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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)