real sense and in the context of the regular plenary process. It was more of a clarification/presentation of what CHANGES were taken up in the Appro Committee. The "script" of the interchange between Tinio and Lagman was like so (in essence):
Tinio: Is it correct, Mr. Speaker that the provision on prohibited acts in HB 4244 has been take out from the bill?
Lagman: That is correct, Mr Speaker, hence, oppositors to the bill have nothing to fear.
And so on, and so forth, in that pattern.
The exchange was obviously meant to "sell" the bill to their colleagues who were still weighing their options vis-a-vis the bill and win them over with the illusion that the bill has shed off the "objectionable" provisions.
According to the ALERT:
Lagman pulled out the RH bill and
requested for a discussion. This approval did
not require a vote.
Before Cong. Tinio and Lagman went into this exchange, .
they had asked our allies to be allowed two speakers, in fact. Our allies let them have only one, and so Tinio took the floor. As to why this was allowed, in light of the "gentleman's agreement" not to take up the bill until May--I leave that to our allies who know what they are doing--at that moment-- and have been in huddles all along in the floor.
Our allies had also prepared for every possible (even grim) scenarios for last night's session, having met in two caucuses within the day--one after the Cathedral mass, and another, I was informed, in Congress prior to the afternoon session.
There was no approval of amendments on floor, as there cannot be approvals. There were no votes called on the floor on those "AMENDMENTS."
In fact, after the Tinio-Lagman exchange, Lagman's closing statement was roughly, wala nag dapat ikabahala and mga tumututol sa panukalang batas na ito.
A motion followed by the Majority Leader, Garin, not to approve the "amendments" but a motion to suspend deliberations on 4244. There were no objections to that motion.
And so what followed was that deliberations on third reading started on several local bills and some other in the business of the day for second reading.
The session ended with a Statement from Speaker Belmonte reciting the sessions' overall accomplishments in the last 8 months.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR NEXT STEP DURING THE RECESS?
You will have to inform the public that the bill has remained malevolent, in fact, MORE malevolent in its present modified form, shorn of those contentious provisions.
For a start, look at how the Conditional Cash Transfer is now connected to family planning.
This is a departure from what Sec. Soliman said in the "Dialogue" that ther is no effort to suggest a smaller family size in the CCT's reference to beneficiary families up to the third child.
Then look at the inclusion of the MISP in the bill. MISP is a lethal package of many kits used in disaster areas like they did in my city of Marikina after Ondoy. It is supposed to contain emergency contraception and condoms--in disaster areas! Not water, nourishment, medicines--but condoms among others-- and considering the mention in the bill of "the whole range of services and devices", it will also contain the dreaded Manual Vacuum Aspirator - MVA- as the foreign aid agencies brought in Bosnia. (Ask Joseph Meaney who monitored this, or Dra. Acosta who will tell you the different kinds of MISP kits. You can also google this.)
Then you may want to look closer at the poverty household "surveys" to be conducted as added in the bill. Poverty surveys? This is reminiscent of the door-to-door surveys of Ligtas Buntis.
You also have the centralized procurement of "essential medicines".
AND MANY MORE.
AND OF COURSE, "universal access" is still there; "the full range of devices . . " is still there. Even if parents can opt out their children, the schools will still be teaching what is mandatory to be taught.
This continuing and worsening malevolence is what we should be ALERTING our allies in Congress about.
LET US TURN ON THE LIGHT.
- Atty Jo
The ALERT says:
The Lagman amendments have been approved
after an orchestrated interpellation from Cong.
Tinio.
Tinio.
If the ALERT refers to the provisions on PROHIBITED ACTS, IDEAL FAMILY SIZE, opting out of parents from MANDATORY SEX EDUC, and the OBLIGATION OF EMPLOYERS, proposals to delete these provisions from 4244 and discussions thereon took place LONG BEFORE at the hearing of the bill in the Appropriations Committee where Cong. Nograles and Cong. Bagatsing took made the initiatives for removal of these provisions. The latter also brought up the additional burden of MOBILE HEALTH SERVICES being charged against congressmen/s PDAF. This led also to the idea not to charge MHS to PDAF. These were the "amendments" taken up in that Committee.
Strictly speaking, for our purposes of tracking the bill, it would be more apt to refer to these changes as, well, CHANGES. Or PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS to the bill which amendments can only be taken up during the period of amendments in the plenary, which comes much much later . The process of Interpellation has in fact been agreed to start in May. After Lagman and co. are interpellated, the opponents of the bill will have their time to speak in the Turno en Contra. Another interpellation follows, this time, by the proponents of the bill. The period of amendments follows.
Yesterday's spiel of Tinio and Lagman was, strictly speaking, not an Interpellation in the real sense and in the context of the regular plenary process. It was more of a clarification/presentation of what CHANGES were taken up in the Appro Committee. The "script" of the interchange between Tinio and Lagman was like so (in essence):
Tinio: Is it correct, Mr. Speaker that the provision on prohibited acts in HB 4244 has been take out from the bill?
Lagman: That is correct, Mr Speaker, hence, oppositors to the bill have nothing to fear.
And so on, and so forth, in that pattern.
The exchange was obviously meant to "sell" the bill to their colleagues who were still weighing their options vis-a-vis the bill and win them over with the illusion that the bill has shed off the "objectionable" provisions.
According to the ALERT:
Lagman pulled out the RH bill and
requested for a discussion. This approval did
not require a vote.
they had asked our allies to be allowed two speakers, in fact. Our allies let them have only one, and so Tinio took the floor. As to why this was allowed, in light of the "gentleman's agreement" not to take up the bill until May--I leave that to our allies who know what they are doing--at that moment-- and have been in huddles all along in the floor.
Our allies had also prepared for every possible (even grim) scenarios for last night's session, having met in two caucuses within the day--one after the Cathedral mass, and another, I was informed, in Congress prior to the afternoon session.
There was no approval of amendments on floor, as there cannot be approvals. There were no votes called on the floor on those "AMENDMENTS."
In fact, after the Tinio-Lagman exchange, Lagman's closing statement was roughly, wala nag dapat ikabahala and mga tumututol sa panukalang batas na ito.
A motion followed by the Majority Leader, Garin, not to approve the "amendments" but a motion to suspend deliberations on 4244. There were no objections to that motion.
And so what followed was that deliberations on third reading started on several local bills and some other in the business of the day for second reading.
The session ended with a Statement from Speaker Belmonte reciting the sessions' overall accomplishments in the last 8 months.
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR NEXT STEP DURING THE RECESS?
You will have to inform the public that the bill has remained malevolent, in fact, MORE malevolent in its present modified form, shorn of those contentious provisions.
For a start, look at how the Conditional Cash Transfer is now connected to family planning.
This is a departure from what Sec. Soliman said in the "Dialogue" that ther is no effort to suggest a smaller family size in the CCT's reference to beneficiary families up to the third child.
Then look at the inclusion of the MISP in the bill. MISP is a lethal package of many kits used in disaster areas like they did in my city of Marikina after Ondoy. It is supposed to contain emergency contraception and condoms--in disaster areas! Not water, nourishment, medicines--but condoms among others-- and considering the mention in the bill of "the whole range of services and devices", it will also contain the dreaded Manual Vacuum Aspirator - MVA- as the foreign aid agencies brought in Bosnia. (Ask Joseph Meaney who monitored this, or Dra. Acosta who will tell you the different kinds of MISP kits. You can also google this.)
Then you may want to look closer at the poverty household "surveys" to be conducted as added in the bill. Poverty surveys? This is reminiscent of the door-to-door surveys of Ligtas Buntis.
You also have the centralized procurement of "essential medicines".
AND MANY MORE.
AND OF COURSE, "universal access" is still there; "the full range of devices . . " is still there. Even if parents can opt out their children, the schools will still be teaching what is mandatory to be taught.
This continuing and worsening malevolence is what we should be ALERTING our allies in Congress about.
LET US TURN ON THE LIGHT.
- Atty Jo
Latest from the Congress on RH Bill
RED ALERT
Congress just put one over us!
The Lagman amendments have been approved
after an orchestrated interpellation from Cong.
Tinio. Though the RH bill was not scheduled
Congress had finished the order of business for
the day and Lagman pulled out the RH bill and
requested for a discussion. This approval did
not require a vote.
Interpellation is suspended.
Here is my analysis:
1. Congress has just suceeded in removing the fangs off most our major objections to the bill.
This means that our pro-life congressmen have to shift gears and focus their interpellation on some
over issues.
2. Our pro-life friends have to review their issues and make sure that they focus on the other things.
3. We all have to go back to the congressmen we were talking to and make sure that they vote NO in spite of the amendments.
4. We have to rise up to this very important moment in our country.!
Linda Valenzona
Congress just put one over us!
The Lagman amendments have been approved
after an orchestrated interpellation from Cong.
Tinio. Though the RH bill was not scheduled
Congress had finished the order of business for
the day and Lagman pulled out the RH bill and
requested for a discussion. This approval did
not require a vote.
Interpellation is suspended.
Here is my analysis:
1. Congress has just suceeded in removing the fangs off most our major objections to the bill.
This means that our pro-life congressmen have to shift gears and focus their interpellation on some
over issues.
2. Our pro-life friends have to review their issues and make sure that they focus on the other things.
3. We all have to go back to the congressmen we were talking to and make sure that they vote NO in spite of the amendments.
4. We have to rise up to this very important moment in our country.!
Linda Valenzona
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
NEWS ALERT!
MIDDAY NEWS ALERT
During the plenary session at the Batasan yesterday, Tuesday 22-Mar-2011, Cong. Janette Garin approached members of the Pro-Life Coalition and requested that a period of amendments on HB 4244 be allowed today, Wednesday 23 March 2011 at 4:00 pm.
The amendments are probably those cited in the article in the Philippine Star yesterday.
Read Philstar article ...
Late last night, Majority Floor Leader Cong. Neptali Gonzales II
text blasted all congressmen to be present in today's session.
FYI and mobilization. Let us support our pro-life Congressmen.
Z
PS: Please validate this from your sources at the Batasan.
During the plenary session at the Batasan yesterday, Tuesday 22-Mar-2011, Cong. Janette Garin approached members of the Pro-Life Coalition and requested that a period of amendments on HB 4244 be allowed today, Wednesday 23 March 2011 at 4:00 pm.
The amendments are probably those cited in the article in the Philippine Star yesterday.
Read Philstar article ...
Late last night, Majority Floor Leader Cong. Neptali Gonzales II
text blasted all congressmen to be present in today's session.
FYI and mobilization. Let us support our pro-life Congressmen.
Z
PS: Please validate this from your sources at the Batasan.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Watering down of RH Bill
Lagman and company have been watering down the language and removing some objectionable provisions of the RH Bill, hoping to gain the favor of more undecided Congressmen. Below are the intended amendments. My comments embedded in red.
Sec. 13, lines 9-14, p. 12 : the final line to read "help implement the Act" rather than "give priority to family planning work".
This watered down language does not remove the obligation to implement the Act. The Bill still obliges implementation.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Sec. 15 on Mobile Health Care Service, p. 12, lines 20-25 and page 13, lines 1-6 should be amended to read:
"Each Congressional District may be provided... appropriate to coastal or mountainous areas, THE PROCUREMENT AND OPERATION OF WHICH SHALL BE FUNDED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT" rather than original "may be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each congressional district".
This watered down language does not remove the obligation to fund the Mobile Health Care Service. "Mobile Health Care" really means the mobile FPA clinics first popularized in the UK by the Marie Stopes Society. The revision aims to assure the Congressmen that the RH Law will not diminish their respective pork barrels.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Section 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.
p. 13, lines 7-25 and p. 14, lines 1-13.
Amended to end with final paragraph to read: "PARENTS SHALL EXERCISE THE OPTION OF NOT ALLOWING THEIR MINOR CHILDREN TO ATTEND CLASSES PERTAINING TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND SEXUALITY EDUCATION".
This watered down language does not prohibit, but rather still mandates the DepEd to conduct immoral and deformative UNFPA-UNESCO sex education programs. Such programs are still unconstitutional. The program is optional only to "minor" children, when the children reach high school, the infernal program will still be mandatory. In any case, the DepEd/UNFPA sex education program is still ongoing nationwide.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Section 20. Ideal Family Size. Amended ... deleted in its entirety.
This watered down language does not mean that the government cannot set population targets or engage in cultural re-engineering activities to reduce family size. Such programs are in fact already being implemented by the DOH and other departments of Government.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Section 21. Employers' Responsibility. p. 15, lines 10-15 and p. 16, lines 1-4. Amended by completed being deleted as it is just a restatement and amplification of the existing Article 134 of the Labor Code.
The deletion of this provision means nothing in actuality and adds nothing to the acceptability of the RH Bill. If anything, it merely confirms how laws can coerce employers to apply inhumane and anti-life policies on their employees.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Section 28 (e) on Prohibited Acts , p. 21, lines 24-25 which reads "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act" SHOULD BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY "in order to afford widest latitude to freedom of expression within the limits of existing penal statutes."
The deletion of this provision does not diminish the imposition on moral consciences of the Filipino people. The very existence of an RH Law is an oppressive imposition on freedom of conscience. The activities the RH Bill contemplates will jeopardize the practice of civic and personal virtues among citizens. The RH Bill itself should be DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The masterminds of the RH Bill have already found other ways to penalize objectors.
NO DEAL!
NO DEAL!
Lagman and the Philippine Left are mourning the diminishing size of their Reproductive Health paycheck, which they mean, no doubt, to spend on obtaining political supremacy.
STOP THE RH BILL!
Please take note that as of the moment these changes have not yet been introduced. They will be introduced at the appropriate moment according to Lagman's letter. Hence there is no amended version of the bill. Usually this is will be done after the interpellation and period of amendments is over.
Small talk, big issue
+ Astend that’s the truth
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
Small talk, big issue
A smiley sticker the size of a saucer in the back of my car proclaims: I AM PRO-LIFE. I AM ANTI-RH BILL.
I don’t allow unnecessary stickers on my car—not even religious ones—but this one is an exception. I even applied it myself and only much later did I realize I had broken my own no-sticker rule. It was an act-now-think-later thing but the reason that surfaced later was as clear as a newborn baby’s eyes.
I wanted it to be a voice for the voiceless—the voiceless unborn that the clanging of the RH bill supporters’ cymbals is programmed to annihilate. A colleague gave me that sticker at the Filipinos United for Life Interfaith Rally held at the PICC grounds in Manila last February 13—the only rally I have ever attended in my whole life. Since I can’t attend pro-life rallies as much as I’d want to, I take to the streets everyday with this sticker as my megaphone. Instead of marching in the streets for life with a placard, I drive around fighting death with a smile(y).
I was happy when one morning, at a filling station along E. Rodriguez Ave. in Quezon City, , a gasoline boy asked me, “Ma’am, ano ba yang RH bill?” He was appreciating the sticker, preparing to inflate my tires. I replied, “Ay naku, mapang-api sa mahihirap yan,” and then proceeded to tell him why I think it should not become a law. I said the bill sees a human being as just another mouth to feed, which is contrary to the Filipinos’ belief that children are the wealth of the family.
It usurps parents’ right to educate and look after their own children when it comes to sex, I explained in Tagalog. If that bill is passed, I told him, parents can be jailed for trying to stop their daughter from having an abortion. They can’t even object when their grade-school kids are taught how to use a condom! “Biruin mo, magulang ka, hindi ka na puwedeng magturo ng tama at mali sa anak mo, dahil pakikialam daw yon?!” (It’s no joke that you’re a parent but you’re not allowed to tell your child what’s right or wrong, because that would be taken as meddling!)
Anyone speaking against it will also automatically be judged as malicious and can be thrown into jail, I continued. “Imadyin mo, pag nagsalita ka ng nasasa loob mo, ikukulong ka, tama ba yon?” (Imagine you could be imprisoned for speaking your mind out—is that right?) The gasoline boy quipped, “Patay! Sino na mag-aalalay sa mga anak natin, gobyerno?” (Shucks! Who will guide our kids then, the government?)
That’s what’s so sad about it, I told him, the institution that’s supposed to protect our life seems hell-bent on endangering it. “Mukhang desidido gobyerno eh. Hindi pa nga batas yan ipinatutupad na nila nang patago eh” (The government seems determined; even now they’re clandestinely implementing parts of the bill), I said and recalled for him a story told by a friend whose labandera gave birth at a government facility. Because she’s enlisted as an indigent patient, she was apparently entitled to a maternity benefit of some 3,000 pesos, but she was told she could avail of it only if she would agree to undergo tubal ligation. “Kung hindi siya magpapatali, hindi niya makukuha ang pera. O, ganon ba ang paggalang sa karapatan ng tao? Hindi ba pangbabastos yung iniipit nila yung mahirap?”
We ended at that. How much could one say, after all, in the time it takes to inflate four little car tires? But the incident made me grateful because one gasoline boy noticed my message, and asked about it. I hope I satisfied his curiosity; I pray he heard more than what I said. Small talk on a big issue, totally unplanned, absolutely unexpected. Truly, God never sleeps. And that’s the truth.
END
TRT/March 15, 2011
Fighting 'Contraceptive Mentality' is essential for the Culture of Life - Card. Burke
FIGHTING 'CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY' IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE CULTURE OF LIFE - CARDINAL BURKE:
Lifesitenews, March 18, 2011
Read article ...
Lifesitenews, March 18, 2011
Read article ...
Friday, March 18, 2011
Website Document on Abortion by Pro-RH group, Likhaan
Subject: likhaan.org's website document on "mga ligtas na paraan ng pagpapalaglag"
Dear Ms. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel,
Kindly view this link (if you have not seen it yet). We are concerned that this pro RH group, Likhaan, is promoting abortion contrary to what you have been saying that the pro RH groups are not for it. Kindly let us know what you think of this in relation to your position on the RH Bill or Population Control measure. I look forward to your response soon. I have no doubt that, as a Filipino, you too are after what will raise the quality of life of our countrymen. Maraming salamat po.
God bless you,
Bro. Ed J. T.Tirona / Laiko
http://www.likhaan.org/fil/content/ligtas-na-paraan-pagpapalaglag
Dear Ms. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel,
Kindly view this link (if you have not seen it yet). We are concerned that this pro RH group, Likhaan, is promoting abortion contrary to what you have been saying that the pro RH groups are not for it. Kindly let us know what you think of this in relation to your position on the RH Bill or Population Control measure. I look forward to your response soon. I have no doubt that, as a Filipino, you too are after what will raise the quality of life of our countrymen. Maraming salamat po.
God bless you,
Bro. Ed J. T.Tirona / Laiko
http://www.likhaan.org/fil/content/ligtas-na-paraan-pagpapalaglag
Building a Culture of Life
Building a Culture of Life
Feb. 25, 2011 (Fargo, ND) - Archbishop Chaput addressed laypeople of the Diocese of Fargo, with a presentation titled “Building a Culture of Life.” Archbishop offers a few “dos” and “don’ts” for building a culture of life, based on what he has seen in the American prolife experience throughout the past 38 years.
As I was gathering my thoughts for today, a line from Psalm 89 came back to me again and again: [Lord,] make us know the shortness of our life that we may gain wisdom of heart. That’s an odd way to begin a prolife discussion, isn’t it – reminding everybody in the room that we don’t have a lot of time.
But I think it’s exactly the right place to start. The time we have in this world is brief. God is good, and the life he gives us is filled not just with problems and sorrow, but with beauty and joy and love and hope and nobility – and these things are worth fighting for. What we do in the world matters. How we use our time matters. And therefore the choices we make matter – precisely because we come this way only once, and the world will be better or worse for our passing.
So our presence here together today has a meaning much larger than a nice meal and a good conversation about shared values. It’s an opportunity to remember that God put us here for a purpose. He’s asking us to turn our hearts to building the kind of world that embodies his love and honors the sanctity of the human children he created.
Our theme today is “building a culture of life.” All of us here this afternoon know that U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictive American abortion laws in 1973. That effectively legalized abortion on demand. Since then, abortion has killed more than 50 million unborn American children. It’s also damaged the lives of millions of women and men. The sheer size of this tragedy has had a very curious effect on the American mind, because Americans have always been a religious people – and we still are by the standards of most developed countries. In practice, Americans now have a kind of schizophrenia about the abortion issue. Most of us believe abortion is wrong. But many people – many otherwise good people -- also want it to be legal under some limited circumstances.
This split in the American mind has two results. Here’s the first consequence. The United States has a large and well-funded abortion industry. The industry has very shrewd political lobbyists. It also has a public relations machine that would make George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth look like a gang of amateurs. In practice, the industry runs on an engine of persuasive-sounding lies.
You know some of the lies. I’m sure you’ve heard them a thousand times. There’s the lie that an unborn child isn’t “fully human.” The lie that abortion is a purely private decision without public consequences. The lie that we can be “pro-choice,” and yet not be implicated in where our choices lead -- to the killing of an unborn child.
Here’s the second consequence. Right alongside the abortion industry, our country also has a very vigorous prolife movement. American prolifers have had many setbacks. They never have enough money. They get treated brutally by the media. Too many of their leaders argue with each other too much of the time. But they just won’t give up or die. And so they’ve won quite a few modest but important legal victories. And meanwhile they continue to work toward the strategic goal of overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision.
Based on what I’ve seen in the American prolife experience over the past 38 years, I’d like to offer a few “dos” and “don’ts” for building a culture of life. And perhaps we can talk about them more deeply in our question and answer session. I’ll begin with six “don’ts.”
First, don’t let yourselves be tricked into an inferiority complex.
Critics like to say that religion is divisive, or intellectually backward, or that it has no proper place in the public square. This kind of defective thinking is now so common that any religiously grounded political engagement can be portrayed as crossing the border between Church and state affairs.
But this is nonsense. Democracy depends on people of conviction carrying their beliefs into public debate -- respectfully, legally and non-violently, but vigorously and without apology. If we’re uncomfortable being Christians in a public debate, then we’ve already lost the war. In America the word “pluralism” is often conjured up like a kind of voodoo to get religious people to stop talking about right and wrong. In reality, our moral beliefs always shape social policy. Real pluralism actually demands that people with different beliefs should pursue their beliefs energetically in the public square. This is the only way a public debate can be honest and fruitful. We should never apologize for being Catholics, or for advancing our beliefs in private or in public.
Here’s the second don’t. Don’t let divisions take root.
Unity is a sign of the Holy Spirit. Division is the sign of someone very different. As St. Augustine said, we need to be united in the essentials, free in the debatables, and charitable in all things. Diverse prolife opinion is part of the movement’s richness. Nonetheless, as a bishop, I’ve been baffled by how much energy is wasted on internal prolife bickering. We can never allow our differences to become personal. Acrimony within the prolife movement is a gift to our opponents. It’s also a form of theft from the unborn children who will suffer the consequences of our division.
Here’s the third don’t. Don’t get trapped by partisan politics. But also don’t undervalue the importance of politics.
Politics is an arena where prolife action can have very practical results. Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Christifideles laici, “The charges of careerism, idolatry of power, egoism and corruption that [are] directed at persons in government, parliaments [or] political parties,” are often unwarranted. So is “the common opinion that participating in politics is an absolute moral danger – [on the contrary, these things do not] in the least justify either skepticism or absence on the part of Christians in public life” (42). Or to put it another way: Public office and political activism are not just acceptable for Christians; they can also have real nobility when pursued in the service of truth.
But the fast pace of party politics, and the illusion that politics rules the “commanding heights” of our society and can satisfy our Christian social obligations, makes political life very addictive. And this illusion gets dangerous when defending the unborn child is too closely identified with any particular political leader or, even worse, one specific party. The more prolifers tie themselves to a single political party, the less they can speak to society at large. Here in the United States, Catholics -- both on the left and the right -- have too often made the mistake of becoming cheerleaders for a specific candidate.
Here’s the fourth don’t. Don’t create or accept false oppositions.
Dialectical thinking, and by that I mean the idea that most of our options involve “either/or” choices, is usually un-Christian. During the 2008 presidential election, we saw the emergence of so-called “prolife” organizations that argued we should de-emphasize the legal struggle over abortion. Instead we should join with “pro-choice” supporters to seek “common ground.”
Their argument was simple: Why should we fight a losing battle on the legal, cultural and moral front since – according to them -- we haven’t yet made serious progress in ending legalized abortion? Let’s drop the “divisive” political battle, they said, and instead let’s all work together to tackle the economic and health issues that might eventually reduce abortions.
But as we look at recent American history, did Americans take a gradual, social-improvement road to “reducing” racism? No. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that the best way to deal with murder, rape or domestic abuse is to improve the availability of health care and job training. We make sexual assault illegal -- even though we know it will still sometimes tragically occur -- because it’s gravely evil. It’s an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it. Of course, we also have a duty to improve the social conditions that can breed domestic and sexual violence. But that doesn’t change the need for the law.
Likewise, if we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can’t aim at anything less than ending abortion. It doesn’t matter that some abortions have always occurred, or that some abortions will always occur. If we really believe that abortion kills a developing, unborn human life, then we can never be satisfied with mere “reductions” in the body count.
The U.S. Catholic bishops have argued for nearly 40 years that government needs to improve the economic conditions that can lead some women to abortion. But good programs for economic justice don’t ever absolve Catholics from the legal struggle to end abortion. Protecting the unborn child is not an “either/or” choice. It’s “both/and.” We need to help women facing problem pregnancies with good health care and economic support; and we need to pass laws that will end legal abortion. We need to do both.
Here’s the fifth don’t. Don’t hate the adversary.
People who support an imaginary “right” to abortion are our opponents, but they’re never our “enemies.” Our enemy is the Evil One. Abortion-friendly lawmakers and organizations, and even people who despise us for what we believe, are not our enemies. They’re brothers and sisters. We need to trust in the power of love -- the true power of God. St. Irenaeus of Lyon warned early Christians that we’ve been sent like sheep into the midst of wolves. The moment we become wolves ourselves, we lose.
I’ve always been moved by the story of Norma McCorvey, the woman whose legal case led to the Supreme Court decision that legalized permissive abortion in America. As the years passed after her court victory, McCorvey began to regret her abortion and to examine her life. She converted first to the prolife cause and later to the Catholic faith.
Feeling used and discarded by the abortion industry, McCorvey struggled with depression and fell into a deeply confused life. One day a young prolife Christian couple with children moved in next door to her. Her neighbors always treated her kindly. They often let her talk and play with their children. But she always feared that they would find out who she was -- not just “an enemy” but “the enemy,” the woman who helped legalize abortion.
Norma later discovered that they knew exactly who she was all along. Experiencing their unconditional kindness became the first step on her journey to the Catholic faith and, today, to a life committed to ending abortion.
Here’s the sixth and final don’t. Don’t let your adversaries set the agenda.
In one of his first executive orders back in 2009, President Barack Obama reversed the Mexico City policy, which had blocked U.S. federal money from being used to promote abortion in developing countries. His reason for signing the executive order was that it was time to put this “divisive issue behind us,” once and for all.
There’s something very odd about presidential rhetoric that tells adult citizens what we can or cannot challenge, and when we should be quiet. In a democracy, we get to decide that for ourselves. An issue like abortion – an issue that involves the life and death of unborn children, and the subversion of entire traditional societies -- can’t simply be “put behind us” with an executive signature. It takes a peculiar kind of vanity, or cynicism, or detachment from reality, to think otherwise. And we need to say so – loudly.
Now I’d like to turn to the second part of my talk – the dos.
Here’s the first and most important do. It’s very simple: Do become martyrs. I said it was simple. I didn’t say it was easy. Be ready to pay a price.
During the Great Jubilee Year 2000, Pope John Paul II very shrewdly chose St. Thomas More, a martyr, as the patron saint of lawyers and politicians. Thomas More and his friend Bishop John Fisher, both of them executed by the same king for their fidelity to the Catholic faith, are models of how far we should be willing to go for our beliefs.
In the America of our lifetimes, we may never be asked to shed our blood in witnessing for our faith. But we do see character assassinations, mud-slinging and lies used against good people every day in the public media. And we should be ready to pay the same price. Nothing, not even our good name, should stop us from doing what we know to be right.
Here’s the second do. Keep hope alive.
Cultivating a spirit of Christian joy is not an act of self-deception. It’s a way to acknowledge that God is on our side, and that human nature, created by God and despite the damage done by original sin, is also on our side.
Nothing is more inspiring than happy warriors. I hope some of you will check out the many photos on the web from last month’s March for Life in Washington D.C. Every year it’s an event full of prayer, charity and confidence. Many of the marchers are young, joyful people who radiate a strong hope in the future – and not the shallow hope of political sloganeering, but the real Christian virtue of hope that emerges from self-sacrifice, suffering for justice and the struggle to do God’s will.
I’ve never in my life seen a joy-filled pro-abortion event. And I’ve always found that instructive.
Here’s the third do. Be strategic.
Being sheep in the midst of wolves doesn’t mean we can also be as dumb as sheep. Thomas More was, in the end, a martyr -- but he was also a very adroit thinker and a shrewd, intelligent and prudent political leader as he tried to avoid execution. Prolife organizations are always outspent by pro-abortion forces. Our efforts are dwarfed by their money. We rarely have their access to friendly media, foundations and circles of power. But this can be a blessing disguised as a curse. It forces us to be creative, long-term thinkers and extremely resourceful with our modest means.
Being strategic means planning ahead, setting an agenda, working together and outsmarting our adversaries. To achieve these goals, we need a big dose of realism. We should never dream or whine about all the things we could do with the millions of dollars we don’t have. We need to focus on the real dollars we do have.
Two fishes and five loaves of bread, well invested – in other words, given to the Lord for his purposes -- fed a multitude. History shows that guerrilla wars, if well planned and methodically carried out, can defeat great armies. And we should never forget that the greatest “guerrilla” leader of them all wasn’t Mao Zedong or Che Guevara, but a young shepherd named David, who became a king.
Here’s the fourth do. Do use the best means to deliver your message; especially – but not limited to -- the new technologies. Obviously we should never neglect old technologies that work, and I mean specifically radio. A ministry like Real Presence Radio is a hugely valuable tool in a prolife media strategy, and it needs our support. But it can’t be our only tool.
Today’s new technologies are a mixed social blessing. But they’re also cheap and extremely useful. While the traditional mainline media, including the printing press, are losing influence, blogs, social networks and YouTube channels are thriving. And they offer very big prolife opportunities. The internet, if used well, can break through the wall of silence prolifers usually face from an unfriendly media establishment. And we have very vivid proof. The recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would have been far more difficult without the use of the internet and its related technologies.
Here’s the fifth and final do. Remember that renewing the culture, not gaining power, is our ultimate goal.
Culture is everything. Culture is our “human ecology.” It’s the environment where we human beings breathe not only air, but ideas, beliefs and values. Getting political influence has obvious and important short-term value. But it’s not what prolifers are finally about. Our real task, and our much longer-term and more important goal, is to carry out what John Paul II called the “evangelization of culture.”
We need to work to change the culture. That demands a lifelong commitment to education, Christian formation and, ultimately, conversion. Only saints really change the world. And therein lies our ultimate victory: If we change one heart at a time, while we save one unborn life at a time, the day will come when we won’t need to worry about saving babies, because they’ll be surrounded by a loving and welcoming culture.
Will I see that day with my own eyes? I don’t think I can hold my breath that long. But then, I never expected to see a Polish Pope or the fall of the Iron Curtain either. We may or may not see that day in our own lifetimes, but the children of your grandchildren will see that day. The future depends on our choices and actions right here, right now, today -- together.
I want to end with one final observation. I spent nine of the happiest years of my life as bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota. The reason for that happiness was the people I served. Dakotans -- both north and south -- have a warmth and a goodness about them that will always have a special place in my heart. They also have a sanity that comes from their closeness to the land. In the Dakotas, if you behave like a fool in the way you treat the land, or the weather, or the environment – well, very soon you’re a dead fool. So Dakotans get character, or they get gone, pretty quickly.
Here’s my point: Your character, your faith and your dedication to the sanctity of the human person matter. They matter not just now; and not just here in Fargo; and not just for the thousands of other people your actions influence, without your even knowing their names.
Your commitment to human life matters eternally. Some lives will only be lived because your voice made those lives possible So no matter how tired you get; no matter how hard the work becomes; no matter who praises you or who condemns you; the only thing that finally matters is this: Jesus Christ is Lord. He came to give us life and life abundantly. God is good; and he never abandons his people. And because of his love -- and because of the witness of people like you -- the future is ours. And the best is yet to come.
God bless all of you.
Feb. 25, 2011 (Fargo, ND) - Archbishop Chaput addressed laypeople of the Diocese of Fargo, with a presentation titled “Building a Culture of Life.” Archbishop offers a few “dos” and “don’ts” for building a culture of life, based on what he has seen in the American prolife experience throughout the past 38 years.
As I was gathering my thoughts for today, a line from Psalm 89 came back to me again and again: [Lord,] make us know the shortness of our life that we may gain wisdom of heart. That’s an odd way to begin a prolife discussion, isn’t it – reminding everybody in the room that we don’t have a lot of time.
But I think it’s exactly the right place to start. The time we have in this world is brief. God is good, and the life he gives us is filled not just with problems and sorrow, but with beauty and joy and love and hope and nobility – and these things are worth fighting for. What we do in the world matters. How we use our time matters. And therefore the choices we make matter – precisely because we come this way only once, and the world will be better or worse for our passing.
So our presence here together today has a meaning much larger than a nice meal and a good conversation about shared values. It’s an opportunity to remember that God put us here for a purpose. He’s asking us to turn our hearts to building the kind of world that embodies his love and honors the sanctity of the human children he created.
Our theme today is “building a culture of life.” All of us here this afternoon know that U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictive American abortion laws in 1973. That effectively legalized abortion on demand. Since then, abortion has killed more than 50 million unborn American children. It’s also damaged the lives of millions of women and men. The sheer size of this tragedy has had a very curious effect on the American mind, because Americans have always been a religious people – and we still are by the standards of most developed countries. In practice, Americans now have a kind of schizophrenia about the abortion issue. Most of us believe abortion is wrong. But many people – many otherwise good people -- also want it to be legal under some limited circumstances.
This split in the American mind has two results. Here’s the first consequence. The United States has a large and well-funded abortion industry. The industry has very shrewd political lobbyists. It also has a public relations machine that would make George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth look like a gang of amateurs. In practice, the industry runs on an engine of persuasive-sounding lies.
You know some of the lies. I’m sure you’ve heard them a thousand times. There’s the lie that an unborn child isn’t “fully human.” The lie that abortion is a purely private decision without public consequences. The lie that we can be “pro-choice,” and yet not be implicated in where our choices lead -- to the killing of an unborn child.
Here’s the second consequence. Right alongside the abortion industry, our country also has a very vigorous prolife movement. American prolifers have had many setbacks. They never have enough money. They get treated brutally by the media. Too many of their leaders argue with each other too much of the time. But they just won’t give up or die. And so they’ve won quite a few modest but important legal victories. And meanwhile they continue to work toward the strategic goal of overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision.
Based on what I’ve seen in the American prolife experience over the past 38 years, I’d like to offer a few “dos” and “don’ts” for building a culture of life. And perhaps we can talk about them more deeply in our question and answer session. I’ll begin with six “don’ts.”
First, don’t let yourselves be tricked into an inferiority complex.
Critics like to say that religion is divisive, or intellectually backward, or that it has no proper place in the public square. This kind of defective thinking is now so common that any religiously grounded political engagement can be portrayed as crossing the border between Church and state affairs.
But this is nonsense. Democracy depends on people of conviction carrying their beliefs into public debate -- respectfully, legally and non-violently, but vigorously and without apology. If we’re uncomfortable being Christians in a public debate, then we’ve already lost the war. In America the word “pluralism” is often conjured up like a kind of voodoo to get religious people to stop talking about right and wrong. In reality, our moral beliefs always shape social policy. Real pluralism actually demands that people with different beliefs should pursue their beliefs energetically in the public square. This is the only way a public debate can be honest and fruitful. We should never apologize for being Catholics, or for advancing our beliefs in private or in public.
Here’s the second don’t. Don’t let divisions take root.
Unity is a sign of the Holy Spirit. Division is the sign of someone very different. As St. Augustine said, we need to be united in the essentials, free in the debatables, and charitable in all things. Diverse prolife opinion is part of the movement’s richness. Nonetheless, as a bishop, I’ve been baffled by how much energy is wasted on internal prolife bickering. We can never allow our differences to become personal. Acrimony within the prolife movement is a gift to our opponents. It’s also a form of theft from the unborn children who will suffer the consequences of our division.
Here’s the third don’t. Don’t get trapped by partisan politics. But also don’t undervalue the importance of politics.
Politics is an arena where prolife action can have very practical results. Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Christifideles laici, “The charges of careerism, idolatry of power, egoism and corruption that [are] directed at persons in government, parliaments [or] political parties,” are often unwarranted. So is “the common opinion that participating in politics is an absolute moral danger – [on the contrary, these things do not] in the least justify either skepticism or absence on the part of Christians in public life” (42). Or to put it another way: Public office and political activism are not just acceptable for Christians; they can also have real nobility when pursued in the service of truth.
But the fast pace of party politics, and the illusion that politics rules the “commanding heights” of our society and can satisfy our Christian social obligations, makes political life very addictive. And this illusion gets dangerous when defending the unborn child is too closely identified with any particular political leader or, even worse, one specific party. The more prolifers tie themselves to a single political party, the less they can speak to society at large. Here in the United States, Catholics -- both on the left and the right -- have too often made the mistake of becoming cheerleaders for a specific candidate.
Here’s the fourth don’t. Don’t create or accept false oppositions.
Dialectical thinking, and by that I mean the idea that most of our options involve “either/or” choices, is usually un-Christian. During the 2008 presidential election, we saw the emergence of so-called “prolife” organizations that argued we should de-emphasize the legal struggle over abortion. Instead we should join with “pro-choice” supporters to seek “common ground.”
Their argument was simple: Why should we fight a losing battle on the legal, cultural and moral front since – according to them -- we haven’t yet made serious progress in ending legalized abortion? Let’s drop the “divisive” political battle, they said, and instead let’s all work together to tackle the economic and health issues that might eventually reduce abortions.
But as we look at recent American history, did Americans take a gradual, social-improvement road to “reducing” racism? No. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that the best way to deal with murder, rape or domestic abuse is to improve the availability of health care and job training. We make sexual assault illegal -- even though we know it will still sometimes tragically occur -- because it’s gravely evil. It’s an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it. Of course, we also have a duty to improve the social conditions that can breed domestic and sexual violence. But that doesn’t change the need for the law.
Likewise, if we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can’t aim at anything less than ending abortion. It doesn’t matter that some abortions have always occurred, or that some abortions will always occur. If we really believe that abortion kills a developing, unborn human life, then we can never be satisfied with mere “reductions” in the body count.
The U.S. Catholic bishops have argued for nearly 40 years that government needs to improve the economic conditions that can lead some women to abortion. But good programs for economic justice don’t ever absolve Catholics from the legal struggle to end abortion. Protecting the unborn child is not an “either/or” choice. It’s “both/and.” We need to help women facing problem pregnancies with good health care and economic support; and we need to pass laws that will end legal abortion. We need to do both.
Here’s the fifth don’t. Don’t hate the adversary.
People who support an imaginary “right” to abortion are our opponents, but they’re never our “enemies.” Our enemy is the Evil One. Abortion-friendly lawmakers and organizations, and even people who despise us for what we believe, are not our enemies. They’re brothers and sisters. We need to trust in the power of love -- the true power of God. St. Irenaeus of Lyon warned early Christians that we’ve been sent like sheep into the midst of wolves. The moment we become wolves ourselves, we lose.
I’ve always been moved by the story of Norma McCorvey, the woman whose legal case led to the Supreme Court decision that legalized permissive abortion in America. As the years passed after her court victory, McCorvey began to regret her abortion and to examine her life. She converted first to the prolife cause and later to the Catholic faith.
Feeling used and discarded by the abortion industry, McCorvey struggled with depression and fell into a deeply confused life. One day a young prolife Christian couple with children moved in next door to her. Her neighbors always treated her kindly. They often let her talk and play with their children. But she always feared that they would find out who she was -- not just “an enemy” but “the enemy,” the woman who helped legalize abortion.
Norma later discovered that they knew exactly who she was all along. Experiencing their unconditional kindness became the first step on her journey to the Catholic faith and, today, to a life committed to ending abortion.
Here’s the sixth and final don’t. Don’t let your adversaries set the agenda.
In one of his first executive orders back in 2009, President Barack Obama reversed the Mexico City policy, which had blocked U.S. federal money from being used to promote abortion in developing countries. His reason for signing the executive order was that it was time to put this “divisive issue behind us,” once and for all.
There’s something very odd about presidential rhetoric that tells adult citizens what we can or cannot challenge, and when we should be quiet. In a democracy, we get to decide that for ourselves. An issue like abortion – an issue that involves the life and death of unborn children, and the subversion of entire traditional societies -- can’t simply be “put behind us” with an executive signature. It takes a peculiar kind of vanity, or cynicism, or detachment from reality, to think otherwise. And we need to say so – loudly.
Now I’d like to turn to the second part of my talk – the dos.
Here’s the first and most important do. It’s very simple: Do become martyrs. I said it was simple. I didn’t say it was easy. Be ready to pay a price.
During the Great Jubilee Year 2000, Pope John Paul II very shrewdly chose St. Thomas More, a martyr, as the patron saint of lawyers and politicians. Thomas More and his friend Bishop John Fisher, both of them executed by the same king for their fidelity to the Catholic faith, are models of how far we should be willing to go for our beliefs.
In the America of our lifetimes, we may never be asked to shed our blood in witnessing for our faith. But we do see character assassinations, mud-slinging and lies used against good people every day in the public media. And we should be ready to pay the same price. Nothing, not even our good name, should stop us from doing what we know to be right.
Here’s the second do. Keep hope alive.
Cultivating a spirit of Christian joy is not an act of self-deception. It’s a way to acknowledge that God is on our side, and that human nature, created by God and despite the damage done by original sin, is also on our side.
Nothing is more inspiring than happy warriors. I hope some of you will check out the many photos on the web from last month’s March for Life in Washington D.C. Every year it’s an event full of prayer, charity and confidence. Many of the marchers are young, joyful people who radiate a strong hope in the future – and not the shallow hope of political sloganeering, but the real Christian virtue of hope that emerges from self-sacrifice, suffering for justice and the struggle to do God’s will.
I’ve never in my life seen a joy-filled pro-abortion event. And I’ve always found that instructive.
Here’s the third do. Be strategic.
Being sheep in the midst of wolves doesn’t mean we can also be as dumb as sheep. Thomas More was, in the end, a martyr -- but he was also a very adroit thinker and a shrewd, intelligent and prudent political leader as he tried to avoid execution. Prolife organizations are always outspent by pro-abortion forces. Our efforts are dwarfed by their money. We rarely have their access to friendly media, foundations and circles of power. But this can be a blessing disguised as a curse. It forces us to be creative, long-term thinkers and extremely resourceful with our modest means.
Being strategic means planning ahead, setting an agenda, working together and outsmarting our adversaries. To achieve these goals, we need a big dose of realism. We should never dream or whine about all the things we could do with the millions of dollars we don’t have. We need to focus on the real dollars we do have.
Two fishes and five loaves of bread, well invested – in other words, given to the Lord for his purposes -- fed a multitude. History shows that guerrilla wars, if well planned and methodically carried out, can defeat great armies. And we should never forget that the greatest “guerrilla” leader of them all wasn’t Mao Zedong or Che Guevara, but a young shepherd named David, who became a king.
Here’s the fourth do. Do use the best means to deliver your message; especially – but not limited to -- the new technologies. Obviously we should never neglect old technologies that work, and I mean specifically radio. A ministry like Real Presence Radio is a hugely valuable tool in a prolife media strategy, and it needs our support. But it can’t be our only tool.
Today’s new technologies are a mixed social blessing. But they’re also cheap and extremely useful. While the traditional mainline media, including the printing press, are losing influence, blogs, social networks and YouTube channels are thriving. And they offer very big prolife opportunities. The internet, if used well, can break through the wall of silence prolifers usually face from an unfriendly media establishment. And we have very vivid proof. The recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would have been far more difficult without the use of the internet and its related technologies.
Here’s the fifth and final do. Remember that renewing the culture, not gaining power, is our ultimate goal.
Culture is everything. Culture is our “human ecology.” It’s the environment where we human beings breathe not only air, but ideas, beliefs and values. Getting political influence has obvious and important short-term value. But it’s not what prolifers are finally about. Our real task, and our much longer-term and more important goal, is to carry out what John Paul II called the “evangelization of culture.”
We need to work to change the culture. That demands a lifelong commitment to education, Christian formation and, ultimately, conversion. Only saints really change the world. And therein lies our ultimate victory: If we change one heart at a time, while we save one unborn life at a time, the day will come when we won’t need to worry about saving babies, because they’ll be surrounded by a loving and welcoming culture.
Will I see that day with my own eyes? I don’t think I can hold my breath that long. But then, I never expected to see a Polish Pope or the fall of the Iron Curtain either. We may or may not see that day in our own lifetimes, but the children of your grandchildren will see that day. The future depends on our choices and actions right here, right now, today -- together.
I want to end with one final observation. I spent nine of the happiest years of my life as bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota. The reason for that happiness was the people I served. Dakotans -- both north and south -- have a warmth and a goodness about them that will always have a special place in my heart. They also have a sanity that comes from their closeness to the land. In the Dakotas, if you behave like a fool in the way you treat the land, or the weather, or the environment – well, very soon you’re a dead fool. So Dakotans get character, or they get gone, pretty quickly.
Here’s my point: Your character, your faith and your dedication to the sanctity of the human person matter. They matter not just now; and not just here in Fargo; and not just for the thousands of other people your actions influence, without your even knowing their names.
Your commitment to human life matters eternally. Some lives will only be lived because your voice made those lives possible So no matter how tired you get; no matter how hard the work becomes; no matter who praises you or who condemns you; the only thing that finally matters is this: Jesus Christ is Lord. He came to give us life and life abundantly. God is good; and he never abandons his people. And because of his love -- and because of the witness of people like you -- the future is ours. And the best is yet to come.
God bless all of you.
MARCH. PRAY. RALLY FOR LIFE!
MARCH. PRAY. RALLY FOR LIFE!
With inspiration from the clarion call to defend life and the family made by His Eminence Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales on 14 March 2011, we wish to invite you to join us in an interfaith rally and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist on the Feast of the Annunciation and the Day of the Unborn on the 25th of March 2011, 4:00 PM at the Quirino Grandstand.
This mass demonstration of conviction and faith has also been endorsed by multiple sectors as a call for unity to stand against the societal iniquities that endanger the dignity and sanctity of life. In particular, the march and rally will be the prolifers’ grandstanding of opposing force against the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill.
We encourage everyone from all ages, social classes, and religions to stand up for life via this event. Come up with some eye-catching banners and slogans for the rally. Bring candles during the prayer sessions.
For assistance in mobilization and assembly for the marches, kindly contact the Pro-Life secretariat at 733-7027 or at 734-9425.
With inspiration from the clarion call to defend life and the family made by His Eminence Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales on 14 March 2011, we wish to invite you to join us in an interfaith rally and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist on the Feast of the Annunciation and the Day of the Unborn on the 25th of March 2011, 4:00 PM at the Quirino Grandstand.
This mass demonstration of conviction and faith has also been endorsed by multiple sectors as a call for unity to stand against the societal iniquities that endanger the dignity and sanctity of life. In particular, the march and rally will be the prolifers’ grandstanding of opposing force against the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill.
We encourage everyone from all ages, social classes, and religions to stand up for life via this event. Come up with some eye-catching banners and slogans for the rally. Bring candles during the prayer sessions.
For assistance in mobilization and assembly for the marches, kindly contact the Pro-Life secretariat at 733-7027 or at 734-9425.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
A Challenge that is the RH Bill
The Challenge that is the RH Bill
by: Atty. Maria Concepci'on S. Noche
Amidst the ongoing debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate and
the continuous discussion on television, radio and in newspapers, let me share with
you some nagging thoughts about RH Bill, n0.w designated as HB 4244.
For simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bil and not venture into the dark unknown by s'econd-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future. I will take off from the statement of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in his Inquirer column that the bill will become a law through the exercise of police
power.
Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the Sltate extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.
Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere
with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religous freedon-L under the guise of "general welfare?"
Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the
common good when the rights so firmly enslhrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled
upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the iniringement of these rights?
But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me point out
some major points.
While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible
objectives, it is simply that-a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.
The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and deathnot only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth a~f a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.
An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere
with uterine implantation of the developing enibryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients.
Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur pr~ecisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation does occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.
This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed
because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed.
Paradoxically, while the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and the fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.
Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their
families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability7' of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature and effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and dissemination of information and thorough and widespread discussion about these methods and services. As a resu.lt of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudently determined and identified.. This corlstitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.
The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare
service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are likewise mandated to provide reproduc:tive health services to their employees without mention of religious or ethical considerations. By dangling a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care and medical professionals.
There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for healthcare providers who
knowingly withhold information or restrict dissemination thereof, for any reason.
The abstract proclamations of freedom of religion and expression are
insufficient. To be meaningful, individuals s:hould be allowed to profess and practice their faith by freely seekng and serving God j.n their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others. Only in this way can these basic rights be truly guaranteed.
By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public
and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common
curriculum formulated by designated agen.c:ies, the natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth fc~r civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a supporting and subsidiary role.
In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the full range of reproductive programs and services. Surely, the government should find better use for our hard-earned money.
Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose
and adopt means that are reasonably necessixy to accomplish that purpose? I wish I
knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when our legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.
Unquestionably, the State has a responsibility to seek the common good. In this
capacity, it is legitimate for it to intervene but. certainly, not through authoritarian and coercive measures. In the face of ev-er-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and as a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?
As we seek for a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government
and the rights of those subject to it, we see the need to have a moral approach to the complex and difficult issues that confront our nation and the world today. As
demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a
"good servant" and chose to serve God first, religion has an important place in political process. For indeed, it has been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.
There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for
economic activity has contributed to the recent global financial crisis. Just as "every economic decision has a moral consequence" (Caritas in Veritate, 37)) so too in political field, the ethical dimension of policy h,as far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.
In the depth of the heart of every human being is a divine yearning for truth, for
goodness and for light. Indeed, as we, Filipi:nos, implore the "aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good.. ." (the Preamble), how eventually we respond to the challenge that !is the RH Bill will define us as individuals and as a people.
by: Atty. Maria Concepci'on S. Noche
Amidst the ongoing debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate and
the continuous discussion on television, radio and in newspapers, let me share with
you some nagging thoughts about RH Bill, n0.w designated as HB 4244.
For simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bil and not venture into the dark unknown by s'econd-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future. I will take off from the statement of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in his Inquirer column that the bill will become a law through the exercise of police
power.
Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the Sltate extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.
Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere
with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religous freedon-L under the guise of "general welfare?"
Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the
common good when the rights so firmly enslhrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled
upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the iniringement of these rights?
But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me point out
some major points.
While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible
objectives, it is simply that-a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.
The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of
the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and deathnot only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth a~f a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.
An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere
with uterine implantation of the developing enibryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients.
Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur pr~ecisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation does occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.
This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed
because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed.
Paradoxically, while the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and the fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.
Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their
families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability7' of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature and effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and dissemination of information and thorough and widespread discussion about these methods and services. As a resu.lt of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudently determined and identified.. This corlstitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.
The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare
service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are likewise mandated to provide reproduc:tive health services to their employees without mention of religious or ethical considerations. By dangling a criminal penalty of imprisonment and/or fine, believers will find themselves torn between fidelity to God and loyalty to their country. This unjustly limits the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care and medical professionals.
There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for healthcare providers who
knowingly withhold information or restrict dissemination thereof, for any reason.
The abstract proclamations of freedom of religion and expression are
insufficient. To be meaningful, individuals s:hould be allowed to profess and practice their faith by freely seekng and serving God j.n their hearts, in their lives and in their relationship with others. Only in this way can these basic rights be truly guaranteed.
By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public
and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common
curriculum formulated by designated agen.c:ies, the natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth fc~r civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a supporting and subsidiary role.
In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the full range of reproductive programs and services. Surely, the government should find better use for our hard-earned money.
Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose
and adopt means that are reasonably necessixy to accomplish that purpose? I wish I
knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when our legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.
Unquestionably, the State has a responsibility to seek the common good. In this
capacity, it is legitimate for it to intervene but. certainly, not through authoritarian and coercive measures. In the face of ev-er-changing social conditions that confront us as individuals and as a people, the central question is: What are the requirements that government may reasonably impose upon its citizens and how far should they extend?
As we seek for a genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government
and the rights of those subject to it, we see the need to have a moral approach to the complex and difficult issues that confront our nation and the world today. As
demonstrated by St. Thomas More when he defied the sovereign of which he was a
"good servant" and chose to serve God first, religion has an important place in political process. For indeed, it has been proven time and again that for democracy to be stable, it needs a foundation of moral principles based upon faith and religion.
There is widespread agreement that the lack of a solid ethical foundation for
economic activity has contributed to the recent global financial crisis. Just as "every economic decision has a moral consequence" (Caritas in Veritate, 37)) so too in political field, the ethical dimension of policy h,as far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.
In the depth of the heart of every human being is a divine yearning for truth, for
goodness and for light. Indeed, as we, Filipi:nos, implore the "aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good.. ." (the Preamble), how eventually we respond to the challenge that !is the RH Bill will define us as individuals and as a people.
MARK YOUR CALENDARS PLEASE : Friday, 25 March 2011, 4:30 p.m.
This is wonderful news. HOWEVER ...
While it is going to be a prayer meeting (and we know that God will grant the petition of even one person who prays with humility), it will be very important to secure numbers. God will do His part, but we must do ours, too. Can we do our part? What is that?
We are not in heaven, so spiritual messages -- qualitative -- must be matched by a human message which says that we have the quantity. Can we get the numbers?
Here are some historical notes and considerations.
August 1994. Every parish and shrine, every school, every covenanted community, every caring institution and mandated organization operating in RCAM was "mandated" by the jolly Cardinal Sin to commit a quota of participants to march from their locations to the Luneta. That was when the Archdiocese of Manila had jurisdiction over 268 parishes/shrines.
NB: Out of the original 268 in 1994, RCAM today has only 53 parishes/shrines under its jurisdiction. That's roughly an 80% reduction of numbers. For the directory of RCAM, visit http://www.rcam.org/directory.htm
.
Sunday, August 14, 1994. 1.2 million persons attended the pro-life PRAYER rally at the Luneta called by the Cardinal against the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. It was a show of force that stopped the DOH and FVR campaign to erode the Catholic Church's influence on the Filipino people. The quadrangle fronting the Quirino Grandstand was packed, and the crowd overflowed all the way to Taft Avenue. The crowd estimate was given by the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
NB: If the circumstances were equal, pro-rata, RCAM should be able to muster 20% of 1.2M pax, or 240K pax. That is 40K over the 200K pax required to pack the Quirino quadrangle.
Monday, August 15, 1994. The day after the show of force, Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, FVR imposed a moratorium on family planning communications and pleaded for an immediate meeting between CBCP and the Philippine delegation to the Cairo ICPD. This marked the official silencing of Sec. Juan Flavier, and the appointment of Tita de Villa to the Philippine Delegation (unofficially, the Church's observer).
It was clear to see that FVR conceded that we had the numbers and that the USAID/UNFPA were giving too much credit to their anti-Catholic propaganda.
September 1994, Cairo ICPD. Against all standing orders for a government moratorium on attacks against the Church, SecDOH Flavier delivers a speech to NGOs on how to conduct a population control program by ridiculing the Catholic Church. A video of this reached the RCAM F&L Commission and was disseminated to the bishops even before Philippine delegation had arrived from Cairo. Bp. Jesus Y. Varela of ECFL sent a formal letter of protest to FVR.
Flavier was told to lay low (!) during the Papal Visit, and was "kicked up" to run for the Senate thereafter. His protege Jaime Galvez-Tan became acting SecDOH, and it was during his watch that the pro-life movement pinned DOH and USAID to the wall through the Tetanus Toxoid - antifertility vaccine expose.
Back to the prayer rally.
I guess what needs to be done is the math and the nitty-gritty of mobilization.
Let's phrase the challenge, thus:
THERE ARE ONLY TEN (10) DAYS
TO MOBILIZE 200,000 SOULS
ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
CAN RCAM DO THIS ?
If it cannot, can it rely on adjacent dioceses to send reinforcements?
Failing even that, can it rely on alternative media to magnify the impact of the event?
Just making sure someone is asking the hard questions.
I am in no position to give the answers, but if this cannot be done,
IMHO, perhaps there could be a merger between the March 23 and March 25 prayer rallies
for maximum economy, solidarity, attendance, coverage, and impact.
Suggestion lang naman 'yun.
Z
PS: The spirit of division inserts itself in times like these when tension mounts.
Let us find it in our hearts to LISTEN RESPECTFULLY to the suggestions people are volunteering.
Ponder on the signs. What is at stake here is not "personal reputations" but innocent lives
and the plan of God.
RCAM TODAY
Geographical Aspect
The Archdiocese of Manila is made up of seven (7) cities, namely, Manila, Makati, Pasay, Mandaluyong, Pasig (excluding Santolan and Rosario District), Quezon City (excluding Northern part from Tandang Sora Avenue and Mactan), Kalookan and five (5) municipalities, namely, San Juan, Taguig, Pateros, Malabon and Navotas. It covers a land area of 315.26 sq. km.
It is bounded by the Diocese of Malolos (Bulacan) in the north; Diocese of Antipolo (Rizal) in the East; Diocese of Imus (Cavite) and San Pablo (Laguna) in the south; and the Manila Bay in the west.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Willy Arcilla wrote:
FINALLY! THIS IS THE TRUE SPIRIT OF EDSA.
A CALL FOR FREEDOM, NOT FROM THE TYRANNY OF A DICTATOR.
BUT FREEDOM FROM THE TYRANNY OF SIN.
LET THIS BE THE START OF OUR ROAD TO HOLINESS AS A NATION AND AS A PEOPLE. IF THE JEWS WERE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, LET THE FILIPINOS BE A PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN GOD.
WHILE NINOY AQUINO ENNOBLED THE FILIPINO WITH THE WORDS "THE FILIPINO IS WORTH DYING FOR", WE SHALL SANCTIFY THE FILIPINO BECAUSE "GOD IS WORTH DYING FOR!"
LET THE NATIONAL ANTHEM BECOME A NATIONAL PRAYER AS WE SING "AMING LIGAYA NA PAG MAY MANG-AAPI, ANG MAMATAY NG DAHIL SA DIYOS."
While it is going to be a prayer meeting (and we know that God will grant the petition of even one person who prays with humility), it will be very important to secure numbers. God will do His part, but we must do ours, too. Can we do our part? What is that?
We are not in heaven, so spiritual messages -- qualitative -- must be matched by a human message which says that we have the quantity. Can we get the numbers?
Here are some historical notes and considerations.
August 1994. Every parish and shrine, every school, every covenanted community, every caring institution and mandated organization operating in RCAM was "mandated" by the jolly Cardinal Sin to commit a quota of participants to march from their locations to the Luneta. That was when the Archdiocese of Manila had jurisdiction over 268 parishes/shrines.
NB: Out of the original 268 in 1994, RCAM today has only 53 parishes/shrines under its jurisdiction. That's roughly an 80% reduction of numbers. For the directory of RCAM, visit http://www.rcam.org/directory.htm
.
Sunday, August 14, 1994. 1.2 million persons attended the pro-life PRAYER rally at the Luneta called by the Cardinal against the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. It was a show of force that stopped the DOH and FVR campaign to erode the Catholic Church's influence on the Filipino people. The quadrangle fronting the Quirino Grandstand was packed, and the crowd overflowed all the way to Taft Avenue. The crowd estimate was given by the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
NB: If the circumstances were equal, pro-rata, RCAM should be able to muster 20% of 1.2M pax, or 240K pax. That is 40K over the 200K pax required to pack the Quirino quadrangle.
Monday, August 15, 1994. The day after the show of force, Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, FVR imposed a moratorium on family planning communications and pleaded for an immediate meeting between CBCP and the Philippine delegation to the Cairo ICPD. This marked the official silencing of Sec. Juan Flavier, and the appointment of Tita de Villa to the Philippine Delegation (unofficially, the Church's observer).
It was clear to see that FVR conceded that we had the numbers and that the USAID/UNFPA were giving too much credit to their anti-Catholic propaganda.
September 1994, Cairo ICPD. Against all standing orders for a government moratorium on attacks against the Church, SecDOH Flavier delivers a speech to NGOs on how to conduct a population control program by ridiculing the Catholic Church. A video of this reached the RCAM F&L Commission and was disseminated to the bishops even before Philippine delegation had arrived from Cairo. Bp. Jesus Y. Varela of ECFL sent a formal letter of protest to FVR.
Flavier was told to lay low (!) during the Papal Visit, and was "kicked up" to run for the Senate thereafter. His protege Jaime Galvez-Tan became acting SecDOH, and it was during his watch that the pro-life movement pinned DOH and USAID to the wall through the Tetanus Toxoid - antifertility vaccine expose.
Back to the prayer rally.
I guess what needs to be done is the math and the nitty-gritty of mobilization.
Let's phrase the challenge, thus:
THERE ARE ONLY TEN (10) DAYS
TO MOBILIZE 200,000 SOULS
ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
CAN RCAM DO THIS ?
If it cannot, can it rely on adjacent dioceses to send reinforcements?
Failing even that, can it rely on alternative media to magnify the impact of the event?
Just making sure someone is asking the hard questions.
I am in no position to give the answers, but if this cannot be done,
IMHO, perhaps there could be a merger between the March 23 and March 25 prayer rallies
for maximum economy, solidarity, attendance, coverage, and impact.
Suggestion lang naman 'yun.
Z
PS: The spirit of division inserts itself in times like these when tension mounts.
Let us find it in our hearts to LISTEN RESPECTFULLY to the suggestions people are volunteering.
Ponder on the signs. What is at stake here is not "personal reputations" but innocent lives
and the plan of God.
RCAM TODAY
Geographical Aspect
The Archdiocese of Manila is made up of seven (7) cities, namely, Manila, Makati, Pasay, Mandaluyong, Pasig (excluding Santolan and Rosario District), Quezon City (excluding Northern part from Tandang Sora Avenue and Mactan), Kalookan and five (5) municipalities, namely, San Juan, Taguig, Pateros, Malabon and Navotas. It covers a land area of 315.26 sq. km.
It is bounded by the Diocese of Malolos (Bulacan) in the north; Diocese of Antipolo (Rizal) in the East; Diocese of Imus (Cavite) and San Pablo (Laguna) in the south; and the Manila Bay in the west.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Willy Arcilla
FINALLY! THIS IS THE TRUE SPIRIT OF EDSA.
A CALL FOR FREEDOM, NOT FROM THE TYRANNY OF A DICTATOR.
BUT FREEDOM FROM THE TYRANNY OF SIN.
LET THIS BE THE START OF OUR ROAD TO HOLINESS AS A NATION AND AS A PEOPLE. IF THE JEWS WERE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, LET THE FILIPINOS BE A PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN GOD.
WHILE NINOY AQUINO ENNOBLED THE FILIPINO WITH THE WORDS "THE FILIPINO IS WORTH DYING FOR", WE SHALL SANCTIFY THE FILIPINO BECAUSE "GOD IS WORTH DYING FOR!"
LET THE NATIONAL ANTHEM BECOME A NATIONAL PRAYER AS WE SING "AMING LIGAYA NA PAG MAY MANG-AAPI, ANG MAMATAY NG DAHIL SA DIYOS."
Manila sets 'grandmother' of RH bill rallies
Manila sets ‘grandmother’ of RH bill rallies
MANILA, March 15, 2011— Metro Manila’s Catholic bishops are hoping to use their influence to raise awareness about the alleged risk of a birth control measure.
Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales and other prelates will be leading the ‘grandmother’ of all rallies against the reproductive health (RH) bill at the Quirino Grandstand on March 25.
The church leaders have joined with other anti-RH bill advocacy groups to press lawmakers to reject the proposed measure. Read more ...
MANILA, March 15, 2011— Metro Manila’s Catholic bishops are hoping to use their influence to raise awareness about the alleged risk of a birth control measure.
Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales and other prelates will be leading the ‘grandmother’ of all rallies against the reproductive health (RH) bill at the Quirino Grandstand on March 25.
The church leaders have joined with other anti-RH bill advocacy groups to press lawmakers to reject the proposed measure. Read more ...
March 17 - National Conference of Catholics for Reproductive Health
I received the following SMS, for your information please:
"A group called Catholics 4 RH organized a National Conference of Catholics for RH on March 17, 8am - 4pm at GT Toyota Asian Center in UP. Simulcast Cebu Tacloban Davao Baguio plus community based gatherings in 11 provinces. The main objectinve: to bring out the voices of Filipino Catholics by providing venue for them and clergy to exchange experiences and views on RH." Riza Bondal
Below are more details.
Sorry failed to include:
At the end of the day Synthesis and Closing Remarks, Dr. Edelina dela Paz, National Coordinator, Catholics for RH.
Some Comments: How do we know if the priest who might speak in favor of RH is really a priest? Baka impostor!
Just to give you an idea of what they are up to on March 17 National Conference of Catholics for Reproductive Health
1. Kinds of participants who are welcome to the activity based on options indicated in the reply slip of those who receive the invitation
a. A Catholic, open minded and willing to learn more about the RH
b. Not Catholic/ no longer Catholic, but will send a Catholic [[who perhaps can be converted to their cause]]
2. Speakers
a. Welcome Remarks and Objectives: Benjamin de Leon, President forum for FP and Development
b. Keynote address: Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (To be confirmed)
c. Part I Conversation-Perspectives of Catholic Clergies on Reproductive Health (I don't know these people, but can the Heirarchy prevent clergy/religious with dissenting position not to speak as though they are representing the Church?)
(1) Fr. Jose Tacain, Bishop of Dili, East Timor
(2) Fr. Julian Cruzalta, Dominican Friar of the Ecclesiatical Observatory, Mexico
(3) Sr. Nenita Tapia (To be confirmed)
(4) Fr. Percy Juan Bacani, Vicar Missionaries of Jesus, Phil.
Facilitaor: Dr. Ernesto Pernia-U.P. Econ Professor [What has an economist to do with the clergy?]
d. Part II Filipino Catholics and Reproductive Health
(1) Culture, Religion and the State of Reproductive Health in the Phil., Dr. Michael Tan, Dean, UP College of Social Science and Philo.
(2) Biomedical Ethics of RH, Dr. Marita V. Reyes, Professor, UP College of Medicine
e. Part III Challenges of the RH Advocacy in the Philippines
MANILA
(1) Separation of Church and State: Constitutionalist and Theologist, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Dean Emeritus, Ateneo School of Law
(2) Advocating RH in Government, Hon. Enrique Ona, Secretary, Department of Health
(3) Fighting for RH rights: Salient Features of the RH Bill, Hon. Edcel Lagman, Congressman
Voices from the Ground
Workshop and Action Planning. Focus questions:
What RH issues do you feel strongly about and what can you do about it?
If you support RH, may we ask for a statement of support for RH and the RH bill?
PROVINCES
(1) Local situationer by pro-RH local government leader
(2) Statements: 1 RH author & 1 LGU or Clergy or CSO
(3)RH Bill Authors (Cong. Luz Ilagan, Palatino, Bag-ao, Garin, Baguilat, etc.)
Voices from the Ground
same focus questions as Manila.
"A group called Catholics 4 RH organized a National Conference of Catholics for RH on March 17, 8am - 4pm at GT Toyota Asian Center in UP. Simulcast Cebu Tacloban Davao Baguio plus community based gatherings in 11 provinces. The main objectinve: to bring out the voices of Filipino Catholics by providing venue for them and clergy to exchange experiences and views on RH." Riza Bondal
Below are more details.
Sorry failed to include:
At the end of the day Synthesis and Closing Remarks, Dr. Edelina dela Paz, National Coordinator, Catholics for RH.
Some Comments: How do we know if the priest who might speak in favor of RH is really a priest? Baka impostor!
Just to give you an idea of what they are up to on March 17 National Conference of Catholics for Reproductive Health
1. Kinds of participants who are welcome to the activity based on options indicated in the reply slip of those who receive the invitation
a. A Catholic, open minded and willing to learn more about the RH
b. Not Catholic/ no longer Catholic, but will send a Catholic [[who perhaps can be converted to their cause]]
2. Speakers
a. Welcome Remarks and Objectives: Benjamin de Leon, President forum for FP and Development
b. Keynote address: Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (To be confirmed)
c. Part I Conversation-Perspectives of Catholic Clergies on Reproductive Health (I don't know these people, but can the Heirarchy prevent clergy/religious with dissenting position not to speak as though they are representing the Church?)
(1) Fr. Jose Tacain, Bishop of Dili, East Timor
(2) Fr. Julian Cruzalta, Dominican Friar of the Ecclesiatical Observatory, Mexico
(3) Sr. Nenita Tapia (To be confirmed)
(4) Fr. Percy Juan Bacani, Vicar Missionaries of Jesus, Phil.
Facilitaor: Dr. Ernesto Pernia-U.P. Econ Professor [What has an economist to do with the clergy?]
d. Part II Filipino Catholics and Reproductive Health
(1) Culture, Religion and the State of Reproductive Health in the Phil., Dr. Michael Tan, Dean, UP College of Social Science and Philo.
(2) Biomedical Ethics of RH, Dr. Marita V. Reyes, Professor, UP College of Medicine
e. Part III Challenges of the RH Advocacy in the Philippines
MANILA
(1) Separation of Church and State: Constitutionalist and Theologist, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Dean Emeritus, Ateneo School of Law
(2) Advocating RH in Government, Hon. Enrique Ona, Secretary, Department of Health
(3) Fighting for RH rights: Salient Features of the RH Bill, Hon. Edcel Lagman, Congressman
Voices from the Ground
Workshop and Action Planning. Focus questions:
What RH issues do you feel strongly about and what can you do about it?
If you support RH, may we ask for a statement of support for RH and the RH bill?
PROVINCES
(1) Local situationer by pro-RH local government leader
(2) Statements: 1 RH author & 1 LGU or Clergy or CSO
(3)RH Bill Authors (Cong. Luz Ilagan, Palatino, Bag-ao, Garin, Baguilat, etc.)
Voices from the Ground
same focus questions as Manila.
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
NOT every pro-lifer is a lawyer, but I think it would be good to familiarize ourselves
with PREVAILING laws that protect human life, particularly against abortion and
abortives. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines reads:
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Chapter One
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion.
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.
Art. 256. Intentional abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. — The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
These pro-life laws are not being enforced due to the flood of anti-life decrees,
executive orders and pronouncements issued by misguided presidents from
Marcos, Cory, Ramos, and Estrada.
PS: I am confident that the leaders of the "Alabang Revolt" have not overlooked
the importance of these provisions. As far as the issue of "abortives" is concerned, the
Alabangers are merely providing the enabling instruments for the enforcement
of the Revised Penal Code.
Z
PS: Forget about Fr. Joaquin "seems-to-be" Bernas, SJ, JSD (?). He is drowning in
Jurisprudence, and has forgotten what moral PRUDENCE is all about. He accuses
the Alabangers of being inquisitorial, as though he does not see the inquisitorial
provisions in the RH Bill. He has analyzed himself to irrelevance and has proven
to be a condescending armchair elitist himself.
with PREVAILING laws that protect human life, particularly against abortion and
abortives. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines reads:
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Chapter One
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion.
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.
Art. 256. Intentional abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. — The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
These pro-life laws are not being enforced due to the flood of anti-life decrees,
executive orders and pronouncements issued by misguided presidents from
Marcos, Cory, Ramos, and Estrada.
PS: I am confident that the leaders of the "Alabang Revolt" have not overlooked
the importance of these provisions. As far as the issue of "abortives" is concerned, the
Alabangers are merely providing the enabling instruments for the enforcement
of the Revised Penal Code.
Z
PS: Forget about Fr. Joaquin "seems-to-be" Bernas, SJ, JSD (?). He is drowning in
Jurisprudence, and has forgotten what moral PRUDENCE is all about. He accuses
the Alabangers of being inquisitorial, as though he does not see the inquisitorial
provisions in the RH Bill. He has analyzed himself to irrelevance and has proven
to be a condescending armchair elitist himself.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Contraceptive Mentality
Today's Spirit & Life is written by Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI's Director of Research and Training
The "Contraceptive Mentality"
The "contraceptive mentality" often directs and informs the moral aspects of a person's life. Like most severe ideologies, it is a sterile way of thinking that disregards evidence conflicting with one's belief system, thus leading to erroneous conclusions and destructive behavior. It ignores long-term consequences as it attempts to deal with short-term needs or situations. It eventually becomes habitual, and is very difficult to overcome because it is defined by a framework of unspoken (and usually poorly considered) assumptions that "everyone knows are true." Read more ...
The "Contraceptive Mentality"
The "contraceptive mentality" often directs and informs the moral aspects of a person's life. Like most severe ideologies, it is a sterile way of thinking that disregards evidence conflicting with one's belief system, thus leading to erroneous conclusions and destructive behavior. It ignores long-term consequences as it attempts to deal with short-term needs or situations. It eventually becomes habitual, and is very difficult to overcome because it is defined by a framework of unspoken (and usually poorly considered) assumptions that "everyone knows are true." Read more ...
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Divine Intervention!
“BIGLANG NASIRA ANG AIRCON”
Posted by 1rgcruz on March 1, 2011 ·
The House of Representatives cancelled its 1st scheduled plenary session for the Controversial reproductive Health Bill after the session hall’s air conditioning system broke down. Read more ...
Posted by 1rgcruz on March 1, 2011 ·
The House of Representatives cancelled its 1st scheduled plenary session for the Controversial reproductive Health Bill after the session hall’s air conditioning system broke down. Read more ...
Population a headache but part of 3G index
'Population a headache but part of 3G index'
By Ding Cervantes (The Philippine Star) Updated March 01, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (27) View comments
CLARK FREEPORT, Pampanga , Philippines – A runaway population may be a headache, but for Citigroup it’s part of the global growth generator or 3G index, which can signal huge growth potential for the Philippines and 10 other countries. Read more ...
By Ding Cervantes (The Philippine Star) Updated March 01, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (27) View comments
CLARK FREEPORT, Pampanga , Philippines – A runaway population may be a headache, but for Citigroup it’s part of the global growth generator or 3G index, which can signal huge growth potential for the Philippines and 10 other countries. Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)