Bullying the bearer

"gracious madam, I that do bring the news made not the match"
- messenger to Cleopatra in Henry IV, part 2 by William Shakespeare
//
Sotto: Online critics can’t answer issues vs RH bill 

MANILA, August 29, 2012–Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III on Wednesday hit back at his rabid online critics, saying they would rather do a demolition job on him than answer questions raised on the “reproductive health” (RH) bill. 

Indeed. It appears that Sotto's critics who do not want the message, would rather shoot the messenger.  Earlier on, Senator Sotto delivered part 2 of his 'turno en contra' wherein he stated:

"And so, I will prove that this bill has been significantly influenced by various organizations, both local and international, which are of doubtful character. They have been pushing for the passage of this bill to serve their ulterior motives far-off from the aims of the proponents of the bill.". 

What was he referring to? Let us track back a bit to parts of Sotto's speech against the bill back in December 2011.  Among other things, Senator Sotto bared here that:

"... one particular lobby group – the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) – has a budget for “nurturing legislators” from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has been criticized for its coercive abortion policies. The Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) has also been getting millions of dollars in subsidies from UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the largest abortion provider in the world founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger..."

Sotto further cites the list of resource organizations who helped craft the bill, and said the database of the Securities and Exchange Commission yielded the following results:

• Pinasamang Lakas ng Kababaihan at Kabataan – “Not Found”
• Program for Adolescent Reproductive Health – “Not Found”
• Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines – “Does Not Exist”
• Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development – “Revoked”
• HIV-AIDS Network – “Revoked”
• Likhaan – “Revoked”
• RHAN – “No Records”
• Institute of Maternal and Child Health – “Does Not Exist”

Hmm, this is part of the message that they do not want, for they have avoided challenging it altogether just like the rest of the issues that Sotto raised. They would rather hit the person of Sotto to divert the flak. In other words, it is called Ad hominem. I have a few directly-related questions though.

 * If these organizations are receiving foreign funding for their advocacy, then are they not required to report all donations to the BIR?
* If they are really legit NGOs then they are supposed to file audited financial statements to the SEC. Have they done so?
* How are they supposed to report if they are not registered with the SEC anyway?
* Did these organizations tell their donors that they are not duly registered? Have they given receipts or certificates of donations to the donors?
* Why would a foreign donor donate to a non-registered entity? It would mean that the donations are not non-taxable.
* If an organization such as RHAN is not duly registered, why does it allocate a budget for "nurturing legislators".
* Sotto reveals that FPOP received $625,095 or almost P27.5 million from UNFPA in 2011. Have they denied it?
* Who are these donors? And what do they want?
* Why do Sotto's critics not face these questions and instead attack Sotto on the (non)charge of plagiarism?
* Why did Cleopatra get mad?
//

Hitler Nabuang sa Hindi Pagpasa ng RH Bill Ngayong Taon

RH Bill won't be passed this year: Hitler goes into a tantrum. LoL.



Fact References:

1. 350 pesos per hakot -- see Inquirer article: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/103857/no-delay-but-rh-bill-won%E2%80%99t-be-pas... -- The group scheduled the "peak" of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of "at least 5,000 people." Each participant was supposed to receive P350.
...
2. More Pro-life People than Anti-Life -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill#Rallies

3. RH Bill can be defeated at Senate: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/109363/hasty-vote-will-kill-rh-bill%E2%80%94enrile

4. Million of dollars of funding -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5141

5. Pro-RH Groups back abortion -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=3477

6. Cabral admitted that pills cause breast cancer - http://opinion.inquirer.net/5067/chant-the-rh-mantras

7. TV Debates won by Pro-life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill#Opinion_polls_and_TV_de...

8. Pro RH stats are wrong (maternal death, abortion) - http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/49029/studies-show-maternal-deaths-in-philippine... / http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=3512

9. Non-existent lobby groups (not registered or revoked) getting massive funding -- http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=5178

10. Pro-Life Victory of 2011 - http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/12/11/anti-rh-groups-declare...

11. Population Control connection with Hitler- http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=399988 / http://newworldorderuniversity.com/?p=3930

FOREIGN FUNDING TO PUSH RH BILL: No surprise here

(Reposted from The Catholic Position on the RH Bill)

What we've been saying all along: foreign money funds pro-RH activities

A pro-lifer's speculation on what the people in this anti-Catholic protest might actually have been thinking.

An article published on December 2 of this year by Philippine Daily Inquirer brought to a wider audience some of the details of a state of affairs that has been known for a long time to the pro-life movement, and which many activists of the "pro-RH camp" have been denying without success. I am, of course, referring to the continued infusion into our country of money from foreign countries and institutions, earmarked for the propagation of the RH Bill and of other similar bills that espouse the Culture of Death and the anti-values of sexual anarchy.

In particular, the Inquirer article "No delay but RH bill won't be passed this year - Enrile" showed that the pro-RH camp has been practicing the age-old tactic of corrupt politicians: the "hakot" (paid) crowd:

Early this year, the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) received P4.4 million from the United Nations Population Fund to push for the passage of the RH bill before the end of 2011. Dr. Junice Melgar, RHAN secretary general, admitted that her group solicited the amount because it “has no ongoing funding.”

Based on RHAN’s budget proposal, the amount was to be spent on activities such as “education and mobilization” program. One item worth P2,837,500 was to go to organize “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.”

The group scheduled the “peak” of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of “at least 5,000 people.” Each participant was supposed to receive P350.

In response to this report, Filipinos for Life has published an official statement delving in greater detail and with many proofs into the foreign funding that has been propping up numerous anti-life initiatives in the Philippines:

Official Statement: Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

***
CBCP for Life also published the following article regarding the Filipinos for Life statement linked above:

Documents bare millions of dollars in funding for RH lobbyists

MANILA, Dec. 2, 2011–Pro-abortion groups have been showering “reproductive health” (RH) lobbyists with millions of dollars in funding for years to promote the Western agenda of contraception and population control, documents showed.

Funders include Planned Parenthood and its international arm, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, the Packard Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In a statement, the group Filipinos for Life (F4L) said the paper trail of multimillion-dollar lobby funds reveal the hand of foreign interest groups out to dictate what policy the Philippine government should follow.

“Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers condemned the presence of the American lobby group AGILE in Congress. This time, however, the RH lobby is apparently succeeding, thanks to a formidable war chest from pro-abortion groups,” it said.

Documents revealed the following financial grants for RH lobby groups:

* $90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011);

* $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009);

* $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;

* $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009);

* $39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007);

* $88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and

* $75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009).

This was aside from $6.8 million from the Packard Foundation for the years 2006-2008; $18.4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 1997 to 2008; $8.86 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2004 for a “social acceptance” project; and $239.5 million from the World Bank for 2010-2012.These amounts could have better been used for direct poverty alleviation programs, F4L said.

F4L said pro-RH lobbyists cannot deny the overt abortion agenda of most of their financial backers, notably Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, and UNFPA, which has been condemned for its coercive abortion programs.

“Abortion was not legalized in the US overnight. It started with the birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, which today is called Planned Parenthood,” F4L pointed out.

Where are the millions going?

Meanwhile, the Philippine Daily Inquirer today ran a story containing a more detailed breakdown of RHAN’s budget earmarked for a more aggressive push for RH. According to the article, the millions in pesos provided by the UNFPA were to be spent on “education and mobilization.” Based on the same document, nearly P3 million was allocated for “two nationally coordinated (and) high-profile mobs.”

“The group scheduled the ‘peak’ of its pro-RH rally for September and set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of ‘at least 5,000 people.’ Each participant was supposed to receive P350,” the article further stated.

F4L called on lawmakers to examine further the lobby groups behind the RH bill, saying interpellations should be exhausted to unmask the real intentions of those promoting it.

“Pro-RH groups and Malacañang spokesmen are being irresponsible by calling for a vote and an abrupt end to debates,” the group said. (CBCP for Life)

PNoy on same-sex marriages this time

Does he understand?

If one still has any doubts that the current sitting President, Benigno Aquino III Jr, has firmly decided to alienate himself from his Catholic identity, then his recent pronouncement should leave no more doubts. His defiant attitude towards the Church by his unabashed support of the RH bill is now firmly reinforced by his recent pronouncement in apparent support of same-sex marriage.

President Noynoy Aquino, who prides himself in being Jesuit-educated, says in response to a query on same-sex marriage:

"Gay marriage—I don’t think I’m ready to tackle that fight right now. But the perspective... it is their choice. Normally I would say, you’re adults, you should be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn’t harm anybody else...."

One wonders whether PNoy's "principled" stand is simply contingent on whether or not he is ready to "tackle that fight". One further wonders whether his principle is simply dependent on his targeted mass popularity by kowtowing to the liberal public. His perspective on placing individual "choice" over and above an essential principle in Catholic doctrine clearly puts himself in direct contradiction to a "non-negotiable" in the public sphere which is clearly spelled out by the Catholic Church of which he claims to be a follower.

Pope Benedict XVI emphasizes that the Church is consciously drawing particular attention to three principles which are non-negotiable, wherein the second non-negotiable goes as follows:

[The] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

Yet perhaps the president is a devout advocate of the principle of "Separation of Church and State", which is pretty much interpreted these days as equivalent to saying that just about anything the Church says should be altogether disregarded and repudiated in these modern times. Pope Benedict XVI in his recent address to the German Bundestag shreds such a positivist approach to nature and reason as being opposed to true human freedom, but then again it may be too much to expect PNoy to train his ears towards the Holy Father's words. Perhaps his ears may have been too much attuned to the proclamations of the self-proclaimed "messiah": President Obama of the United States.

Be as it may, with regards to Church-State separation and its misguided interpretations, we may yet look into what the State - specifically the Philippine State - has to say on the matter. It is no secret that the Philippine Constitution enshrines the principle in Article II Section 12:

"The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution"

Unless the Philippine president has purposely ignored this fundamental constitutional provision with the same nonchalance he has shown to fundamental Catholic teachings, it would be at least charitable to say that his phalanx of presidential advisers have taken a vacation - since day one of his presidency. Perhaps even with the same strange stance on PNoy's part, it is worth remembering that his own mother (God bless her), the late President Corazon Aquino was the very person who in 1987 promulgated the Family Code of the Philippines, which in Article II states to wit:

"No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female"

Note: must be male and female. In supporting same-sex marriages, PNoy has chosen to contradict the Church, the State, and his own mother in his dalliance with his own shadow. Let it be said that today's Gospel is about obedience, even if one does not understand fully. Apparently, PNoy's dillema is more about not being able to understand more than having the virtue of obedience. But maybe, perhaps both.

The ultimate Pro-RH Bill Combox Guide against Prolifers

I LOL'ed at Matthew Archbold's post in NCR entitled "The Anti-Catholic's Guide to Catholic Comboxes". It gave me an idea to come up with a Top 10 List to guide Pro-RH Bill advocates in haranguing prolifers in the comboxes. Here goes

The ultimate Pro-RH Bill Combox Guide against Prolifers

10. Let the women decide for their own bodies, don't worry we are indoctrinating them.
9. What outdated views you have. Did you not know that St Augustine favored abortion? I am atheist by the way.
8. Unscientific! It's just a clump of cells, and my science says life starts at implantation, you clump!
7. You just do not understand separation of church and state, yeah we redefined that too.
6. Sure it causes breast cancer that kills, but its good for the cervix.
5. Your morality is different from my morality! (it sounds better in Tagalog).
4. Overpopulation !!! Who cares about steadily decreasing TFRs anyway?
3. We must be right because 90% of Filipinos are in favor (from surveys they don't understand)
2. You crazy prolife bigots are devoid of arguments and just resort to name-calling and character assassination. You #%@*# !!!!

1. The WHO said so, why don't you just adore everything they say? ...oops

F4L: Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

Maybe Senator Tito Sotto just wants to echo Mark Twain, but that is just my hunch.

Anyway...

ProLife advocacy group FilipinosForLife reacts (rightly so) by assailing the vitriol directed at Senator Tito Sotto for his interpellation of the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate. Here goes...
/
FILIPINOS FOR LIFE OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

Akbayan’s tirade vs. Sotto unfair, out of context, narrow-minded

FILIPINOS FOR LIFE (F4L) strongly condemns Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party for unfairly and maliciously accusing Senator Tito Sotto of ignoring the plight of women.

The statement by Akbayan’s youth leader is at best narrow-minded and out of context.

Sotto was merely questioning the basis of the oft-repeated statistic of 11 maternal deaths a day, in the context of a legislative debate on a bill that seeks to establish a wide-ranging national policy. It is therefore fair to examine the basis of this bill. THERE IS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR.

In the first place, there was no derogatory statement on women, and the sarcasm, if at all, is directed at foreign lobby groups, some of them pro-abortion, that routinely peddle this statistic. The supposed offense is in the creative, nay, malicious imagination of Akbayan’s propagandists.
...
Likewise, may we remind former Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel to elevate the level of the debate on RH. Her repeated references in social networks to an incident decades ago involving a dead movie starlet are uncalled for and below the belt.

Read the full statement here.
/

Indeed there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing to apologize for. Imagine, demanding an apology to ALL mothers for simply questioning a questionable statistic being irresponsibly bandied about ad nauseam: 11 mothers die everyday due to pregnancy. The corollary is that if contraceptives are freely distributed at taxpayers expense, the tragedy of mothers dying would be thwarted. The illogic behind this silly presumption has long been thrashed.

All pregnant mothers deserve genuine health care: pre-natal, delivery, and post-natal. The analogy behind the RH Bill folly goes this way: If many students are failing in a class, the obvious solution to reducing the failure rate is to reduce the number of students. Following this line of faulty line of reasoning, the RH bill aims to reduce the number of pregnancies and presto: the number of maternal deaths is obliterated magically.

Since when has official statistics been recognized as gospel truth that anyone who questions it should be derided and demanded of an apology? Are NSO statistics so infallible, sacred and beyond reproach? Whatever happened to the questioning mind according the sacred principle of "freethinking"? Note that these same people who takes offense at a simple gesture of questioning the "sacredness" of official statistics are the very same people who expresses no qualms about the desecration of the image of Christ under the pretense of a so-called "freedom" of artistic expression. They now deny Senator Sotto the simple freedom to question a questionable statistic? At any rate this is not the first time that official statistics have been rightfully called into question. Dr Bernardo Villegas and Dr Paco Sandejas have already questioned the official population figures before on an academic, empirical level. The proper response to Senator Sotto should have been to objectively defend the claimed soundness of the "11 maternal deaths" statistic, but no, all they can muster is a character assassination of the good Senator. Imagine Risa Hontiveros responding to the challenge by digging up an old, old controversy about a movie starlet just to heap dirt upon Senator Sotto. Look at these people who's so fond of insisting upon a high-level discourse.

Ms. Hontiveros goes as far as saying that Senator Sotto owes an apology to his own mother, sister, and daughter for the unpardonable act of questioning the 11 mothers statistic. Since when has Ms. Hontiveros been appointed as the spokesperson of Senator Sotto's own family? In contrast, I am quite sure that the family of Senator Sotto honors him proudly as he bravely stands to defend the mother Church and what it stands for. He is surely aware that he boldly ranges himself against the feisty Senator Miriam Santiago, who is well-noted to have far more superior academic credentials and bombastic eloquence that is capable of putting anyone to shame. Surely, Senator Sotto pales in eloquence and articulation, but the thing going on for him in this epic clash is that he is armed with the Truth, and that is all that matters.

Should Senator Sotto apologize to all women? On the other hand, these folks throwing dirt on Senator Sotto should apologize to all mankind by insulting our intelligence.
/

Senators argue inconclusively over when and where life begins

Senators argue inconclusively over when and where life begins

At least the tone has been set in the first session of the Senate interpellation on the RH bill. Senators Sotto, Enrile, Recto amd even Senator Lacson emphasized the primary importance of determining when life begins as a crucial point in the deliberation of the bill. Needless to say, the fate of the RH bill in the Senate rests on whether life begins at fertilization or implantation, to be in consonance with Article 2 Sec 12 of the Constitution.

Is the intent of the Constitutional provision already established at fertilization or was the intent left for legislative construction?

Whoever pounds on this issue to its conclusion seals the fate of the bill as well. All other issues are tangential, but pointing out the redundancy of the bill ices the cake.

Senator Sotto is doing it right. Thank you sir.

Here is a list of my related posts on when life begins:

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-does-life-begin.html
Angsioco vs unborn
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/06/angsioco-versus-unborn.html
A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-to-latest-salvo-of-fr-bernas.html
Two interpretations of: "The State shall protect the life of the unborn from conception"
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-interpretations-of-state-shall.html
'When life begins' and the RH Bill
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/03/when-life-begins-and-rh-bill.html
Lagman grasping at straws
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/01/lagman-grasping-at-straws.html
WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN (2)
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-does-life-begin-2.html
Why pills, injectables, IUDs are abortifacient
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-pills-injectables-iuds-are.html
Leaping mass of tissue
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/leaping-mass-of-tissue.html
POSTINOR BAN (2001)
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/07/postinor-ban-2001.html
/

Senator Santiago's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

Miriam's "constitutional" follow-up to her "encyclical"

The Reproductive Health Act (Sponsorship speech part 2)

The meat of Senator Miriam Santiago's RH Sponsorship speech (Parts 2 and 3) rests in claiming that the enactment of the RH bill will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. According to her since there is no clear constitutional prohibition, the passage of the bill would amount to a "legislative construction" of Article 2 Section 12 which is at the heart of the constitutionality issue.

I am not about to argue Senator Santiago's legal opinion point by point, for that is well beyond my reach. I would just like to point out that at least three legal luminaries do not share her legal constructions, and in fact flatly goes against them.

Here are the key passages of Senator Santiago's sponsorship speech.

There are a number of constitutional provisions that underlie the RH bill. But the most salient is what I would call the “Sanctity of Life” Clause found under Article 2, as a declaration of state policy:

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

This provision does not mention the term “reproductive health” or any of its affiliate vocabularies. This is in the nature of a constitution. As explained in the 1930 case ofLopez v. de los Reyes,[1] speaking of the Constitution:

It is an instrument of a permanent nature, intended not merely to meet existing conditions, but to govern the future. It does not deal in details but enunciates the general principles and general directions which are intended to apply to all new facts which may come into being, and which may be brought within those general principles or directions.

The Constitution should not be read like a newspaper story, on the basis of which each reader can feel free to express his own interpretation. Instead, to discover the intent and meaning of the Constitution, we have to turn to a process called “constitutional construction.”
...
The Constitution, directly or indirectly, does not prohibit the RH bill. Therefore, in constitutional terms, this Senate is free to enact this bill. It is now well accepted in our jurisdiction that under the “rational basis” test, so long as an act of Congress bears some reasonable relationship to the grant of power to the national government and it is not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, a reviewing court must find the law to be necessary and proper.

If the Senate passes the RH bill, our action would amount to a legislative construction of the Constitution. The rule is that a practical construction by Congress of a provision of the Constitution is entitled to great weight and should not be lightly disregarded. Hence, if we pass the RH bill, it will enjoy a presumption of constitutionality if it is questioned in the Supreme Court.

In other words, Miriam says the Constitution does not prohibit the RH bill, and that the intention of Article 2 Section 12 may be constructed by the legislature.

Here I note that Fr Joaquin Bernas - a noted constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission - clearly says otherwise.

The unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization of the zygote. Although the constitutional provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach. For this reason the Constitution commands that protection be given from conception, that is, from the fertilization of the zygote.

This is reflected in one of the exchanges during the debate. Since the protection of the unborn was to begin from conception, Reverend Cirilo Rigos asked when the “moment of conception” was. Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, who was the principal sponsor of the provision, answered that the conception took place with fertilization since “it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.” When Commissioner Fely Aquino observed that at that point there would only be biological life, Bishop Teodoro Bacani did not contradict her but said that there would already be biological human life even if there was as yet no “person.”

From this it can be seen that the intention is to protect the “life” even before implantation in the uterus, that is, from the moment biological life begins. The constitutional intent, in other words, is to play it safe lest human life be destroyed and to impose the protection even before implantation in the uterus.

This brings us to the question whether the reproductive bill allows or even prescribes the use of birth control methods which have the effect of blocking a fertilized zygote from being implanted in the uterus or of expelling a fertilized zygote before implantation. This is a question which, while it has constitutional, religious and moral implications, must first be answered by medical science. Has this question been sufficiently explored in the course of the debates over the reproductive health bill? My impression is that it has not. And if the law is passed as proposed, the question will most certainly reach the Supreme Court.

Dr. Bernie Villegas, likewise a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and the actual sponsor of the said constitutional provision, is more specific.

In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino. This majority decision was made after the most thorough debate...

Thus it is evident that Miriam Santiago's legal opinion on the Rh bill does not square with the legal positions of two prominent members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. In fact they contradict her and so it is incumbent for us to take Senator Santiago's opinion with a healthy dose of skepticism. At any rate, she avers that the Supreme Court would be tolerant of the passage of the RH bill in the event the ball is passed on to it. Now, if only she had come across Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona's earlier statements on the matter...

...The chief magistrate added that there are legal questions that will surely be brought before the SC once the bill becomes law.

If such questions were presented to the High Tribunal, Corona pointed out, it would be the court, not Congress , which will decide on the fate of the RH measure.

The SC could even inquire into pieces of legislation passed by Congress under its power of judicial review.

Such legislation [according to the Chief Justice] will include cases that are justiciable for “grave abuse of discretion or amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

Again if only Miriam paid attention to other notable but contrary legal positions...she might not sound so self-assured. Before that time comes, I guess hell will freeze over first.

"filthy rich Church" ???

Or is it filthy rich imagination?
/
More on the myth of the "filthy rich Church"
(reposted from The Catholic Position on the RH Bill)

Several weeks ago, the blog Adbokasiya published an interesting email thread / discussion regarding Elizabeth Angsioco's notorious screed on the Church's supposed wealth:

On the Church of the Poor Issue - further comments on the Church of the poor.

The thread includes the following intervention by Fr. Romeo Intengan S.J.

...just a very short initial reply for starters.

Pakipasa nga sa iba.

(1) The critics' article fails fails to distinguish between the significance of of stock holdings and bank holdings, on one hand, and annual available income from stocks and bank interest, on the other hand. Even if the Church owned, let us say, P200 B in stocks (not just the P35 B tallied by the critics, the rest of the wealth being conjecture), at a supposed rate of 10% a year from the stocks--I would say an optimistic figure--that would be P20 B. Think how much it costs to run all those thousands of parishes and schools, those dozens of hospitals, social action centers, and the like, especially at sufficient levels of quality. Then you will see that P20B is not enough, is a very modest amount, by any fair measure. Many of these, located in mission or poorer areas, are not supported by earnings and are subsidized by prosperous institutions and from the money of the Church in banks and stocks.

A large proportion of its income is used by the Church, through its institutions, to serve the poorest of the poor for free in remote areas where even the government cannot reach.

(2) It is not a fact that the Church is rich. The Church is not a monolith. There are perhaps five to ten prosperous dioceses and some twenty or thirty prosperous orders and congregations, but there are many more financially struggling ones. These critics ought to live for even just a week in any of the poorer majority of Church institutions and see what life there is like.

(3) The landholdings of Church institutions are quite moderate. The Church has hardly any farmland left, after the US colonial regime bought the friar lands, and after CARP. Do the critics begrudge the Church having churchyards and cemeteries, most of which are small and cramped? Do they want universities with cramped or no campuses? The Catholic Church does not even have the spare billions of pesos to own and run her own TV channel. Guess which religious group is rich enough to own TV networks? Not the Catholic Church. Instead of putting down what is already struggling, or damaging what is good, they should encourage the Church to raise the revenues to be able to serve the pastoral needs of the people.

One would think it more logical to encourage the State to improve the facilities of the public schools, rather than to scold to Church for having good facilities. In fact, the government recognizes the help of the Church in carrying the burden of filling the gap of public education, by helping private schools through the Fund for Assistance to Private Edcuation (FAPE).

(4) If the Church institutions sold all her stocks and gave away all the money they had in banks, the money raised for that one-time outlay would not be enough to make more than a small dent in the deficit of basic social services in this country. To claim otherwise would be to betray a ignorance of the dimensions of financing needed. It is the State alone, with its more than a trilliion pesos of annual tax income, that would have the capacity to close the gap in social services.

And after the Church sold all these, how would her institutions and works maintain themselves, considering that Filipino Catholics, on the average, contrary to the wrong impression given by the article, are not known for generous support of the Church ministries and pastors? Few Filipino Catholics practice tithing, and 3% support from their gross income would be a generous estimate, while the two richest non-Catholic churches in this country receive 15 to 20% of the gross income of her members.

(5) I agree that Church apparel could be simpler, but it would serve no good purpose to make this shoddy. Besides the sumptuous apparel of some clergy is worn only during liturgy, and on solemn occasions at that. The daily garb of the bishops is quite plain. To put together the images of bishops in sumptuous pontifical garb and a beggar in rags, as if this contrast was the normal, daily situation, is a cheap shot, good for hostile propaganda but far from reality.

(6) The Church is not "sitting on those billions." The latter phrase is another example of hostile caricature. These "billions" are invested in stocks or banks precisely to support the ministries, many of them gratuitous to the poorest of the poor, and the pastors. The Church is spending yearly the equivalent in goods and services of billions of pesos for the poor.

And please don't insult the poor. They are quite generous with what they have when they know it is for God or for God's holy purposes.

And as a matter of fact, one reason why the Catholic Church has not implemented Decree 118 of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II), approved in 1991, and providing for tithing, is hesitation to burden the poor (while other religions expect their members, rich or poor, to tithe). That is why in the Philippines, the bulk of Church contributions comes from the middle class.

(7) Do you want the Church to be able to offer the high quality education and health care to all, and not just some of its members? Do you want the Church to be able to support its ministries? Then join my humble but urgent advocacy for the implementation of Decree 118 of PCP II on tithing. For as of now, contrary to what that figure-quoting but ultimately shallow article is trying to convey, the Church is not wealthy--it cannot even adequately finance the ministries it should give to its members. And this is true even if the money and property of the prosperous dioceses and orders were distributed equally among the Catholic institutions and circumscriptions.

Archie, SJ

Romeo J. Intengan, S.J.

Miriam's "encyclical": The primacy of conscience says the RH bill is great and all the Popes were wrong after all

Senator Miriam Santiago delivers Part 1 of her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill.

In so many words, Santiago attempts here to justify her dissent of a key teaching of the Catholic Church. Mainly, she cites the primacy of conscience as the primary justification for her support of artificial contraceptives.

She hinges her dissent on a "historically conditioned", "liberal progressive", personal appreciation of Vatican II. With her selective quotes of Vatican II passages and piecemeal excerpts from encyclical sources, she might indeed present a seemingly acceptable case to the gullible reader. Such is the case that adroit lawyers are wont to present their cases. It is commonly perceived that lawyers can easily portray the innocent as guilty or vice-versa with the crafty turn of words and selective citations. This reminds me of the joke commonly told about lawyers. You can always tell when they are not telling the truth: their lips are moving.

Senator Santiago's idea of progressive theology is that where one does not have to follow KEY traditional Catholic teachings. In this particular case, her dissent ranges herself against the constant, perennial teaching of the Catholic Church against contraception - from the earliest Church Fathers all the way to our present Pope Benedict XVI.

She rejects Humanae Vitae with her explication on the supremacy of her personal conscience. Even as she makes her case for "progressive theology" that sees "fellowships" held together in essentials by their "recognition of papal primacy", her research fails to uncover the fact that her supposed recognition of papal primacy falls flatly in stark contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI clearly says. It was on the very occasion of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, that Pope Benedict XVI clearly spells it out: "The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does NOT change. Quite the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more relevant and stimulates reflection on the intrinsic values it possesses.". Clearly, Miriam Santiago's "primacy of conscience" is at odds with her "recognition of papal primacy" on the moral issue of contraceptives. Even as she liberally references Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, she conveniently fails to note that the same document speaks of the "right conscience" guided by the "objective norms of morality". Senator Santiago on the other hand clearly proposes moral relativism: "what may have been perceived as morally wrong in one set of circumstances would be regarded as morally justifiable in another situation." In other words her definition of morality is: it depends on your own fallible conscience, period.

Here, one who values primacy of conscience should now carefully discern ("after proper study, reflection, and prayer" as Santiago recommends) who is right in this instance: Senator Miriam Santiago or Pope Benedict XVI with the whole weight of Catholic Tradition behind him? I take it to mean that when Senator Santiago says "after proper study", we don't confine our study to her speech alone for that would be far, far from proper. For starters, the early Church Fathers had much to say that Santiago contradicts. Pope Pius XI had much to say likewise. Pope Paul VI of course, as well as the Magisterium throughout the ages. One has to wonder what "historical" theology Miriam is referring to.

Particularly offensive is the part where Senator Santiago downplays the authority of the priests and bishops in emphasizing her dissent. She states: "The priest is not a special person, just because he performs strictly cultic tasks, such as presiding at the Eucharist and administering the sacraments.".To Santiago, the source, summit and very apex of our Catholic faith is reduced to a strictly cultic task that a priest presides over. This is not an attack on the identity of priests anymore, who has been ordained - not of their own power - to pronounce: do this in memory of me. It is an appalling, stunning irreverence of Christ himself - something I never expected even from the dissonant senator. It is a very sad and pathetic testament as to how far she has veered away from the faith.

Even as we should pray for her conversion, the thought most disconcerting is the likely possibility that her piece could be able to sway a considerable number of the flock to her own misdirected way of thinking. That is the very intention of her speech, make no mistake about it. It goes beyond just having the RH bill passed. It seeks to undermine the very fabric of the Catholic Magisterium for it leads us to follow our own conscience regardless. Jesus himself has some grave warnings in leading believers into sin in Mat 18:16 - whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Incidentally, in today's scripture the first reading portrays the namesake of the feisty senator: Miriam the brother of Moses and Aaron. (Nm 12:1-13). Moses' sister Miriam was equally feisty as she and Aaron questioned the divinely-inspired, primary authority of Moses and criticized him roundly: "Is it through Moses alone that the LORD speaks? Does he not speak through us also?". The Lord took grievous offense that his anointed leader was grossly disrespected. The narrative goes... "so angry was the LORD against them that when he departed, and the cloud withdrew from the tent, and...there was Miriam, a snow-white leper!"

We do not know whether Senator Santiago realizes she is practically asking to be turned into a leper or to be thrown to the depth of the seas with a millstone tied around her neck. Miriam the sister of Moses actually suffered only seven days, with the intercession of Moses. Senator Miriam Santiago looks pretty incorrigible but if only she would undergo a similar conversion experience, there is probably hope. Perhaps it would do good for Senator Miriam to be afflicted with leprotic lesions all over her body, while she is sent adrift on a tiny barge in the midst of the ocean, with a millstone around her neck, no food and water, and only a copy of Gaudium et Spes to read over and over again until she gets it right.
/

PNOY'S SONA 2011

State of the Nation Address: President Benigno Aquino III

‎(initial reaction to PNoy's SONA)

"Naglalatag po tayo ng pagbabago upang mas mapatibay ang pundasyon ng maaliwalas na bukas para sa lahat."

I think this statement pervades the whole theme of PNoy's SONA. It is not such a bad idea to stick to such a theme under the circumstances. He stuck with the good points, played those up, and evaded confrontational issues. He highlighted results against corruption, cited data to back it up (those ones will need to be validated still). He obviously avoided mentioning controversial legislative agenda - this will not be consistent with his SONA's theme. Any mention of the RH bill would be out of place, though it should not mean he has abandoned support for it. The reference to the bishops is tasteful I must admit. Overall the tone is upbeat. I must say PNoy's speechwriter did quite well (who's the guy?), considering there was really not much to report in terms of strategic direction. The Pro-RH crowd will definitely be disappointed and I doubt they will understand. What's new.

The major cause of maternal deaths, really (Part 2)

(or why getting pregnant is like getting hit by a car) huh?

I came across an article which that annotates the problem with data and illustrations, and it helps understand the issue of maternal health. The article concentrates on showing data as a comparison of maternal deaths with our neighboring countries, and shows the 4 points where the RH bill aims to address the issue.

I like the analogy of pedestrians crossing the street - there are bound to be accidents. I think one of the obvious solutions is to reduce or minimize the number of people crossing the street. It's just the same as students taking exams where there is a high failure rate. You just reduce the number of examinees and ergo - you reduce the number of failures! I thought this was the magical solution of the RH bill in addressing maternal deaths. Reduce pregnancies via provision of free contraceptives and therefore reduce maternal deaths. So why don't we go a step further and eliminate pregnancies altogether by legislation and then presto: ZERO maternal deaths. I am just kidding, of course :-)

The overall picture in the article indeed shows that as far as maternal mortality is concerned, we are woefully behind in comparison with our neighboring countries.It would be better if we can further distill the attributes of the data. In cases like this, it is good to apply the principle behind the Pareto analysis. An applicable principle here maybe is that 80% of the problem is caused by 20% of the attributes. The most recent study I can get hold of that can be helpful here is one made by NSO statisticians, in a presentation made at a 2004 convention. It should be good enough for establishing the trend.

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/9thncs/papers/health_Factors.pdf

On page 7, the table shows that the areas of ARMM, Regions 12 and 9, account for the lowest utilization of prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. The dismal 20.6% utilization of delivery care in the ARMM region is illustrative. If we go through the rest of the regions, we clearly see a strong correlation between low maternal care percentages and poverty by region. This is punctuated by the fact that the most populated (and by the way - the richest by per capita income) region in the country, NCR, has the highest percentage of prenatal and delivery care in the entire country: 96.6%. It is indeed ironic that among the regions that need more support in terms of health care, the poorest regions get the least attention. We must bear in mind with this observation that with the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991, delivery of health care services was devolved to the LGUs. And as we all know, the classification of regional areas directly corresponds to the budget of LGUs, leaving the needy LGUs with less resources than it actually needs. The RH bill aims to be objective in that it proposes maternal health care in terms of population and number of deliveries. However, this approach fails to take into consideration the demographics of the picture. The data shows that highly populated areas happen to be the high-income, high healthcare penetration areas, and if straight headcount data is used, this approach will only manage to perpetrate the imbalance of support that has become typical in the government approach to the delivery of basic services. The RH bill should have said the poor should be provided MORE instead of the SAME level of access. The poor, rural areas always happen to be the most neglected, in contrast with the developed cities where its residents can generally afford health care.

Talking about Region 12 and ARMM, these areas also happen to be perpetually saddled with conflict. It is a given that conflict-ridden areas suffer the most in terms of basic services: food, water, sanitation, electricity, education, and yes - basic health care. It is not any secret that these areas are also the poorest in the entire Philippines. Recurring and recent events also show they are also the most deprived of fair play and JUSTICE. As in healthcare, those who have less in life should have more of justice. Indeed, regional conflict that has historical roots is very complicated to solve. One solution proposed is to bombard these areas with free condoms to finally solve the problem. On this last sentence, I am again just kidding. :-)
Well, maybe not.

I agree with the four points raised in the article (in reference to the intents of the RH bill) in addressing maternal health. Hopefully, the actual methodology used in implementing any solution will be adjusted to take into consideration the concern I raise about demographics, and seamlessly integrated with existing DOH systems addressing the same needs. Also, I would like to point out further that the Pareto principle of 80-20 also has to assume a much more fundamental concept. It is called root-cause analysis.
/
Part 1 here.

Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Earlier today, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill. In essence, she spells out 5 supposedly earth-shaking points up front of what the Senate version of the RH bill is all about. To cut it to the chaste, the 5 points she enumerated are as follows: 1) REDUNDANT; 2) REDUNDANT; 3) REDUNDANT; 4) REDUNDANT; and 5) REDUNDANT. However, she should be credited with a feel-passionate , heart-tugging sponsorship speech, but at the end of her melodramatic, long-winded speech there is only one conclusion to the discerning listener. Please bear with me for repeating it again for the umpteenth time : REDUNDANT.

Maternal and child health, upgrading of health facilities, addressing HIV, access to different family planning methods, and health/sex education. Who can deny that all of these are not already currently the mandate of the Department of Health? To ascertain, all we have to do is to verify it in the official DOH website. If that is not enough, look up the DOH budget under the 2011 General Appropriations Act, where it is plain to see that about 12.07 Billion pesos are already allocated for the same, same purposes that Senator Cayetano attempts to make a big deal out of. Should we not take to task the DOH for the 12.07 Billion pesos already budgeted to it before we even think of enacting a redundant bill? Yes, 12.07 billion. That is OUR money, my dear co-taxpayers.

Even her concern about HIV control is already rendered doubly moot by RA 8504, "The Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998", of which again, DOH is tasked to implement. And before she tries to make a big deal out of sex education, may we gently remind the good Senator that Catholic schools have been teaching their faith-compatible version of sex education all along. But of course we all know that the various versions of the RH bill (the Cayetano version being no exception) intends to force their own immoral brand of sex-education down the throats of ALL schools, Catholic and otherwise.

At the risk of being repetitive, all that Senator Cayetano proposes in her 5 points are completely unnecessary. Why? because they are REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, and finally for the last and not the least reason, REDUNDANT.

Angsioco versus unborn

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.

Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Congress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:

''A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights. Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides."

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She attempts to bolster her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb.”

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. Equal Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again?)

"...There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes."

- Fr Bernas in his article: Levels of Discourse in RH debate

Dear Fr Bernas,

I am aware that you have asserted time and again that life starts at fertilization, both from the Catholic as well as from the Constitutional standpoint. So it is not a Catholic position alone as it also has a firm basis in the Constitution. This core issue has nothing to do with the non-establishment clause. As far as "authoritative indentification" of abortifacients are concerned, it is obvious that you are referring to the FDA. I believe delegating the issue to the judgment of the FDA should not give us any comfort with respect to its particular relevance to the RH bill. May I respectfully point out that HB 4244 contains a repealing clause: SEC. 31. Repealing Clause. All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

It is therefore evident that the bill intends to dictate the parameters of FDA's contraceptive regulatory guidelines. We all know that contrary to faith and science, the RH bill sponsors have insisted on implantation as the start of life, rather than fertilization. The very premise of the RH bill opens the floodgates to abortifacients of all natures, but with a twisted definition that is dictated by the RH bill with the expected blessings of FDA. FDA would then assume authority over the life and death of the unborn. Are they that "authoritative"?

Yet still more discussions...

Yet still more discussions...
(reposted with the author's permission. originally posted here)

The Philippine Daily Inquirer last Thursday came out with a front page story that detailed the life of a poor woman and her husband struggling to raise their eight children in poverty. I'm not linking the article here because I believe it's one of the worst the Inquirer has ever done, and it puts their motto, "balance news..." in jeopardy. I didn't take up journalism but I recognize a title seeping in bias when I read one. And on the front page with a miserable photo, too.

The reason I brought this up is that it was the core of a discussion my mother and I had that day; she thinking that in cases such as those, the RH bill should be beneficial, and I--very inarticulately--insisting that that woman does not need a freebie ligation but help in the form of better livelihood and education. I learned one thing from Mama that day, too; I learned that for some people, the RH measure is acceptable because it is hard to believe that the poor will ever change.

One of the things we can easily forget is that a person is a person no matter how much he makes, where he lives, how many limbs he's got, or in what stage of life he is. He has a heart, he has a mind, and if you're Christian, you know he is a child of God, therefore that he possesses the same dignity as any of the "better" folks out there.

No one, not even a poor person struggling to raise eight children, deserves to be neutered/spayed, because that is only done to cats and dogs. You do that to cats and dogs because if you don't they just multiply and get galis and spread diseases. People are not like that. People are better than that. We people can be taught, and we have a will, and besides, all of us at some point in our genealogy, were once dirt poor, too.

RH is not a solution to help people in poverty. It is a license to solve poverty by eliminating the poor. Not convinced?

FVR: “I think the philosophy of RH bill is that we must learn to produce quality people in this world instead of producing people who only end up as, say, beggars on the streets, scavengers, or sellers of cheap or prohibited items. This, I think, is the real valid argument in favor of the RH bill.” (May 18, 2011, PDI)

Makes you wonder what "quality people" are.

---

BTW, my mom is neither for nor against the bill. And I love her! She is made of win.

DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life (excerpts)

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
(excerpts)
/
..A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy. As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.
[...]
...It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.If Christians must «recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs«,they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.
[...]
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo....The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights....
[...]
The appeal often made to «the rightful autonomy of the participation of lay Catholics» in politics needs to be clarified. Promoting the common good of society, according to one’s conscience, has nothing to do with «confessionalism» or religious intolerance. For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality – is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization.
...
[and I think Fr. Julio Penacoba echoes that last paragraph -- very well - WillyJ]

Who said Pacquiao lost that match?

Pacquiao, Lagman spar on RH bill

Pacquiao ‘trying hard’ to spar with Lagman on RH

Manny Pacquiao clueless on RH bill

When Congressman Manny Pacquiao took the floor last week to interpellate Congressman Lagman on the RH bill, many people tuned to it like a boxing match. From the newspaper accounts, it looks like the neophyte gentleman from Saranggani took a beating from the more seasoned gentleman from Albay. Various sectors belittled the performance of Cong. Pacquiao, however it was evident that most of the spectators were judging form over substance and failed to see the telling blows that landed. As in any boxing match however, a knockout punch wins the match. Manny went the full 10 rounds, and unfortunately most of his critics didn't stay to watch the fateful round. There, Manny unleashed a powerful combination. The bell rings.

One has got to see the blow-by-blow account of this later round, and thereupon decide whose face got badly bruised in the end.

REP. PACQUIAO. At, Mr. Speaker, gusto ko lang linawin na kasasabi mo lang na tinanggal na iyong penalty, e wala pa po tayo sa amendment period.

REP. LAGMAN. Kaya nga ho...

REP. PACQUIAO. Wala pa po tayo sa amendment e nasabi mo na na tinanggal na iyong penalty.

REP. LAGMAN. Kaya nga ho iyong mga authors mismo ay voluntarily nag-submit ng amendments sa Committee on Population and Family Relations. Pagdating po ng period of amendments, whether committee amendments or individual amendments, palagay ko committee amendments, meron pong undertaking ang komiti ba na itong mga provisions na ito, lima po lahat iyan, ay hindi na isasama sa panukala.

REP. PACQUIAO. Mr. Speaker, gusto ko pong malaman kung ito ba ay na-amend na although nag-submit iyong mga ibang Congressmen natin. Gusto kong malaman kung na—at anong rule po ang ginamit dito.

REP. LAGMAN. Iyan ho ay technically ho talagang tama ho kayo ay hindi pa amended iyan. Ngunit ho iyong...

REP. PACQUIAO. So, hindi pa po natanggal. So, ang salitang “natanggal”, wala na iyon?

REP. LAGMAN. Sa ngayon ho hindi pa natatanggal iyan sapagakat hindi pa tayo umaabot sa period of amendments. Pero pagdating niyan, akseptado na po ito ng Chairman ng Ccommittee on Population and Family Relations kaya itaga mo ho sa bato, pagdating ng committee amendments, iyan po ay mawawala.

REP. PACQUIAO. So, Mr. Speaker, inamin mo na hindi pa talaga natanggal iyong sinasabi mong dapat tanggalin, e iyon lang ang gusto kong malaman at hindi pa na-amend. So, maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, at iyon lang ang aking mga katanungan.
Thank you.

REP. LAGMAN. Maraming salamat din, Honorable Pacquiao.

Post Mortem:

Boxing champ Pacquiao uncovers Lagman's misleading claims of amended provisions

Pacman KO's Lagman

A wobbly stand

My stand on the RH Bill
By Fr Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ

[read the full article here]

Wherein Fr. Bernas says:

"Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.
[...]
Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution."
/
Fr Bernas' seventh and tenth point, taken together, points to an unmistakable conclusion:

Public money may not be spent by the government for the promotion of contraceptives that harm sacred life at any point after fertilization.

This conclusion can be taken from a strictly legal and secular standpoint as it stands on a purely scientific and constitutional grounds. It is therefore a mystery why a lot of equivocation is brought out by the eminent Constitutionalist Fr Bernas in this particular column. All his other points are unnecessary and tangential to this main issue. The RH bill's essence as far as its main sponsor Congressman Lagman admits to, is all about "access to contraceptives".

Thus, if we follow Fr Bernas' arguments in his 7th and 10th points correctly, the only logical conclusion we can make is that the RH bill cannot be licitly passed without violating the Constitution. I wonder why he did not spell out that conclusion himself.
/
As to the theology aspect of Fr Bernas’ article, here are some comments from an Opus Dei priest, Fr. Julio Penacoba:

I will limit myself to the issue of the Bill promoting contraception. This is presented mostly in points First and Second of Fr Bernas article.

As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.

His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.In my understanding that line of argument is very valid for religious issues that is, for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules coming from his worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday, or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non Catholics.

However, Fr Bernas line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. On those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.

In my perception, Fr Bernas position seems to treat contraception as it were a religious issue (a Church’s rule) rather than an ethical issue. For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing ones religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues. Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169); it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.

Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, may I quote now from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the debate going on.

All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions. [[italics in the original, the emphasis is mine]]

/

[related post here]