Church strengthens NFP campaign
MANILA, Jan. 25, 2011—The Catholic Church is stepping up its campaign against contraception by increasing its efforts to promote natural family planning (NFP).
In Manila, priests and religious will undergo a reorientation seminar on NFP for them to be more effective in convincing couples to practice the method.
The church is not only stressing that artificial contraception violates Catholic teaching but that it harms women’s bodies and the environment.
In a circular dated Jan. 17, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales called on his priests to attend the seminar set on two dates to give them enough opportunity.
The seminar entitled “Appreciating the Gift of NFP” is scheduled on Feb. 8 and 22 at the San Carlos Seminary Auditorium in Makati City.
It will be facilitated by the John Paul II Natural Family Planning Center of the Commission on Family and Life of the Archdiocese of Manila.
“This is part of our pro-active response to the challenge of fostering a genuine civilization of life and love,” Rosales said.
The cardinal stressed the need for the seminar on NFP as discussions and debates on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill are heating up.
“But whether the bill gains passage or not, it remains a pastoral priority of the Church to provide our faithful with the best positive moral alternative available to promote responsible parenthood,” he said.
“As information and formation continue regarding the true nature and intent of the bill, opposition against it increases as well,” he said.
The Catholic hierarchy has consistently opposed the use of artificial contraception methods like condoms and pills. (CBCPNews)
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Population size not poverty's cause - Malacanang
Population size not poverty’s cause – Malacañang
MANILA, Jan. 24, 2011— Overpopulation causing poverty is not a byline of the Aquino administration, ranking government officials said.
In Monday’s continuation of the dialogue between Malacañang and the Catholic bishops, they agreed that the great challenge to development is not demographic explosion.
In a press briefing, Msgr. Juanito Figura, CBCP secretary general, said they are elated with how the dialogue is doing, which means “we are beginning to see things clearer.”
He said they were assured by Social Welfare and Development Secretary Dinky Soliman that the government does not tie population with economic crisis.
“Secretary Soliman herself said she does not recall any cabinet cluster meeting saying that population is the cause of poverty,” said Figura.
“Instead, she said that the main concern of the government is to ensure that parents take good care of their children.”
The CBCP official also quoted Health Secretary Enrique Ona as saying that the government’s “responsible parenthood” program has nothing to do with controlling the population.
“Secretary Ona later added that responsible parenthood supports poverty reduction… it has nothing to do with population growth or population reduction,” he said.
Proponents of the reproductive health (RH) bill have pointed the finger at the country’s growing population as a cause of underdevelopment.
The church was also assured during the dialogue that there is “no compulsion” from the government on the size of family and on the use of contraceptives and sterilization services, Figura said.
“Secretary Ona emphasized that there are no quotas on contraceptives and sterilization services imposed on health workers,” he said. “In fact, he advised that reports of instances of coercion be brought to his office directly.”
“The government panel also said they respect the religious conviction of couples in their decision regarding the size of their family and spacing in their children,” Figura added.
The CBCP official, however, said that declaring that the Aquino administration is going soft on the RH bill is still “premature.”
“We are beginning to know more of their side and they are beginning to know our side. As to where this is heading to, it’s a bit early to predict or comment on that now. But it’s helping us a lot,” he said. (CBCPNews)
MANILA, Jan. 24, 2011— Overpopulation causing poverty is not a byline of the Aquino administration, ranking government officials said.
In Monday’s continuation of the dialogue between Malacañang and the Catholic bishops, they agreed that the great challenge to development is not demographic explosion.
In a press briefing, Msgr. Juanito Figura, CBCP secretary general, said they are elated with how the dialogue is doing, which means “we are beginning to see things clearer.”
He said they were assured by Social Welfare and Development Secretary Dinky Soliman that the government does not tie population with economic crisis.
“Secretary Soliman herself said she does not recall any cabinet cluster meeting saying that population is the cause of poverty,” said Figura.
“Instead, she said that the main concern of the government is to ensure that parents take good care of their children.”
The CBCP official also quoted Health Secretary Enrique Ona as saying that the government’s “responsible parenthood” program has nothing to do with controlling the population.
“Secretary Ona later added that responsible parenthood supports poverty reduction… it has nothing to do with population growth or population reduction,” he said.
Proponents of the reproductive health (RH) bill have pointed the finger at the country’s growing population as a cause of underdevelopment.
The church was also assured during the dialogue that there is “no compulsion” from the government on the size of family and on the use of contraceptives and sterilization services, Figura said.
“Secretary Ona emphasized that there are no quotas on contraceptives and sterilization services imposed on health workers,” he said. “In fact, he advised that reports of instances of coercion be brought to his office directly.”
“The government panel also said they respect the religious conviction of couples in their decision regarding the size of their family and spacing in their children,” Figura added.
The CBCP official, however, said that declaring that the Aquino administration is going soft on the RH bill is still “premature.”
“We are beginning to know more of their side and they are beginning to know our side. As to where this is heading to, it’s a bit early to predict or comment on that now. But it’s helping us a lot,” he said. (CBCPNews)
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Grand Deception
Grand deception
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
(The Philippine Star) Updated January 17, 2011 12:00 AM
Like it or not, most of the members of Congress do not observe regular office hours. Nor do they report for work regularly every working day. Only their lowly staff members punch time cards and report for work regularly. It is accepted and common knowledge that plenary sessions or committee hearings are often delayed or postponed for failure to muster a quorum. Hence it comes as something odd and a big surprise to learn that the Congressional Committee hearing the RH bill is working and meeting even on a Sunday!
I tried to contain my surprise by thinking that maybe we just have a more conscientious and dedicated bunch of legislators now. But when I further learned that those attending the hearing are mostly pro-RH bill advocates, my surprise turned into suspicion and alarm. At the risk of being branded a paranoid, I really cannot help but conclude that there is an attempt to pass off this Sunday gathering as part of the required number of public hearings before the bill is endorsed to the entire House for deliberation. It really looks like the Congressional locomotive is now being used to speed up its passage.
The bill is becoming more controversial precisely because its sponsors apparently have no intention to consider and remove its objectionable portions by using all sorts of tactics to insure its passage. Lately, they have even used (or plagiarized?) the phrase “responsible parenthood” as part of its title. Hence it is now also known as the “responsible parenthood” bill. Obviously this is an attempt to appease Church people.
Indeed “responsible parenthood” is a phrase that has long been used by the Church in her apostolate on family life. The meaning of this phrase as part of the Church teaching has already been clearly set forth by the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) citing the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, as follows:
“The profound link between the conjugal union and the gift of life gives married couples a vocation to give life, as long as they can responsibly care for the children they beget. Hence responsible parenthood calls for an understanding of the reproductive processes of the spouses’ bodies, including the women’s fertility cycle. And as with any passion (anger, fear, love for food, desire for more etc.), the sexual drive should be placed under control of the intellect and the will, through the very exercise of virtues rendering the sexual faculties truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons.
Responsible parenthood further involves the decision either (1) to generously raise a numerous family if the couple is capable of doing so, or (2) if there are more serious reasons (health, economic, social, psychological, etc) not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely.
Thus, responsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do. The sexual union is appropriate only within the context of marital love, which must always be faithful, permanent, and exclusive between one man and one woman who is open to the gift of new life.
Responsible parenthood also has nothing to do with encouraging or coercing couples, whether directly or indirectly to have only one or two children. It is not a population control program. Neither the government nor the Church may tell couples how many children to have, for the decision to have either a small or a large family rests on the couple themselves”.
Unless it has already been substantially changed, the main features of the RH bill as originally conceived and worded by its authors and advocates particularly the foreign funded Philippine Legislative Council on Population Development (PLCPD), are diametrically opposed to this real concept of “responsible parenthood” as originally conceived by the Church.
The bill appropriates millions or even billions of public funds to finance the purchase of contraceptives and procurement of other artificial devices so that couples can use them to have “safe and satisfying sex”; safe in the sense that one can engage in it without getting pregnant and satisfying in the sense that one can enjoy it because of lack of fear of having a baby. In other words, the real purpose of the bill is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not to promote responsible parenthood. Responsible parenthood in its true sense does not contemplate the use of artificial contraceptives.
Of course the bill admittedly gives couples the freedom to choose or not to choose these contraceptives and devices. But since they are made available without any cost or inconvenience, hardship and sacrifice, couples will naturally choose them. So what is actually “free” here is not the choice but the artificial contraceptives and devices.
Another deception in the bill is that it is supposedly intended to promote reproductive health; to prevent the increasing death rate of mother and/or child during birth or immediately thereafter. In effect, it considers pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented instead of improving the medical services available to mother and child; instead of simply providing more modern facilities for maternal health and child care. The DOH can do this even without any enabling Act. Indeed the billion peso public funds intended for the purchase of contraceptives and devices can be put to better use for these purposes.
The bill is also inconsistent with the real concept of responsible parenthood because it provides incentives to couples to have only one or two children. This is indirect coercion intended to control our population at a time when our total fertility rate is already declining.
The advocates and sponsors of this bill should therefore refrain from using “responsible parenthood” to describe the bill if its contents are substantially the same. Otherwise it will be a grand deception that will only enrich the manufacturers of these artificial contraceptives and promote the agenda of first world countries to maintain the status quo by keeping us a third world and under-developed country so that they can continue to exploit our human and natural resources. And if our leaders and legislators fall for this grand deception, then it is time…to pray harder that heaven help our country.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
(The Philippine Star) Updated January 17, 2011 12:00 AM
Like it or not, most of the members of Congress do not observe regular office hours. Nor do they report for work regularly every working day. Only their lowly staff members punch time cards and report for work regularly. It is accepted and common knowledge that plenary sessions or committee hearings are often delayed or postponed for failure to muster a quorum. Hence it comes as something odd and a big surprise to learn that the Congressional Committee hearing the RH bill is working and meeting even on a Sunday!
I tried to contain my surprise by thinking that maybe we just have a more conscientious and dedicated bunch of legislators now. But when I further learned that those attending the hearing are mostly pro-RH bill advocates, my surprise turned into suspicion and alarm. At the risk of being branded a paranoid, I really cannot help but conclude that there is an attempt to pass off this Sunday gathering as part of the required number of public hearings before the bill is endorsed to the entire House for deliberation. It really looks like the Congressional locomotive is now being used to speed up its passage.
The bill is becoming more controversial precisely because its sponsors apparently have no intention to consider and remove its objectionable portions by using all sorts of tactics to insure its passage. Lately, they have even used (or plagiarized?) the phrase “responsible parenthood” as part of its title. Hence it is now also known as the “responsible parenthood” bill. Obviously this is an attempt to appease Church people.
Indeed “responsible parenthood” is a phrase that has long been used by the Church in her apostolate on family life. The meaning of this phrase as part of the Church teaching has already been clearly set forth by the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) citing the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, as follows:
“The profound link between the conjugal union and the gift of life gives married couples a vocation to give life, as long as they can responsibly care for the children they beget. Hence responsible parenthood calls for an understanding of the reproductive processes of the spouses’ bodies, including the women’s fertility cycle. And as with any passion (anger, fear, love for food, desire for more etc.), the sexual drive should be placed under control of the intellect and the will, through the very exercise of virtues rendering the sexual faculties truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons.
Responsible parenthood further involves the decision either (1) to generously raise a numerous family if the couple is capable of doing so, or (2) if there are more serious reasons (health, economic, social, psychological, etc) not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely.
Thus, responsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do. The sexual union is appropriate only within the context of marital love, which must always be faithful, permanent, and exclusive between one man and one woman who is open to the gift of new life.
Responsible parenthood also has nothing to do with encouraging or coercing couples, whether directly or indirectly to have only one or two children. It is not a population control program. Neither the government nor the Church may tell couples how many children to have, for the decision to have either a small or a large family rests on the couple themselves”.
Unless it has already been substantially changed, the main features of the RH bill as originally conceived and worded by its authors and advocates particularly the foreign funded Philippine Legislative Council on Population Development (PLCPD), are diametrically opposed to this real concept of “responsible parenthood” as originally conceived by the Church.
The bill appropriates millions or even billions of public funds to finance the purchase of contraceptives and procurement of other artificial devices so that couples can use them to have “safe and satisfying sex”; safe in the sense that one can engage in it without getting pregnant and satisfying in the sense that one can enjoy it because of lack of fear of having a baby. In other words, the real purpose of the bill is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and not to promote responsible parenthood. Responsible parenthood in its true sense does not contemplate the use of artificial contraceptives.
Of course the bill admittedly gives couples the freedom to choose or not to choose these contraceptives and devices. But since they are made available without any cost or inconvenience, hardship and sacrifice, couples will naturally choose them. So what is actually “free” here is not the choice but the artificial contraceptives and devices.
Another deception in the bill is that it is supposedly intended to promote reproductive health; to prevent the increasing death rate of mother and/or child during birth or immediately thereafter. In effect, it considers pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented instead of improving the medical services available to mother and child; instead of simply providing more modern facilities for maternal health and child care. The DOH can do this even without any enabling Act. Indeed the billion peso public funds intended for the purchase of contraceptives and devices can be put to better use for these purposes.
The bill is also inconsistent with the real concept of responsible parenthood because it provides incentives to couples to have only one or two children. This is indirect coercion intended to control our population at a time when our total fertility rate is already declining.
The advocates and sponsors of this bill should therefore refrain from using “responsible parenthood” to describe the bill if its contents are substantially the same. Otherwise it will be a grand deception that will only enrich the manufacturers of these artificial contraceptives and promote the agenda of first world countries to maintain the status quo by keeping us a third world and under-developed country so that they can continue to exploit our human and natural resources. And if our leaders and legislators fall for this grand deception, then it is time…to pray harder that heaven help our country.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A Death Sentence for 2011
Kris-Crossing Mindanao
A death sentence for 2011
By Antonio J. Montalvan II
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:04:00 01/10/2011
Filed Under: Family planning, Legislation, Abortion
WERE THEY on life-or-death tenterhooks? Reports have it that the committee on population of the House of Representatives met by themselves last Jan. 2. Nothing extraordinary there, except when you begin to recall that Jan. 2 was a Sunday and was still within the New Year’s Eve hangover period. Perhaps they were just hardworking. But then we are told that those in attendance were only the pro-RH Bill committee members and their pro-RH Bill NGO counterparts who acted as “citizens’ representatives.” The alleged intent was to put that meeting on record as the third and final “public hearing” on the Reproductive Health Bill, and then railroad it for plenary agenda.
If truth is stranger than fiction, then we are in for an illegal, unconstitutional act. Informed of this development, a vehemently opposing Roilo Golez reportedly vowed to make the railroading impossible. Before the House adjourned for the holidays, Golez was second on a list of 20 interpellators with his interpellation still in progress.
The bill’s supporters have repeatedly claimed, like a broken record, that the RH Bill is not pro-abortion and contraceptives are not abortifacients. With a possible railroading maneuver, the public is now brought to the canyon’s edge. An informed choice from life and death issues emanating from contraceptive use has to be imminent.
As that midnight committee meeting was surreptitiously taking place, the journal Contraception released its January 2011 issue on 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49 who were surveyed every two years from 1997 to 2007. Researchers found that within that period the number of women in contraceptive use increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. But there was more that truly puzzled the researchers, who paradoxically had aimed to gather information about contraceptive use in order to reduce the number of abortions. Over that period, the country’s abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49.
That is not odd. Over the years since the 1950s, both scientific studies and abortion advocates themselves (such as Alfred Kinsey, Beckworth Whitehouse and Christopher Tietze) have pointed out the connection between abortion and contraception. In 1979, Malcolm Potts, then medical director of International Planned Parenthood Federation, had admitted that “as people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”
Also admitting that connection, the US Supreme Court said in its 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” the justices wrote.
Documented scientific fact has long recognized that since almost all so-called contraceptives routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in “unplanned pregnancies,” abortions have become a social requirement to take care of such “accidents.” Among many studies, the Guttmacher Institute’s report “Contraception Counts” (2006) showed NO correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates. “Seventy-two percent of low-income teens who cohabitate and rely on condoms will become pregnant within a year, and protection rates against STDs are even worse. We have one million unplanned pregnancies in the US every year due to contraceptive failure, half of which result in abortion.”
With sexual activity rising from greater contraceptive use, abortion thus has become part of the “safety” constellation, a contraceptive in itself. Hence the pattern all over the world is to legalize contraception first, then legalize abortion later. When contraception fails tremendously, women start looking for illegal abortion; so then it has to be legalized. We have said in the past that they are Siamese twins.
Is the pill an abortifacient? The common defense is to say that it is not because it only prevents ovulation. That is not even a half-truth, however, for additionally, it has two other actions. It thickens the genital tract’s cervical mucus, rendering it more viscous so as to inhibit sperm penetration. But thirdly, it thins the lining of the uterus known as the endometrium, impairing implantation of the newly fertilized egg, effectively killing the new human being that already has its own set of genetic codes. That is the same action an intra-uterine device (IUD) does. If that is not abortion, what is?
Pills are composed of hormonal steroids and chemicals that have been known to cause deep vein thrombosis in women, a blood clot that forms in the vein which can block the blood supply to the heart or brain, resulting in a heart attack, stroke or death. The clot may also travel to the lungs, causing pulmonary embolism or death. It has been estimated that 25,000 lawsuits could take place in the US due to one brand alone of a birth control pill.
Normally the New Year ushers in good tidings. In this case, however, RH Bill proponents have just prescribed us a death sentence, via a reprehensible means of cultural, political and constitutional imposition. The way to the RH Bill is certainly not paved with good intentions.
* * *
Comments to antonmonta@gmail.com
A death sentence for 2011
By Antonio J. Montalvan II
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:04:00 01/10/2011
Filed Under: Family planning, Legislation, Abortion
WERE THEY on life-or-death tenterhooks? Reports have it that the committee on population of the House of Representatives met by themselves last Jan. 2. Nothing extraordinary there, except when you begin to recall that Jan. 2 was a Sunday and was still within the New Year’s Eve hangover period. Perhaps they were just hardworking. But then we are told that those in attendance were only the pro-RH Bill committee members and their pro-RH Bill NGO counterparts who acted as “citizens’ representatives.” The alleged intent was to put that meeting on record as the third and final “public hearing” on the Reproductive Health Bill, and then railroad it for plenary agenda.
If truth is stranger than fiction, then we are in for an illegal, unconstitutional act. Informed of this development, a vehemently opposing Roilo Golez reportedly vowed to make the railroading impossible. Before the House adjourned for the holidays, Golez was second on a list of 20 interpellators with his interpellation still in progress.
The bill’s supporters have repeatedly claimed, like a broken record, that the RH Bill is not pro-abortion and contraceptives are not abortifacients. With a possible railroading maneuver, the public is now brought to the canyon’s edge. An informed choice from life and death issues emanating from contraceptive use has to be imminent.
As that midnight committee meeting was surreptitiously taking place, the journal Contraception released its January 2011 issue on 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49 who were surveyed every two years from 1997 to 2007. Researchers found that within that period the number of women in contraceptive use increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. But there was more that truly puzzled the researchers, who paradoxically had aimed to gather information about contraceptive use in order to reduce the number of abortions. Over that period, the country’s abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49.
That is not odd. Over the years since the 1950s, both scientific studies and abortion advocates themselves (such as Alfred Kinsey, Beckworth Whitehouse and Christopher Tietze) have pointed out the connection between abortion and contraception. In 1979, Malcolm Potts, then medical director of International Planned Parenthood Federation, had admitted that “as people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”
Also admitting that connection, the US Supreme Court said in its 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” the justices wrote.
Documented scientific fact has long recognized that since almost all so-called contraceptives routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in “unplanned pregnancies,” abortions have become a social requirement to take care of such “accidents.” Among many studies, the Guttmacher Institute’s report “Contraception Counts” (2006) showed NO correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates. “Seventy-two percent of low-income teens who cohabitate and rely on condoms will become pregnant within a year, and protection rates against STDs are even worse. We have one million unplanned pregnancies in the US every year due to contraceptive failure, half of which result in abortion.”
With sexual activity rising from greater contraceptive use, abortion thus has become part of the “safety” constellation, a contraceptive in itself. Hence the pattern all over the world is to legalize contraception first, then legalize abortion later. When contraception fails tremendously, women start looking for illegal abortion; so then it has to be legalized. We have said in the past that they are Siamese twins.
Is the pill an abortifacient? The common defense is to say that it is not because it only prevents ovulation. That is not even a half-truth, however, for additionally, it has two other actions. It thickens the genital tract’s cervical mucus, rendering it more viscous so as to inhibit sperm penetration. But thirdly, it thins the lining of the uterus known as the endometrium, impairing implantation of the newly fertilized egg, effectively killing the new human being that already has its own set of genetic codes. That is the same action an intra-uterine device (IUD) does. If that is not abortion, what is?
Pills are composed of hormonal steroids and chemicals that have been known to cause deep vein thrombosis in women, a blood clot that forms in the vein which can block the blood supply to the heart or brain, resulting in a heart attack, stroke or death. The clot may also travel to the lungs, causing pulmonary embolism or death. It has been estimated that 25,000 lawsuits could take place in the US due to one brand alone of a birth control pill.
Normally the New Year ushers in good tidings. In this case, however, RH Bill proponents have just prescribed us a death sentence, via a reprehensible means of cultural, political and constitutional imposition. The way to the RH Bill is certainly not paved with good intentions.
* * *
Comments to antonmonta@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Church in the Philippines: Continue to be a Leaven in Society
The Vatican Information Service is a news service, founded in the Holy See Press Office, that provides information about the Magisterium and the pastoral activities of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia...[+]
Monday, November 29, 2010
CHURCH IN PHILIPPINES:
CONTINUE TO BE A LEAVEN IN SOCIETY
VATICAN CITY, 29 NOV 2010 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received prelates from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, who have just completed their "ad limina" visit. Addressing them in English, the Pope referred to the close ties that for four centuries have united the Philippines and the See of Peter, highlighting the benefits the leaven of faith has brought to the Filipino people and their culture.
"To be such a leaven, the Church must always seek to find her proper voice, because it is by proclamation that the Gospel brings about its life-changing fruits", he said. "Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".
"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will. I also note with appreciation the Church's work to abolish the death penalty in your country.
"A specific area in which the Church must always find her proper voice comes in the field of social communications and the media", Pope Benedict added. "It is important that the Catholic laity proficient in social communications take their proper place in proposing the Christian message in a convincing and attractive way. If the Gospel of Christ is to be a leaven in Filipino society, then the entire Catholic community must be attentive to the force of the truth proclaimed with love".
Finally the Holy Father turned his attention to "a third aspect of the Church's mission of proclaiming the life-giving word of God: ... her commitment to economic and social concerns, in particular with respect to the poorest and the weakest in society". The Church in the Philippines, he said, takes "a special interest in devoting herself more fully to care for the poor. It is heartening to see that this undertaking has borne fruit, with Catholic charitable institutions actively engaged throughout the country. Many of your fellow citizens, however, remain without employment, adequate education or basic services, and so your prophetic statements and your charitable action on behalf of the poor continue to be greatly appreciated. In addition to this effort", he concluded, "you are rightly concerned that there be an ongoing commitment to the struggle against corruption, since the growth of a just and sustainable economy will only come about when there is a clear and consistent application of the rule of law throughout the land".
AL/ VIS 20101129 (600)
Published by VIS - Holy See Press Office - Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
CHURCH IN PHILIPPINES:
CONTINUE TO BE A LEAVEN IN SOCIETY
VATICAN CITY, 29 NOV 2010 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received prelates from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, who have just completed their "ad limina" visit. Addressing them in English, the Pope referred to the close ties that for four centuries have united the Philippines and the See of Peter, highlighting the benefits the leaven of faith has brought to the Filipino people and their culture.
"To be such a leaven, the Church must always seek to find her proper voice, because it is by proclamation that the Gospel brings about its life-changing fruits", he said. "Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".
"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will. I also note with appreciation the Church's work to abolish the death penalty in your country.
"A specific area in which the Church must always find her proper voice comes in the field of social communications and the media", Pope Benedict added. "It is important that the Catholic laity proficient in social communications take their proper place in proposing the Christian message in a convincing and attractive way. If the Gospel of Christ is to be a leaven in Filipino society, then the entire Catholic community must be attentive to the force of the truth proclaimed with love".
Finally the Holy Father turned his attention to "a third aspect of the Church's mission of proclaiming the life-giving word of God: ... her commitment to economic and social concerns, in particular with respect to the poorest and the weakest in society". The Church in the Philippines, he said, takes "a special interest in devoting herself more fully to care for the poor. It is heartening to see that this undertaking has borne fruit, with Catholic charitable institutions actively engaged throughout the country. Many of your fellow citizens, however, remain without employment, adequate education or basic services, and so your prophetic statements and your charitable action on behalf of the poor continue to be greatly appreciated. In addition to this effort", he concluded, "you are rightly concerned that there be an ongoing commitment to the struggle against corruption, since the growth of a just and sustainable economy will only come about when there is a clear and consistent application of the rule of law throughout the land".
AL/ VIS 20101129 (600)
Published by VIS - Holy See Press Office - Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Business World
Opinion NOVEMBDER 26, 2010
Posted on 08:26 PM, November 25, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Right off the bat, let’s get this out of the way: Pope Benedict XVI modified the Church’s stand on condoms. NO, HE DIDN’T. This is quite clear when one reads the actual remarks of the Pope in his interview with Peter Seewald. He even asserts that the "fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality." I suggest people read the commentaries of Janet Smith or George Weigel (available in the Internet) for a complete explanation of the Pope’s remarks.
However, let me just zero in on this: the Pope’s given example was in relation to "male prostitutes," who one can reasonably say mainly ply in homosexual activities. The use of the condom in relation to that immoral act is obviously not for contraceptive purposes. And it’s precisely that contraceptive function that the Church is against.
So, it means that the Pope justifies condom use to stop AIDS. No. As the Pope clearly said "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."
But it’s ridiculous to believe that popes don’t make mistakes or commit sins. Of course it’s ridiculous. Popes are humans too. They do make mistakes. It’s only when the Pope speaks under his authority of "infallibility" (given under very specific conditions and only with regard to matters of morals or faith) that no mistakes are said to be made (e.g., the prohibition on contraceptives). And, yes, pope’s do sin. Note that popes actually go to confession regularly. They must be asking forgiveness for sins; otherwise, they’re just making a mockery of the sacrament of confession. That’s why we should all be humble, avoiding self-righteousness, because, except for Mother Mary and Jesus, we are all merely sinners trying (hopefully) our best.
Excommunication reveals the Church’s intolerance. Wrong. Excommunication is a technical canon law matter (coming in various forms and exercised rarely) but essentially means Church recognition that somebody, by his own acts, separated himself from the community of the faithful. In short, the Church didn’t kick anybody out, it merely recognized that one voluntary placed himself out. It’s like the LTO not granting a driver’s license because you’re blind. The LTO’s refusal didn’t make you blind, it merely recognized that fact. So, it’s therefore logical for an excommunicant not to receive the sacraments because he obviously turned his back on the Church. It’s like breaking up with your spouse but still demanding sex. It cheapens the whole thing. For lack of space, let me just say, however, that the concept and process of excommunication is designed to wean the excommunicant back and the Church will welcome him with open arms. But the sincere decision to come back (like the decision to part with the Church) lies with the individual.
The Church is intolerant for filing criminal charges. No. The Church, like everybody else, has every right to avail of the rights that the law provides. Furthermore, while the Church is indeed merciful, it also advocates for justice. Which means accountability for any wrongdoing. Mercy without justice is not a loving mercy as it encourages repeated wrongs. That’s why God, who is infinitely merciful, also requires accountability ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead"). So, for example, if somebody disrupts a Mass in a church, in a manner contrary to our criminal laws, it is but just that accountability for it be made (particularly if the transgressor is not even sorry for the acts he did). We must remember that in a Mass, God is present. Any act of disrespect made during a Mass is not only a disrespect to the priest or to us but also to God. Ask the Muslims how they would feel if somebody does an act of disrespect in a mosque. Or even a family member if somebody does something boorish in a family celebration. Forgiveness? Definitely. But justice too.
Contraceptives protect female health. No. They harm it. Various research institutions (including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization) and medical journals already attributed (particularly to oral contraceptives) dangers such as cancer (specifically breast cancer), stroke, and heart disease.
Better condoms than AIDS or abortions later. No. Research upon research has already shown that resort to contraceptives (condoms in particular) has actually resulted in the increase of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions. The reason is simple: rather than make people behave better, condoms give a false sense of security, encouraging the illusion of "safe sex." But condoms fail at least 5% of the time. Say you have 100,000 condom users, 5,000 of them are highly vulnerable to AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. And imagine what 5,000 AIDS carriers can do. Let us also emphasize this point: the perils of cancer, stroke, heart disease, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies are there regardless of whether you’re a Catholic or not.
Have fun defending the faith. Although, as St. Peter says, do it with "respect and gentleness."
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=19892
October 21, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomic arguments
One problem with the public debate involving pro-choice advocates is that it’s difficult to grasp their logic due to their making assertions that tend to be scatterbrained, misleading, or -- worse -- fictional. This article is intended to help Catholic and pro-life advocates easily rebut some of the more common arguments raised by condom supporters.
The Church has no business dealing in government matters. False. Everybody has a right, a duty even, to engage in matters dealing with government. The pro-choice advocates misunderstand the concept of Church and State separation. Note that the Constitution’s preamble, as well as the oaths of office of public officials, all invoke God. The Supreme Court also recognizes the right to advocate one’s religious views.
-The Catholic Church’s position on contraception has changed and is evolving. Untrue. Ever since Onan used a primitive form of contraception (see Genesis), the Church’s teaching has been consistent. So from scripture, to the Church fathers (e.g., Barnabas, St. Basil), to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, to Popes Pius XI and John Paul II, the Church’s position has been unwavering.
The contraception ban was merely invented by priests. No. It is a truth, as per our faith, revealed through scripture and by the Holy Spirit. As much as they’d like to, the priests can’t compromise because one can’t compromise on truth.
Pope Pius XI improperly ignored the 1963 Pontifical Birth Control Commission. Not true. The Church is not a democracy. In matters of faith, it boils down to one vote: the Pope’s (if you don’t like that setup, complain to the guy who made it: Jesus Christ). The commission’s function is purely advisory. Pope Pius XI simply decided, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that nothing in the commission’s findings justified deviating from the Church’s established doctrine.
People have the right to their own bodies. True. You also have the right to smell other people’s butts and act like a dog but that wouldn’t be sane. However, for Catholics, the belief is that God owns your bodies and the Church is simply pointing out that there’s a better way to exercise your rights. The Church won’t coerce you to not act stupid (Like how? Pull a gun?).
The Church is against the right to choose. No. It’s saying there’s a better choice. The problem with pro-choice is that it worships choice without even bothering (or being misleading) in guiding you how to properly use the right to choose.
The RH Bill merely allows choice. No. One reason why the RH Bill is offensive is that it forces Catholics to support (through its compulsory implementation without consideration of conscience, as well as the duty to pay taxes) something they believe is immoral. Note that contraceptives are not illegal. If the pro-contraception group is really concerned for the welfare of the poor (albeit in a misguided way), nothing is stopping them from donating contraceptives instead of demanding public funds. That’s better than violating the constitutional rights of the Church.
You can be a good Catholic while knowingly fighting the Church’s teachings. No you can’t. The simple reason is that the Church’s teachings are unified and inter-related. You cannot pick and choose the teachings you like and those you don’t. If you do, you are in essence creating your own religion. Again, the Church won’t force you to obey. You’re free to leave. But it’s hypocritical and flaky to say you’re a good Catholic but be against the Church.
Contraception helps solve poverty. No, it doesn’t. That’s ridiculous. And that’s the point. Our population isn’t exploding and its present size is due more to increased life expectancy than more babies. Experts have long pinpointed our social system that fosters unequal wealth distribution as the reason for poverty (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) and not really the population. The Church prefers solving the root of the inequality rather than spreading condoms around.
Contraception effectively prevents AIDS. Then how come the Philippines, which has a low rate of condom use, has one of the world’s lowest HIV infection rate? Whereas countries with high condom use register higher HIV cases? The same goes for teenage pregnancy numbers. Again, the Church is pointing to a better, more fundamental way; focusing on the cause and not the symptom.
The Catholic Church hates sex. No. The Church values sex and does not want it cheapened. Contraception, because it does not fulfill the two purposes of sex (love and procreation), cheapens sex and, consequently, cheapens the person too. And if the person is cheapened, society suffers.
The Catholic Church makes no allowance for people’s individual consciences. It does. The Church merely emphasizes that before you rely on your conscience get the guidance first of the Bible, Holy Tradition, and the Church. Why? Because of man’s capacity for self-deception. Anybody who repeatedly tried to diet or quit smoking knows this.
Have fun defending the faith.
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Opinion NOVEMBDER 26, 2010
Posted on 08:26 PM, November 25, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomics 2
Right off the bat, let’s get this out of the way: Pope Benedict XVI modified the Church’s stand on condoms. NO, HE DIDN’T. This is quite clear when one reads the actual remarks of the Pope in his interview with Peter Seewald. He even asserts that the "fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality." I suggest people read the commentaries of Janet Smith or George Weigel (available in the Internet) for a complete explanation of the Pope’s remarks.
However, let me just zero in on this: the Pope’s given example was in relation to "male prostitutes," who one can reasonably say mainly ply in homosexual activities. The use of the condom in relation to that immoral act is obviously not for contraceptive purposes. And it’s precisely that contraceptive function that the Church is against.
So, it means that the Pope justifies condom use to stop AIDS. No. As the Pope clearly said "we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms."
But it’s ridiculous to believe that popes don’t make mistakes or commit sins. Of course it’s ridiculous. Popes are humans too. They do make mistakes. It’s only when the Pope speaks under his authority of "infallibility" (given under very specific conditions and only with regard to matters of morals or faith) that no mistakes are said to be made (e.g., the prohibition on contraceptives). And, yes, pope’s do sin. Note that popes actually go to confession regularly. They must be asking forgiveness for sins; otherwise, they’re just making a mockery of the sacrament of confession. That’s why we should all be humble, avoiding self-righteousness, because, except for Mother Mary and Jesus, we are all merely sinners trying (hopefully) our best.
Excommunication reveals the Church’s intolerance. Wrong. Excommunication is a technical canon law matter (coming in various forms and exercised rarely) but essentially means Church recognition that somebody, by his own acts, separated himself from the community of the faithful. In short, the Church didn’t kick anybody out, it merely recognized that one voluntary placed himself out. It’s like the LTO not granting a driver’s license because you’re blind. The LTO’s refusal didn’t make you blind, it merely recognized that fact. So, it’s therefore logical for an excommunicant not to receive the sacraments because he obviously turned his back on the Church. It’s like breaking up with your spouse but still demanding sex. It cheapens the whole thing. For lack of space, let me just say, however, that the concept and process of excommunication is designed to wean the excommunicant back and the Church will welcome him with open arms. But the sincere decision to come back (like the decision to part with the Church) lies with the individual.
The Church is intolerant for filing criminal charges. No. The Church, like everybody else, has every right to avail of the rights that the law provides. Furthermore, while the Church is indeed merciful, it also advocates for justice. Which means accountability for any wrongdoing. Mercy without justice is not a loving mercy as it encourages repeated wrongs. That’s why God, who is infinitely merciful, also requires accountability ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead"). So, for example, if somebody disrupts a Mass in a church, in a manner contrary to our criminal laws, it is but just that accountability for it be made (particularly if the transgressor is not even sorry for the acts he did). We must remember that in a Mass, God is present. Any act of disrespect made during a Mass is not only a disrespect to the priest or to us but also to God. Ask the Muslims how they would feel if somebody does an act of disrespect in a mosque. Or even a family member if somebody does something boorish in a family celebration. Forgiveness? Definitely. But justice too.
Contraceptives protect female health. No. They harm it. Various research institutions (including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization) and medical journals already attributed (particularly to oral contraceptives) dangers such as cancer (specifically breast cancer), stroke, and heart disease.
Better condoms than AIDS or abortions later. No. Research upon research has already shown that resort to contraceptives (condoms in particular) has actually resulted in the increase of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions. The reason is simple: rather than make people behave better, condoms give a false sense of security, encouraging the illusion of "safe sex." But condoms fail at least 5% of the time. Say you have 100,000 condom users, 5,000 of them are highly vulnerable to AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. And imagine what 5,000 AIDS carriers can do. Let us also emphasize this point: the perils of cancer, stroke, heart disease, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies are there regardless of whether you’re a Catholic or not.
Have fun defending the faith. Although, as St. Peter says, do it with "respect and gentleness."
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=19892
October 21, 2010
Trade Tripper -- By Jemy Gatdula
Snappy replies to condomic arguments
One problem with the public debate involving pro-choice advocates is that it’s difficult to grasp their logic due to their making assertions that tend to be scatterbrained, misleading, or -- worse -- fictional. This article is intended to help Catholic and pro-life advocates easily rebut some of the more common arguments raised by condom supporters.
The Church has no business dealing in government matters. False. Everybody has a right, a duty even, to engage in matters dealing with government. The pro-choice advocates misunderstand the concept of Church and State separation. Note that the Constitution’s preamble, as well as the oaths of office of public officials, all invoke God. The Supreme Court also recognizes the right to advocate one’s religious views.
-The Catholic Church’s position on contraception has changed and is evolving. Untrue. Ever since Onan used a primitive form of contraception (see Genesis), the Church’s teaching has been consistent. So from scripture, to the Church fathers (e.g., Barnabas, St. Basil), to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, to Popes Pius XI and John Paul II, the Church’s position has been unwavering.
The contraception ban was merely invented by priests. No. It is a truth, as per our faith, revealed through scripture and by the Holy Spirit. As much as they’d like to, the priests can’t compromise because one can’t compromise on truth.
Pope Pius XI improperly ignored the 1963 Pontifical Birth Control Commission. Not true. The Church is not a democracy. In matters of faith, it boils down to one vote: the Pope’s (if you don’t like that setup, complain to the guy who made it: Jesus Christ). The commission’s function is purely advisory. Pope Pius XI simply decided, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that nothing in the commission’s findings justified deviating from the Church’s established doctrine.
People have the right to their own bodies. True. You also have the right to smell other people’s butts and act like a dog but that wouldn’t be sane. However, for Catholics, the belief is that God owns your bodies and the Church is simply pointing out that there’s a better way to exercise your rights. The Church won’t coerce you to not act stupid (Like how? Pull a gun?).
The Church is against the right to choose. No. It’s saying there’s a better choice. The problem with pro-choice is that it worships choice without even bothering (or being misleading) in guiding you how to properly use the right to choose.
The RH Bill merely allows choice. No. One reason why the RH Bill is offensive is that it forces Catholics to support (through its compulsory implementation without consideration of conscience, as well as the duty to pay taxes) something they believe is immoral. Note that contraceptives are not illegal. If the pro-contraception group is really concerned for the welfare of the poor (albeit in a misguided way), nothing is stopping them from donating contraceptives instead of demanding public funds. That’s better than violating the constitutional rights of the Church.
You can be a good Catholic while knowingly fighting the Church’s teachings. No you can’t. The simple reason is that the Church’s teachings are unified and inter-related. You cannot pick and choose the teachings you like and those you don’t. If you do, you are in essence creating your own religion. Again, the Church won’t force you to obey. You’re free to leave. But it’s hypocritical and flaky to say you’re a good Catholic but be against the Church.
Contraception helps solve poverty. No, it doesn’t. That’s ridiculous. And that’s the point. Our population isn’t exploding and its present size is due more to increased life expectancy than more babies. Experts have long pinpointed our social system that fosters unequal wealth distribution as the reason for poverty (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) and not really the population. The Church prefers solving the root of the inequality rather than spreading condoms around.
Contraception effectively prevents AIDS. Then how come the Philippines, which has a low rate of condom use, has one of the world’s lowest HIV infection rate? Whereas countries with high condom use register higher HIV cases? The same goes for teenage pregnancy numbers. Again, the Church is pointing to a better, more fundamental way; focusing on the cause and not the symptom.
The Catholic Church hates sex. No. The Church values sex and does not want it cheapened. Contraception, because it does not fulfill the two purposes of sex (love and procreation), cheapens sex and, consequently, cheapens the person too. And if the person is cheapened, society suffers.
The Catholic Church makes no allowance for people’s individual consciences. It does. The Church merely emphasizes that before you rely on your conscience get the guidance first of the Bible, Holy Tradition, and the Church. Why? Because of man’s capacity for self-deception. Anybody who repeatedly tried to diet or quit smoking knows this.
Have fun defending the faith.
Contact: jemygatdula@yahoo.com. Visit my blog at www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching
Why condom comments are no earthquake in Catholic teaching
By John L Allen Senior correspondent, National Catholic Reporter
Pope Benedict XVI, file pic The Vatican has long opposed the use of condoms as a form of contraception
Careful distinctions are the hallmark of Catholic moral reasoning, but they can be a tough sell in a world with little patience for subtlety.
A few carefully qualified words from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms offer proof of the point, as they have been "sexed up" in some commentary as an earthquake in Catholic teaching.
In reality, the Church's broad opposition to artificial birth control has not changed, and there's no indication that it will give way under Benedict XVI, rightly seen as a champion of Catholic orthodoxy.
Instead, Benedict XVI has said in a book-length interview with a German journalist that while condoms are not the solution to the HIV/Aids crisis, there may nevertheless be individual cases where use of a condom can represent the first stirrings of a sense of moral responsibility, if the intent is to save someone's life.
Even then the use a condom is still not the Pope's moral ideal (especially, of course, where the sex takes place outside marriage), but Benedict has said that it can be a step in the right direction - the dawning of awareness that "one cannot do whatever one wants."
Non-binding
In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, "Is it okay to use a condom?" the answer is still supposed to be "No." Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God's plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life.
We're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts”
If the question, however, is, "I'm HIV-positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?" the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say "Yes," while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a "real or moral solution."
In other words, we're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts.
That point needs to be qualified in a couple of important ways.
First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict's language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.
Second, Catholic pastoral counselling on condoms in the context of HIV/Aids has never been quite as absolute as outsiders generally take it to be.
Since the advent of the Aids crisis, many Catholic theologians, and even a few cardinals, have debated whether the use of a condom in some limited circumstances might be tolerated. The usual example is that of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn't, and the intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent infection.
The 'open question'
In recent years, both a Swiss cardinal who served as the theologian of the papal household and a Mexican cardinal who was the Vatican's point man on health care issues have argued in favour of the acceptability of condoms in such cases, while others have demurred.
The Vatican The Vatican has not issued an official statement along the lines of the Pope's comments
It is a classic instance of what Catholic theology calls an "open question," meaning one which has not been officially resolved.
Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal.
In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."
For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope's interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.
Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a "revolution," who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.
John L Allen Jr is the Senior Correspondent for the US-based National Catholic Reporter and author of two books on Pope Benedict XVI.
By John L Allen Senior correspondent, National Catholic Reporter
Pope Benedict XVI, file pic The Vatican has long opposed the use of condoms as a form of contraception
Careful distinctions are the hallmark of Catholic moral reasoning, but they can be a tough sell in a world with little patience for subtlety.
A few carefully qualified words from Pope Benedict XVI on condoms offer proof of the point, as they have been "sexed up" in some commentary as an earthquake in Catholic teaching.
In reality, the Church's broad opposition to artificial birth control has not changed, and there's no indication that it will give way under Benedict XVI, rightly seen as a champion of Catholic orthodoxy.
Instead, Benedict XVI has said in a book-length interview with a German journalist that while condoms are not the solution to the HIV/Aids crisis, there may nevertheless be individual cases where use of a condom can represent the first stirrings of a sense of moral responsibility, if the intent is to save someone's life.
Even then the use a condom is still not the Pope's moral ideal (especially, of course, where the sex takes place outside marriage), but Benedict has said that it can be a step in the right direction - the dawning of awareness that "one cannot do whatever one wants."
Non-binding
In practice, that means that if someone were to ask a Catholic priest, "Is it okay to use a condom?" the answer is still supposed to be "No." Catholic teaching holds that to be fully consistent with God's plan, sexuality should occur only inside marriage and should be open to new life.
We're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts”
If the question, however, is, "I'm HIV-positive and will have sex regardless of what the Church thinks, so is it better to use a condom to try to save lives?" the Pope has implied that a pastor might legitimately say "Yes," while still stressing that condoms ultimately are not, as Benedict says in his interview, a "real or moral solution."
In other words, we're dealing here not with abstract moral teaching, but concrete pastoral application to a specific set of facts.
That point needs to be qualified in a couple of important ways.
First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict's language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.
Second, Catholic pastoral counselling on condoms in the context of HIV/Aids has never been quite as absolute as outsiders generally take it to be.
Since the advent of the Aids crisis, many Catholic theologians, and even a few cardinals, have debated whether the use of a condom in some limited circumstances might be tolerated. The usual example is that of a married couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other isn't, and the intent is not to prevent pregnancy but to prevent infection.
The 'open question'
In recent years, both a Swiss cardinal who served as the theologian of the papal household and a Mexican cardinal who was the Vatican's point man on health care issues have argued in favour of the acceptability of condoms in such cases, while others have demurred.
The Vatican The Vatican has not issued an official statement along the lines of the Pope's comments
It is a classic instance of what Catholic theology calls an "open question," meaning one which has not been officially resolved.
Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal.
In his interview with the German journalist, Benedict uses the example of a prostitute, not a married couple, but the idea is similar. When the intent is to prevent disease rather than pregnancy, it changes the moral calculus.
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."
For obvious reasons, the breathless coverage of the Pope's interview over the past 48 hours has done little to assuage those concerns.
Hence one irony of the present situation: it may well be precisely those reformers most thrilled by what Benedict has said, most inclined to spin it as a "revolution," who actually make it less likely that even his limited concession sees the official light of day.
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.
John L Allen Jr is the Senior Correspondent for the US-based National Catholic Reporter and author of two books on Pope Benedict XVI.
Merci bids farewell to her readers in BusinessWorld
Opinion
Posted on 08:22 PM, November 23, 2010
Capital View -- By Mercedes B. Suleik
Ave, vale!
Goodbyes are always sweetly painful. I never realized that writing this column had become such a part of me, that when I received the shocking letter from Vergel O. Santos disengaging me from BusinessWorld (along with other columnists, I was made to understand in subsequent e-mails) due to a new editorial policy, I was stupefied. Of course, no mention was made of the criteria by which the selection of "non-retainables" was made clear, only that they were keeping only a few and were opening a new letters section. Okay, ayos lang.
The column was never bread and butter for me, and I suppose if I did not love writing so much, and if I did not then think that this broadsheet was the most objective of all Philippine dailies, I guess I myself would not have persevered.
Leaving another column I had written for -- as faculty member of the De La Salle Graduate School of Economics and Business, for which I was one of the original mainstays of the weekly column "The View from Taft" (together with Dante Sy who took the first Thursday slot, while I did the last Thursday of the month, when faculty members were as yet not quite ready to contribute regularly) -- was not such a wrench. Since I had stopped teaching, and new faculty members were now contributing their articles, I bowed out. It was then that I started doing my own column, "Capital View," thanks to the late Letty Locsin who gave me this opportunity.
Having been for the longest time with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the Central Bank of the Philippines), and later with the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Capital Market Council, and still later as consultant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, my articles generally focused on economic and capital market development. Eventually, having trained on Corporate Governance and becoming a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Philippine counterpart, the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), I turned to my new advocacy -- corporate governance.
My very first article in June 2005 was about the ICD and its efforts to promote corporate governance (CG) among the country’s listed companies, which article was subsequently followed in the succeeding years with discussions on its program for training company directors, the scorecard system it had begun to rate companies in their observance of the CG principles, and cities that had begun to implement their own CG road maps with the help of ICD’s sister organization, the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA). Unforgettable too for me was my second article on the newly installed governor of BSP, Amando Tetangco, Jr. (whose six-year term will end in July 2011, just as I am ending my column after 5-1/2 years) with whom I worked in the Department of Economic Research (DER) of the BSP in the past. Of course I also wrote about one of the icons of the DER, Mrs. Escolastica B. Bince, our former boss who influenced and shaped much of the policies that were advocated by the previous governors of the BSP.
I continued to devote my column to current economic and development issues and topics, including comments on the worst corporate scandals in the United States, which I considered basically the result of greed (referring to the infamous statement of the character Gordon Ghekko of the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good"). I also noted the phenomenon of the "Black Swan" and the theory that many of the unexpected things that occur, including financial debacles, are "black swans" come from the common propensity to think that all swans are white. (I also recall having written about a MAP-FINEX-sponsored meeting with Maria Ressa and Maritess Vitug who spoke on the role of media in the past elections, and when a question came from the audience about why they were not able to predict the outcome of the vice-presidential race, Ms. Vitug said, tongue in cheek, that it was a "black swan event, no pun intended").
I had also written about some of my pet beliefs about the role of media on society, particularly the youth, since it seems to me that the tri-media -- print, radio, and television -- and its latest form, the Internet, has contributed in many ways to the decline of mores in our present age. Violence, the uninhibited emphasis on sex, consumerism, and the glorification of the human body (especially through advertising...and all those offensive billboards) are among those "modern" developments I deplore. Perhaps because I recall that in my youth, society was more family-oriented, and there prevailed respect for Christian beliefs. Moral and proper ways of behavior was the norm, rather than the exception.
And speaking of my youth, I often got teased mercilessly by good friends about in effect revealing my age -- I once wrote about being trapped in a time warp, recalling movies and music in the springtime of my life, as well as writing about going "home" to my school reunions in St. Theresa’s College. Of course, STC was a huge part of my life and formation, and so I also did not hesitate to write about my favorite saint, Teresa of Avila, who in my opinion should be the role model for modern woman, since even in her century, she was the epitome of womanly courage, feistiness, intelligence, and spirituality.
In this connection, I also wrote about the lives of some saints among them: St. Paul, Christianity’s greatest missionary when the Holy Father proclaimed the Pauline year, St. Josemaria Escriva whose teachings about making one’s daily life a means to becoming a saint (with a lower case "s"), following St. Paul’s message about God’s call to universal holiness, and St. John Marie Vianney when the Holy Father again proclaimed a year for the priests, and how it is our duty to pray for them, as they, being human beings like the rest of us, face more difficulties in their efforts to be saints for us. I guess this affection for my faith has also led me to often quoting from the Holy Father’s encyclicals and messages (especially about his take on communication as one of the ways which must be used to form conscience and deflect the evils of wrong communication as well as the emphasis of all our Popes on the sanctity of human life).
This had led me to my strong advocacy for the protection of human life, and the fight against misguided attempts to solve poverty in this country by means of promoting contraception, condoms, and even "justified abortion," the proponents wilfully using twisted economics about over-population to support the RH bill. I had recently written about the "clear and present danger" of this effort, citing fears about how the West, through the United Nations (whose biggest voices are of course Western) is in fact promoting depopulation in the world, especially in developing countries...eugenics revisited, if we must be blunt about it. (I have therefore come to the niggling suspicion that this strong advocacy against the RH bill had anything to do with my being axed? Just asking.)
Of course, in the course of my memorable almost half-decade of this column with this broadsheet, I had occasionally gone on what might be my flights of fancy -- writing about some of the books, poetry, and beautiful encounters with some of the people that have been part of my life. I wrote about one favorite teacher, Sr. Josefina delos Reyes, whom we called our "jo" ( jo meaning sweetheart, after the poem, "John Anderson, my Jo"), my father, Victor E. Balota, in whose memory I had written a book about the lives of the first 12 Filipino-educated mining engineers who called themselves the "dirty dozen," and people I admired (written up in some books published by my friend, Bing Carrion). One of my most favorite columns was one I had written on Francis Thompson’s "The Hound of Heaven," my eternally favorite poem, whose beauty, cadence, and graphic portrayal of our Lord as the relentless lover and pursuer, resonates forever in my heart.
And so I must bid farewell to my dear readers and friends who have faithfully followed my columns, including those who have at one time or another vociferously objected to some of my advocacies. I have appreciated all feedback, positive as well as negative. And certainly, I sincerely thank BusinessWorld for providing me with a venue for my comments. As Shakespeare has said, parting is such sweet sorrow ... Yet, there may well be another morrow. Thank you all, and God bless!
merci.suleik@gmail.com
Posted on 08:22 PM, November 23, 2010
Capital View -- By Mercedes B. Suleik
Ave, vale!
Goodbyes are always sweetly painful. I never realized that writing this column had become such a part of me, that when I received the shocking letter from Vergel O. Santos disengaging me from BusinessWorld (along with other columnists, I was made to understand in subsequent e-mails) due to a new editorial policy, I was stupefied. Of course, no mention was made of the criteria by which the selection of "non-retainables" was made clear, only that they were keeping only a few and were opening a new letters section. Okay, ayos lang.
The column was never bread and butter for me, and I suppose if I did not love writing so much, and if I did not then think that this broadsheet was the most objective of all Philippine dailies, I guess I myself would not have persevered.
Leaving another column I had written for -- as faculty member of the De La Salle Graduate School of Economics and Business, for which I was one of the original mainstays of the weekly column "The View from Taft" (together with Dante Sy who took the first Thursday slot, while I did the last Thursday of the month, when faculty members were as yet not quite ready to contribute regularly) -- was not such a wrench. Since I had stopped teaching, and new faculty members were now contributing their articles, I bowed out. It was then that I started doing my own column, "Capital View," thanks to the late Letty Locsin who gave me this opportunity.
Having been for the longest time with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP, the Central Bank of the Philippines), and later with the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Capital Market Council, and still later as consultant with the Securities and Exchange Commission, my articles generally focused on economic and capital market development. Eventually, having trained on Corporate Governance and becoming a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Philippine counterpart, the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), I turned to my new advocacy -- corporate governance.
My very first article in June 2005 was about the ICD and its efforts to promote corporate governance (CG) among the country’s listed companies, which article was subsequently followed in the succeeding years with discussions on its program for training company directors, the scorecard system it had begun to rate companies in their observance of the CG principles, and cities that had begun to implement their own CG road maps with the help of ICD’s sister organization, the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA). Unforgettable too for me was my second article on the newly installed governor of BSP, Amando Tetangco, Jr. (whose six-year term will end in July 2011, just as I am ending my column after 5-1/2 years) with whom I worked in the Department of Economic Research (DER) of the BSP in the past. Of course I also wrote about one of the icons of the DER, Mrs. Escolastica B. Bince, our former boss who influenced and shaped much of the policies that were advocated by the previous governors of the BSP.
I continued to devote my column to current economic and development issues and topics, including comments on the worst corporate scandals in the United States, which I considered basically the result of greed (referring to the infamous statement of the character Gordon Ghekko of the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good"). I also noted the phenomenon of the "Black Swan" and the theory that many of the unexpected things that occur, including financial debacles, are "black swans" come from the common propensity to think that all swans are white. (I also recall having written about a MAP-FINEX-sponsored meeting with Maria Ressa and Maritess Vitug who spoke on the role of media in the past elections, and when a question came from the audience about why they were not able to predict the outcome of the vice-presidential race, Ms. Vitug said, tongue in cheek, that it was a "black swan event, no pun intended").
I had also written about some of my pet beliefs about the role of media on society, particularly the youth, since it seems to me that the tri-media -- print, radio, and television -- and its latest form, the Internet, has contributed in many ways to the decline of mores in our present age. Violence, the uninhibited emphasis on sex, consumerism, and the glorification of the human body (especially through advertising...and all those offensive billboards) are among those "modern" developments I deplore. Perhaps because I recall that in my youth, society was more family-oriented, and there prevailed respect for Christian beliefs. Moral and proper ways of behavior was the norm, rather than the exception.
And speaking of my youth, I often got teased mercilessly by good friends about in effect revealing my age -- I once wrote about being trapped in a time warp, recalling movies and music in the springtime of my life, as well as writing about going "home" to my school reunions in St. Theresa’s College. Of course, STC was a huge part of my life and formation, and so I also did not hesitate to write about my favorite saint, Teresa of Avila, who in my opinion should be the role model for modern woman, since even in her century, she was the epitome of womanly courage, feistiness, intelligence, and spirituality.
In this connection, I also wrote about the lives of some saints among them: St. Paul, Christianity’s greatest missionary when the Holy Father proclaimed the Pauline year, St. Josemaria Escriva whose teachings about making one’s daily life a means to becoming a saint (with a lower case "s"), following St. Paul’s message about God’s call to universal holiness, and St. John Marie Vianney when the Holy Father again proclaimed a year for the priests, and how it is our duty to pray for them, as they, being human beings like the rest of us, face more difficulties in their efforts to be saints for us. I guess this affection for my faith has also led me to often quoting from the Holy Father’s encyclicals and messages (especially about his take on communication as one of the ways which must be used to form conscience and deflect the evils of wrong communication as well as the emphasis of all our Popes on the sanctity of human life).
This had led me to my strong advocacy for the protection of human life, and the fight against misguided attempts to solve poverty in this country by means of promoting contraception, condoms, and even "justified abortion," the proponents wilfully using twisted economics about over-population to support the RH bill. I had recently written about the "clear and present danger" of this effort, citing fears about how the West, through the United Nations (whose biggest voices are of course Western) is in fact promoting depopulation in the world, especially in developing countries...eugenics revisited, if we must be blunt about it. (I have therefore come to the niggling suspicion that this strong advocacy against the RH bill had anything to do with my being axed? Just asking.)
Of course, in the course of my memorable almost half-decade of this column with this broadsheet, I had occasionally gone on what might be my flights of fancy -- writing about some of the books, poetry, and beautiful encounters with some of the people that have been part of my life. I wrote about one favorite teacher, Sr. Josefina delos Reyes, whom we called our "jo" ( jo meaning sweetheart, after the poem, "John Anderson, my Jo"), my father, Victor E. Balota, in whose memory I had written a book about the lives of the first 12 Filipino-educated mining engineers who called themselves the "dirty dozen," and people I admired (written up in some books published by my friend, Bing Carrion). One of my most favorite columns was one I had written on Francis Thompson’s "The Hound of Heaven," my eternally favorite poem, whose beauty, cadence, and graphic portrayal of our Lord as the relentless lover and pursuer, resonates forever in my heart.
And so I must bid farewell to my dear readers and friends who have faithfully followed my columns, including those who have at one time or another vociferously objected to some of my advocacies. I have appreciated all feedback, positive as well as negative. And certainly, I sincerely thank BusinessWorld for providing me with a venue for my comments. As Shakespeare has said, parting is such sweet sorrow ... Yet, there may well be another morrow. Thank you all, and God bless!
merci.suleik@gmail.com
Pacquiao Catholic bishops' new 'champ' vs condoms
Pacquiao Catholic bishops' new ‘champ’ vs condoms
11/24/2010 | 09:01 AM
To the world, he is a boxing champ but Sarangani Rep. Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao has become a new champion of sorts for Catholic bishops as well.
Pacquiao received praise from retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz for remaining firm on his stand against artificial contraception.
“I was amused and I admired his courage for saying what he believes in. I think the man is very much conscious with his relationship with God and the Church," Cruz said in an article posted on Wednesday on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
Cruz was referring to Pacquiao’s statement on Monday where he said he is for natural family planning, particularly abstinence.
In that interview, Pacquiao urged couples to control their sexual urges because condoms and abortions are sinful.
“Magtiis tayo, dapat may pagtitiis tayo. Makasalanan yung paggamit ng condom at pagpapalaglag ng bata (We should control ourselves. Condoms and abortions are sinful)," he said.
He also said there is nothing in the Bible that tells parents to limit their children to two.
“Why not teach them? If a family doesn’t want a lot of children, they should abstain. It’s a sin to use a condom. It’s a sin to have an abortion because you can’t have a baby," he said.
The People's Champ
Aside from the recent victory over Margarito, Pacquiao had won the World Boxing Council (WBC) Flyweight Champion in 1998-1999; International Boxing Federation (IBF) Super Bantamweight Champion in 2001-2004; RING Featherweight Champion in 2003-2005; WBC and RING Super Featherweight Champion in 2008; and WBC Lightweight Champion, 2008-2009.
He is also the current champion of the International Boxing Organization (IBO) and RING Junior Welterweight Champion as well as in the World Boxing Organization, and reigning World Boxing Organization (WBO) Welterweight Champion.
Pacquiao’s record in the ring now stands at 57 fights, of which 52 are wins (38 by way of knockout), three losses, and two draws.
Bishop: Do not distort Pope's message
In an earlier CBCP report, Cruz encouraged the public not to distort the Pope's message.
“When we argue let’s not take half-truths because we will lose that way. I’m sorry to disappoint people who are hoping otherwise," he said.
Cruz lamented that some individuals were distorting the Pope’s statement to advance their own interests.
“Our only appeal is that for them to just stick with the truth…" he said.
A CBCP report quoted Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ramon Carandang as saying the Palace is hoping that the local Catholic hierarchy would follow the Vatican because “they cannot be more popish than the pope."
“That’s a good step. I think our own clergy should be informed by the views of the Vatican because they’ve always referred to the Vatican when they stated their position, now that the Vatican’s position is such then I think that should result in a corresponding flexibility on the part of our Church," Carandang said.
Pope still against contraceptives
Fr. Joel Jason, head of the Manila Archdiocese’s Commission on Family and Life, said the pope remains firm on the Church’s stand against contraceptives.
He said the Pope only said that when male prostitutes use condoms, it could be a sign that they are starting to realize that it is not right to have sex without thinking of the consequences.
Jason noted that the Pope said abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope also said sex is not a drug intended for pleasure.
“They (pro-RH) respect the pope but our concern is that they are acting upon a misconception. We are hoping that they listen to corrections," Jason said.
“We tend to take things out of context… before they make a conclusion they should first get the whole context of what the Holy Father really said," he added.
Jason is the Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe in Makati City and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics.
Jason said the church is still firm in its position that AIDS must be fought through moral fidelity and sexual abstinence.
“Risk reduction is not even an option. Let’s not take the minimal option but the maximum option. Let’s not take condom as a solution," Jason added.
“Thorough infidelity and abstinence, there’s no way you can get AIDS if you practice these," he said.
Prolife groups reiterate stance vs RH bill
Meanwhile, prolife groups reiterated their stance against the RH bill in Congress.
The group "Couples for Christ" said the bill that aims to give free access to contraceptives violates the right to life and the Constitution.
“Thus, we say no to contraceptives and yes to natural family planning," said CFC chairman Joe Tale in a statement posted on the CBCP news site.
“Parents have the primary right and responsibility in rearing up their children. We thus say no to compulsory sex education in schools," he added.
He also insisted that population is not the cause of poverty but “greed, corruption and bad governance."
The CFC also voiced support for House Bill 13 filed by Rep. Roilo Golez and Senate Bill 2497 authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, which seek “to protect the rights of the unborn."
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
Drive vs artificial contraception
The Catholic Church’s drive against artificial contraception received flak from reproductive health (RH) advocates after a news report quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying condom use by certain people, such as male prostitutes, may be a step toward a more responsible sexuality.
An Associated Press (AP) article on Sunday quoted the Pope as saying that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS but in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
The Pope, however, also reiterated the Church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope made the statement in response to a German journalist's general question about Africa, where heterosexual HIV spread is rampant.
The Pope's comment will be published in a book entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times."
A matter of exceptions
Proponents of the RH bill said the Pope's statements reflect a shift in Church policy on artificial contraception.
However, according to the AP article, Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican's longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, said the Pope's stand pertains only to cases where condom use "is the only way to save a life."
Quoting Sgreccia on the Italian news agency ANSA, the AP report said the Pope's stand on the condom issue was "in the realm of the exceptional."
"If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted ... and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated," Sgreccia said.
In the same AP report, Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said the Pope was clearly not encouraging condom use.
"I think the pope has been very strong in saying condoms do not solve the problem of morality and do not solve the problem of good sex education. But if a person chooses not to follow the teaching of Christ in the church, they are at least obliged to prevent another person from contracting a disease that is deadly," he said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
11/24/2010 | 09:01 AM
To the world, he is a boxing champ but Sarangani Rep. Emmanuel “Manny" Pacquiao has become a new champion of sorts for Catholic bishops as well.
Pacquiao received praise from retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz for remaining firm on his stand against artificial contraception.
“I was amused and I admired his courage for saying what he believes in. I think the man is very much conscious with his relationship with God and the Church," Cruz said in an article posted on Wednesday on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) news site.
Cruz was referring to Pacquiao’s statement on Monday where he said he is for natural family planning, particularly abstinence.
In that interview, Pacquiao urged couples to control their sexual urges because condoms and abortions are sinful.
“Magtiis tayo, dapat may pagtitiis tayo. Makasalanan yung paggamit ng condom at pagpapalaglag ng bata (We should control ourselves. Condoms and abortions are sinful)," he said.
He also said there is nothing in the Bible that tells parents to limit their children to two.
“Why not teach them? If a family doesn’t want a lot of children, they should abstain. It’s a sin to use a condom. It’s a sin to have an abortion because you can’t have a baby," he said.
The People's Champ
Aside from the recent victory over Margarito, Pacquiao had won the World Boxing Council (WBC) Flyweight Champion in 1998-1999; International Boxing Federation (IBF) Super Bantamweight Champion in 2001-2004; RING Featherweight Champion in 2003-2005; WBC and RING Super Featherweight Champion in 2008; and WBC Lightweight Champion, 2008-2009.
He is also the current champion of the International Boxing Organization (IBO) and RING Junior Welterweight Champion as well as in the World Boxing Organization, and reigning World Boxing Organization (WBO) Welterweight Champion.
Pacquiao’s record in the ring now stands at 57 fights, of which 52 are wins (38 by way of knockout), three losses, and two draws.
Bishop: Do not distort Pope's message
In an earlier CBCP report, Cruz encouraged the public not to distort the Pope's message.
“When we argue let’s not take half-truths because we will lose that way. I’m sorry to disappoint people who are hoping otherwise," he said.
Cruz lamented that some individuals were distorting the Pope’s statement to advance their own interests.
“Our only appeal is that for them to just stick with the truth…" he said.
A CBCP report quoted Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ramon Carandang as saying the Palace is hoping that the local Catholic hierarchy would follow the Vatican because “they cannot be more popish than the pope."
“That’s a good step. I think our own clergy should be informed by the views of the Vatican because they’ve always referred to the Vatican when they stated their position, now that the Vatican’s position is such then I think that should result in a corresponding flexibility on the part of our Church," Carandang said.
Pope still against contraceptives
Fr. Joel Jason, head of the Manila Archdiocese’s Commission on Family and Life, said the pope remains firm on the Church’s stand against contraceptives.
He said the Pope only said that when male prostitutes use condoms, it could be a sign that they are starting to realize that it is not right to have sex without thinking of the consequences.
Jason noted that the Pope said abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope also said sex is not a drug intended for pleasure.
“They (pro-RH) respect the pope but our concern is that they are acting upon a misconception. We are hoping that they listen to corrections," Jason said.
“We tend to take things out of context… before they make a conclusion they should first get the whole context of what the Holy Father really said," he added.
Jason is the Dean of Studies at San Carlos Seminary in Guadalupe in Makati City and teaches Fundamental Moral Theology, Sexuality and Integrity and Bioethics.
Jason said the church is still firm in its position that AIDS must be fought through moral fidelity and sexual abstinence.
“Risk reduction is not even an option. Let’s not take the minimal option but the maximum option. Let’s not take condom as a solution," Jason added.
“Thorough infidelity and abstinence, there’s no way you can get AIDS if you practice these," he said.
Prolife groups reiterate stance vs RH bill
Meanwhile, prolife groups reiterated their stance against the RH bill in Congress.
The group "Couples for Christ" said the bill that aims to give free access to contraceptives violates the right to life and the Constitution.
“Thus, we say no to contraceptives and yes to natural family planning," said CFC chairman Joe Tale in a statement posted on the CBCP news site.
“Parents have the primary right and responsibility in rearing up their children. We thus say no to compulsory sex education in schools," he added.
He also insisted that population is not the cause of poverty but “greed, corruption and bad governance."
The CFC also voiced support for House Bill 13 filed by Rep. Roilo Golez and Senate Bill 2497 authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, which seek “to protect the rights of the unborn."
RH bill 96
Several versions of the RH bill have been filed in previous congresses. In the present Congress, the RH bill is known as "Bill 96" whose main proponent is Minority Leader Edcel Lagman of Albay.
The RH is based on the premise that the country's population growth impedes economic development and exacerbates poverty.
The bill seeks to “guarantee to universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information."
The bill also seeks a “consistent and coherent national population policy," citing studies that show that "rapid population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth."
Drive vs artificial contraception
The Catholic Church’s drive against artificial contraception received flak from reproductive health (RH) advocates after a news report quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying condom use by certain people, such as male prostitutes, may be a step toward a more responsible sexuality.
An Associated Press (AP) article on Sunday quoted the Pope as saying that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS but in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
The Pope, however, also reiterated the Church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity are the only sure ways of preventing the spread of HIV.
The Pope made the statement in response to a German journalist's general question about Africa, where heterosexual HIV spread is rampant.
The Pope's comment will be published in a book entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times."
A matter of exceptions
Proponents of the RH bill said the Pope's statements reflect a shift in Church policy on artificial contraception.
However, according to the AP article, Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican's longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality, said the Pope's stand pertains only to cases where condom use "is the only way to save a life."
Quoting Sgreccia on the Italian news agency ANSA, the AP report said the Pope's stand on the condom issue was "in the realm of the exceptional."
"If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted ... and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated," Sgreccia said.
In the same AP report, Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said the Pope was clearly not encouraging condom use.
"I think the pope has been very strong in saying condoms do not solve the problem of morality and do not solve the problem of good sex education. But if a person chooses not to follow the teaching of Christ in the church, they are at least obliged to prevent another person from contracting a disease that is deadly," he said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
RH bill faces uphill climb at Lower House
RH bill faces uphill climb at Lower House
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/10/rh-bill-faces-uphill-climb-lower-house
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 11/24/2010 3:52 PM | Updated as of 11/24/2010 3:52 PM
Tweet
MANILA, Philippines - The controversial Reproductive Health Bill faces an uphill climb in the House of Representatives after a lawmaker said he will not expedite deliberations on the reproductive health legislation.
Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, chair of the House committee on population and family relations, said he has not received instructions from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to expedite deliberations on the RH bill despite the latter's statement that bills on 2nd reading in the 14th Congress should be fast-tracked.
“Wala pong ganung directive to me. Wala pang instruction sa akin, I don’t know with sponsors, but as chairman of the committee, wala. Hindi po natin magagawa yun. Gusto po natin malaman lahat ng sides and mahirap naman na iharap yan sa ating mga kababayan na hindi talaga napag-usapan kung ano talaga ang nilalaman ng bills na ito," he told reporters.
Espina said the committee will consult all stakeholders before they consolidate 6 different reproductive health bills pending in the Lower House. This is despite the repetitive nature of the debates, rehashing issues already discussed in the last Congress.
”Actually may ibang positions na bago. Although it was discussed regarding population management bills, reproductive health bills, two decades ago na nag-start yun, 8th congress pa pero on this 15th congress may changes sa data and presentations of various stakeholders”
Espina says they cannot commit to submit a consolidated bill to plenary anytime soon.
The House committee on population and family relations spent 4 hours on Wednesday hearing speeches from various reproductive health stakeholders ranging from religious groups, women’s groups, medical groups and even government offices like the justice and social welfare departments.
One religious group, Apostles of Mary, brought out a small statuette of St Joseph to implore the power of the saint to block the passage of the RH bill.
The Committee spent almost its whole 1st hour discussing whether or not the committee has jurisdiction over the bill. Anti-RH lawmakers such as Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez both argued the more appropriate committee would be the Committee on Health because it is about reproductive health and the lead implementing agency would be the health department.
'Bad feng shui'
Garcia said the RH bills must have had bad feng shui in the health committee, which is why it was taken away from the committee on health. He said the population committee may want to consider tackling this jointly with the health committee.
"Now I’m going to say this transfer of referral was premeditated to change real intention…Perhaps it was thought this is more defensible less difficult to defend if it is a population measure…But it is not defensible as a health issue because the World Health Organization issued an advisory that contraceptives are carcinogenic materials and substances," he said.
Golez said the population committee could be mismatched when faced by the resource persons.
Minority Leader and RH bill author Edcel Lagman rebutted them, saying the bill would be more germane to the population committee since it is more about population control and family planning.
"This bill is basically a population bill and a family planning measure..Whereas jurisdiction of the committee on health is very generic. It says all matter relating to public health," he said.
RP 12th most populous country
Lagman asserted the need for the RH law since the Philippines is now the 12th most populous country in the world. He said 54% of women don’t want additional child, 49% of women don’t use family planning and 22% of women have unmet need for family planning services.
Lagman said at the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice as neither Church nor state has any place to tell people what to do on reproductive health.
He said that unless the committee chairman asks the rules committee to reconsider the referral to his committee, the RH bills stays in this committee.
For his part, Espina said there were no objections when the bill was referred to his committee by the plenary. He then ruled to just let the Rules Committee decide upon the jurisdiction upon the motion of the protesting lawmakers. However, Espina continued the debates.
Garcia said it was not correct to say the change of referral cannot be initiated by the house in plenary. "A motion can be filed, I will concede it will also be referred to committee on population but it must be jointly referred," he said.
Espina and Golez figured in a light moment when the former looked for a spokesperson for the pope and Golez responded by saying religious leaders should not be mocked.
Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairwoman of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, said the debate on jurisdiction was a dilatory tactic.
She said the RH bill would be doomed if it is referred to the health committee since many of its members are against the measure.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/10/rh-bill-faces-uphill-climb-lower-house
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 11/24/2010 3:52 PM | Updated as of 11/24/2010 3:52 PM
Tweet
MANILA, Philippines - The controversial Reproductive Health Bill faces an uphill climb in the House of Representatives after a lawmaker said he will not expedite deliberations on the reproductive health legislation.
Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, chair of the House committee on population and family relations, said he has not received instructions from Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to expedite deliberations on the RH bill despite the latter's statement that bills on 2nd reading in the 14th Congress should be fast-tracked.
“Wala pong ganung directive to me. Wala pang instruction sa akin, I don’t know with sponsors, but as chairman of the committee, wala. Hindi po natin magagawa yun. Gusto po natin malaman lahat ng sides and mahirap naman na iharap yan sa ating mga kababayan na hindi talaga napag-usapan kung ano talaga ang nilalaman ng bills na ito," he told reporters.
Espina said the committee will consult all stakeholders before they consolidate 6 different reproductive health bills pending in the Lower House. This is despite the repetitive nature of the debates, rehashing issues already discussed in the last Congress.
”Actually may ibang positions na bago. Although it was discussed regarding population management bills, reproductive health bills, two decades ago na nag-start yun, 8th congress pa pero on this 15th congress may changes sa data and presentations of various stakeholders”
Espina says they cannot commit to submit a consolidated bill to plenary anytime soon.
The House committee on population and family relations spent 4 hours on Wednesday hearing speeches from various reproductive health stakeholders ranging from religious groups, women’s groups, medical groups and even government offices like the justice and social welfare departments.
One religious group, Apostles of Mary, brought out a small statuette of St Joseph to implore the power of the saint to block the passage of the RH bill.
The Committee spent almost its whole 1st hour discussing whether or not the committee has jurisdiction over the bill. Anti-RH lawmakers such as Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez both argued the more appropriate committee would be the Committee on Health because it is about reproductive health and the lead implementing agency would be the health department.
'Bad feng shui'
Garcia said the RH bills must have had bad feng shui in the health committee, which is why it was taken away from the committee on health. He said the population committee may want to consider tackling this jointly with the health committee.
"Now I’m going to say this transfer of referral was premeditated to change real intention…Perhaps it was thought this is more defensible less difficult to defend if it is a population measure…But it is not defensible as a health issue because the World Health Organization issued an advisory that contraceptives are carcinogenic materials and substances," he said.
Golez said the population committee could be mismatched when faced by the resource persons.
Minority Leader and RH bill author Edcel Lagman rebutted them, saying the bill would be more germane to the population committee since it is more about population control and family planning.
"This bill is basically a population bill and a family planning measure..Whereas jurisdiction of the committee on health is very generic. It says all matter relating to public health," he said.
RP 12th most populous country
Lagman asserted the need for the RH law since the Philippines is now the 12th most populous country in the world. He said 54% of women don’t want additional child, 49% of women don’t use family planning and 22% of women have unmet need for family planning services.
Lagman said at the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice as neither Church nor state has any place to tell people what to do on reproductive health.
He said that unless the committee chairman asks the rules committee to reconsider the referral to his committee, the RH bills stays in this committee.
For his part, Espina said there were no objections when the bill was referred to his committee by the plenary. He then ruled to just let the Rules Committee decide upon the jurisdiction upon the motion of the protesting lawmakers. However, Espina continued the debates.
Garcia said it was not correct to say the change of referral cannot be initiated by the house in plenary. "A motion can be filed, I will concede it will also be referred to committee on population but it must be jointly referred," he said.
Espina and Golez figured in a light moment when the former looked for a spokesperson for the pope and Golez responded by saying religious leaders should not be mocked.
Elizabeth Angsioco, national chairwoman of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, said the debate on jurisdiction was a dilatory tactic.
She said the RH bill would be doomed if it is referred to the health committee since many of its members are against the measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)