Part 1 of this series here.
Certainly, no single candidate will fit one's ideal of a perfect match for the presidential slot. That is why it can be argued that one may choose to vote for a candidate that most fits the Catholic position consistent with traditional moral theology with regards to "proportionate reasons".
When Noynoy Aquino has announced his candidacy for the presidency, he has captured the imagination of the Filipino electorate longing (for sooo long) to be inspired with a leadership defined by moral integrity. The Catholic hierarchy was likewise elated with the prospect it seems, but took pause when they found out that Noynoy was an active supporter of the RH bill. There were initial efforts to ask Noynoy to reconsider his position, but now the cat is out of the bag. The latest news report declares: Aquino defies Church, backs controversial bill.
Let us take a closer look at that news report. Here Noynoy was quoted as follows:
"Whatever they say about my position on the RH bill, I am sticking to it despite the pressure from certain quarters. If I get the support or not of the Church and pro-life groups [for my presidential bid in 2010], it is secondary for my advocacy to get everybody educated on reproductive health,".
Uh-oh. Someone needs to tell Noynoy that even the Bishops and pro-life groups are not against "everybody [getting] educated on reproductive health" per se. What is opposed is mandatory (emphasis on mandatory, please) sex education starting from grade 5 that would force imparting "values" consistent with promoting the contraceptive mentality to ALL schools, public and private. Even Catholic schools, of course. Is this the kind of "advocacy" that Noynoy is resolutely "sticking to"?
Noynoy goes on by saying he is not "comfortable" that the government will provide a specific budget in support of artificial family planning. You bet, Noynoy, that the bill you are supporting will provide a specific budget for artificial family planning. HB 5043 classifies contraceptives as "essential medicines" and being so, simply guarantees that it will have a specific budget. I am actually horrified that billions will be used to purchase contraceptives, money that otherwise could have been budgeted for real (emphasis on real, please) essential medicines that cures actual diseases. Too bad Noynoy feels only "uncomfortable" with the thought. In his scheme of things, his "uncomfortable" stance translates to: "it doesn't look good, I really don't understand it, but I'll support it anyway, whatever they say about my position on the RH bill...". How nifty. Doesn't exactly sound like the courage of conviction though. I wonder what it takes for his feeling to run from discomfort to horror? Maybe a bolt of lightning will do the trick. It proved effective for Saul on the road to Damascus.
Now comes the stunner. After defying the bishops, Mar and Noynoy seek advice of Apollo .
What the??? The same "Pastor" Apollo Quiliboy, the founder and leader of "The Kingdom of Jesus Christ, The Name Above Every Name", a Philippine-based church. Among his teachings are : Jesus Christ is the Almighty Father (One God); Salvation is through the Appointed Son of God (who else but Quiliboy); and that "No one comes to the Father except through Apollo C. Quiboloy". No kidding. And why on earth would Mar and Noynoy seek the advise of the self-appointed savior of the world? Hint: Compostela Valley Rep. Manuel Zamora says of Quiliboy-- "I believe his group is already bigger than other religious organizations that are perceived to be more influential in national politics.".
Uh-oh. I guess I have to study more deeply the moral theology behind "proportionate reasons".
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
On Noynoy and the RH bill (2)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Bro, I don't know if by the words in this post, you mean not to vote Noynoy. But for me I sensed there are things beyond "moral" character that made me think twice in choosing him. First, his decision to run is not based on motives of service but based on "positive chances." Because of this he is "premature." Second, a person who gives in to pressure so easily could be highly corruptible. Third, sticking to a decision which is wrong, by moral standards, is a sign of "we-can-justify-everything" syndrome. But who else can we trust and choose? Just feel what God is saying by the turn of events today and the days ahead. I know there will be signs and "Ondoy" was one of it.
I haven't made up my mind yet, although this one is a disappointing letdown. I guess more developments and signs are yet to come. btw, nice site makeover bro!
Here's a good article on this issue...
"NOYNOY IS EITHER CATHOLIC OR NON_CATHOLIC"
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20091020-231094/Noynoy-is-either-Catholic-or-non-Catholic
aeisiel,
Fr. Robert S. Embile is spot on when he says: "A person who is not afraid of offending God, Who will ultimately judge him on the basis of his actions, will certainly, 100 percent, offend the rights and feelings of human beings who cannot see everything. It is not hard to conclude the same, going by Noynoy's own words: "If I get the support or not of the Church and pro-life groups, it is secondary for my advocacy to get everybody educated on reproductive health". Going by this statement, where lies his allegiance? Noynoy here seems acting out the part of the rich man in the Gospel who turns away when Jesus says: "follow me". A faithful Catholic would have said: "If I get the support or not of ..whomever.., it is secondary to my faith."
how about the billions it costs the government to help pay for unwanted pregnancies? hello.
First off, I am not aware of reliable statistics on "unwanted pregnancies", much less the amount the government "help pays" for them (and how?).
Having said that, I guess all sides will agree that we want to get to a situation where the cases of "unwanted pregnancies" are greatly avoided, if not held to a minimum. At any rate I find the term "unwanted pregnancy" quite odd. The primary question of course is how come pregnancies become "unwanted"; and why would couples not want pregnancies but at the same time expect that their desire be met for wanton sex activity that naturally leads to pregnancies. Oh, do we want to spend scarce taxpayers money to provide free-for-all contraceptives so that wanton-sex-on-demand does not result in "unwanted" results? Is ready access to contraceptives the answer? The cases in Britain and the U.S. prove otherwise, despite the fact that they have gone at great lengths (and huge cost too) to gain a very high contraceptive prevalence rate. On a related note in Thailand, HIV cases are on the upswing, despite an average $100M expense in condoms for the past seven years. I would love to hear what Noynoy will say about this.
Post a Comment