Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Catholics (?) come out for RH bill

Catholics come out for RH bill

A group composed of Catholics Tuesday expressed support for the passage of the reproductive health (RH) law and disagreement with the bishops’ rabid opposition to it.

Dr. Edelina de la Paz, national coordinator of the Catholics for RH Movement, stressed that her group was not against the Church.

“We remain … faithful to the Catholic Church, but we strongly disagree with the bishops’ stance on family planning and reproductive health,” De la Paz said, adding that her group with a nationwide membership was “pro-life, not pro-abortion.”
/

My dear brothers and sisters. The bishops' stance on family planning and reproductive health is consistent with the stand of the Catholic Church throughout the ages. The Philippine bishops do not operate in a vaccuum. Ask any bishop around the world and he will tell you the same thing in unity with what Philippine bishops stand for. What the Philippine bishops stand for is immutable and irreformable authentic Catholic teaching -- they are just doing their job. Time and again, the Catholic Church has expressed a consistent stand against contraceptives. Pope Benedict XVI says so. Pope John Paul II said so in Evangelium Vitae back in 1995. Pope Paul VI said so in Humanae Vitae back in 1968. Pope Pius XI said so in Castii Connubii back in 1930. And so on, and so on.

So my dear brothers and sisters, if you say you are faithful to the Catholic Church but strongly disagree with the bishops on FP and RH, I very strongly suggest you re-examine your conscience, as well as your mind-boggling logic.
/

18 comments:

aeisiel said...

Have you heard of the new protestant denomination called "Catholics for RH Movement"?

Free thinkers = poorly catechized Catholics

WillyJ said...

aesiel,

here's more:

"De la Paz, along with like-minded advocates, held a press conference in Quezon City to also announce support for RH activist Carlos Celdran, who was arrested and jailed for picketing [rudely disrupting] an ecumenical service last week at Manila Cathedral. They said a fund-raising project to help Celdran in his law suit was ongoing."

Regardless of their leanings, they should have denounced the actions of Celdran rather than announced support for it. They not only need good catechism, they also need good basic education in right manners and good conduct. I would have these people squat in a corner before giving them failing grades in both subjects.

aeisiel said...

Isa pa yan, if he only really knew by heart the 'real' history of intramurous, the very place he works as a tour guide, he would have highest respect for the clergy and foremost for the House of God, he defiled sacred grounds tsk, tsk, tsk…

Hindi lang squat ka mo, pina-punta pa sa office ni Mr. Salgado at pina-tawag ang mga magulang :)

WillyJ said...

aeisiel,

Yeah :-)

Even the worst behaving pupil during our time wouldn't even think of acting the way he did. He will be kicked-out outright. Now I think if the Intramuros administrator would ban him from conducting his tours in the premises, it would only be justified. Since the Cathedral and San Agustin are part of his tour landmarks, at least he should not be allowed to set foot on those anymore. And don't he even think of setting foot in SJLC!

aeisiel said...

Hahaha, they have to think twice before entering our old Alma Mater!

petrufied said...

why would they need to raise money for celdran's lawsuit? eh, talo yun tapos may kaya naman siya.

yeah i find that news very ironic, it's not like the filipino bishops are thinking separately from the Church. Lol at the "protestant denomination"

WillyJ said...

N,
Totally. It appears from all angles that Celdran will lose in court. If they have to raise money at all, maybe as a fund for Celdran to seek medical treatment for his craziness.

It carries a 6-month prison term. I can now imagine Celdran prancing around the prison grounds, holding up a placard which says:
"I AM SISA"

:D

sunnyday said...

LOL, Willy!!

sunnyday said...

Okay, the comment that I had posted the other day but which got erased before I got to post it was that maybe the members of the "Catholics for RH Movement" are merely posing as Catholics. Kunwari Catholics lang. Di ba in the States there's a "Catholics for a Free Choice," then the name was changed to "Catholics for Choice"? I think it's common knowledge there that most if not all the members of this group are merely posing as Catholics, and it is assumed that the group is there to create more confusion (in which they seem to be succeeding in some places).

ForzaMillan said...

Catholics in Name Only (CINO)!

aeisiel said...

Yes, there’s a slim chance that some are non-Catholics members in the movement, but definitely majority are Catholics, all prodigal sons and daughters.

Anonymous said...

please add to the group this catholic apologist and pro-life who argued, against "some pro-lifers", that P-Noy's position on RH is fully and faithfully catholic!

read the article:
http://www.catholicposition.blogspot.com/

and let us see whether you can still call the group un-catholic!

WillyJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WillyJ said...

I realized my previous post was too uncharitable for my taste. I deleted it. Sorry folks. For an ongoing discussion on the matter (re Anon comment of 10/11/10 4:41 PM), you may proceed directly here and here.

Red de la Rosa said...

I would like to clarify that I never said in my article that I am supporting the RH bill.

What I said is that P-Noy should go on with his Reproductive Health goals.

Here is a direct quote from that article:

"What about the RH Bill?

What I have said so far has nothing to do with the RH Bill. There are some points in the RH Bill which are really objectionable from the moral point of view. Hence, a revised bill is in order."

P-Noy should pursue his reproductive health plans because that is his obligation.

I was confident to say that because all of us find him willing to listen to the Church.

that day I posted my article, we are aware the he was planning to have dialogue with the Bishops, so I posted some catholic parameters wherein his position concerning contraception can be reconciled with the Church's.

To willyJ,

Thanks for the link in your user name which appeared in the comments page of my blog. I was able to go here because of that.

WillyJ said...

Sure Red. Thanks for the clarification re P-Noy and your stand on the RH bill. P-Noy's stand on RH is too vague, anyway at this point, and it is good that he is open to a dialogue that will thresh things out.

Thanks for dropping by and more power.

Manny said...

Is it not so that to be a Catholic, one must believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church? How then can these people call themselves "Catholics?"

It seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have all the benefits of being reconized as "Catholics" but refuse to be Catholics!

Now that is truly deceptive!

WillyJ said...

Manny,
I think it has something to do with thinking independently outside of Catholic teachings. I doubt if these "Catholics" took the trouble to earnestly study and think with the Catholic Church. It's a kind of intellectual arrogance to "strongly disagree" (without clear substantiation) with 2000+ years of Catholic tradition which is solidly built on faith and reason - on an essential teaching on morals.