Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
Four months ago, a Catholic Church official explained to me why the Church was fighting tooth and nail against the passage of a Reproductive Health Law even though it would force no one to use contraceptives and would simply inform and give couples free choice of family planning methods.
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines secretary general Joselito Asis said:
“If the RH bill becomes law, the D.E.A.T.H.S bills will follow next – Divorce, Euthanasia, Abortion, Total Reproductive Health, Homosexuality or gay marriages, and Sex education.”
The prelate pointed out that in fact a divorce bill is now pending in the House. But he did not explain what “Total Reproductive Health” meant; or why enactment of the “D.E.A.T.H.S. bills would follow next; or why sex education was bad.
If enacted, the Reproductive Health Law – that is now pending in Congress – aims to provide free information and health care services to Filipinos to enable them to plan their families to the size they want. There is no compulsion for anyone to use artificial birth control; no limits to the number of children a family can have; and no mandated population targets.
The law will, for the first time, enable the state to provide free health care services and information on how to plan according to the number of children couples want. Unlike in China, the law does not dictate the size of the family and does not set a population target. It also reiterates the ban against abortion.
A senior government official separately told me that no less than the Vatican has hit the panic button on the RH issue. The Philippines is the only predominantly Catholic country today without a divorce law. It is one of the few such countries without any law institutionalizing free distribution of condoms and other contraceptives by the state to those who want them.
Personally, I found it curious that at the height of the RH congressional debate, Vatican chose to shower the Philippines with twin honors. First in October, Vatican elevated to sainthood another Filipino martyr, Pedro Calungsod. And second only last month, Vatican elevated 55-year-old Filipino prelate Luis Antonio Tagle into a Cardinal – as the second youngest member of the College of Cardinals, the pope-electing body.
If these twin blessings had taken place during the previous Arroyo government, the official delegation for both would have been led by no less than the Philippine President. But this time, President Benigno Aquino III – son of the devout Catholic President Corazon Aquino – was notably absent in both official ceremonies.
Instead, it was led by Vice President Jejomar Binay.
Aquino was on official business elsewhere but you and I know that a head of state can decide which appointments to go to.
Perhaps President Aquino did not want to be placed in an awkward spot of turning down a request from the Pope himself for the Aquino government to drop support of the RH Law.
Is the Philippine Catholic Church in crisis?
Tomorrow, what was previously unthinkable to the Catholic Church may take place in the House of Representatives. Tomorrow, lawmakers may cast the first-ever vote on an RH Law.
If the RH Law is approved, it will simply reflect the sentiment of most Filipinos. As early as two years ago, both Pulse Asia and Social Weather Stations found in separate polls that nearly seven out of 10 Filipinos favored an RH Law. The SWS survey sampled both Catholics and non-Catholics and found that 71% of Catholics wanted an RH Law passed, compared to 68% of the non-Catholics polled in 2010.
To the Catholic Church, these findings were troubling but apparently not surprising. Church membership and church worship have been falling. From the high 90% of decades ago, Catholics nowadays comprise 82% of Philippine population.
SWS also made a survey of mass attendance in particular in 2001 and found that on the average only one out of two Catholics (54%) go to church at least once a week. Slightly more than half of the church goers are female.
Also, a large portion of the church attendees are mostly from the upper classes (A,B,C – 70%) than the lower classes D and E.
Now let’s put these findings side by side with findings on condom and contraceptive use. Let’s assume that the 2001 SWS findings on church attendance still hold true. It’s interesting to note that according to a 2006 Family Planning survey conducted by the National Statistics Office, use of family planning methods were highest among women of higher education. So it would seem that those who sinned more by using condoms and contraceptives attended the Holy Mass more.
Other even more disturbing facts are now staring us in the face amid debates on the RH Law
The number of “live births” registered with the NSO numbered 1,784,316 in 2008 and 1,745,585 in 2009. We can assume that around that period, roughly 1.7 million babies were born.
Between January 2009 to March 2010 or a period of 14 months, the NSO received birth certificates showing that 40.7% of the babies born then – or a total of 711,079 – were illegitimate in the eyes of the law. In Church parlance, this means they were born in sin.
The live births recorded with the state registry, however, show only half of the story.
The Philippines does not keep official records of abortions. Nor does it include the following question in the state census: Have you ever had an abortion? If yes, was this induced or natural?
Carlos Conde, a former New York Times contributor who is now with Amnesty International Human Rights Watch noted in a NYT piece in 2005 that:
“Official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising. The World Health Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.”
Now consider that around 1.7 million babies are born yearly. If 400,000 additional babies are really aborted each year, that would make abortion the method of choice for terminating unwanted pregnancies.
The Church condemns even the condom as a family planning method
As a Catholic, I have tried to understand the Church position on the RH Law
But I really cannot understand why the Church bans condoms when it is quite clear that neither the sperm nor the ovum meet when it is used.
According to former Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines president Angel Lagdameo it’s a sin to use condoms:
What does Humanae Vitae tell us? Does it prohibit “family planning?” It does not prohibit family planning. But family planning should be done in a right way and not in a sinful way. Briefly stated, Humanae Vitae condemns direct and deliberate prevention of conception. And so, direct abortion must be rejected as a means of regulating birth or even therapeutic means. Likewise direct sterilization of male (vasectomy) and of female (ligation) must be rejected as well as all acts that attempt to impede to impede procreation—i.e. such acts before, during and after the couple’s sexual union: this includes the taking of contraceptive bills, I.U.Ds and condoms. It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come out of it (c.f. HV 11). It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of normal sexual relations could justify a contraceptive act of sexual union.
Therefore, advocating condom use through an RH Law , along with contraceptives, would also be a sin.
Today, Lagdameo’s successor in the CBCP, Archbishop Jose Palma, wrote an open letter to congressmen. Monsignor Palma did not order the lawmakers to block the RH Law. Instead, he quoted the words of Pope Benedict XVI:
Because of the enormous challenges facing you and the rest of the nation on the RH bill, I wish to commend to you these words of the Holy Father as my own, especially when he speaks of how parliamentary majorities should act on certain important questions.
“Let us suppose,” the Pope writes, “that an overwhelming majority oppresses a religious or ethnic minority by means of harsh legislation—-would we then speak of ‘justice’ or even ‘the rule of law’? The majority principle always leaves open the question of the ethical foundation of law: Are there some things that can never be legalized, some things that always remain wrong? On the other hand, are there some things that absolutely always remain legally binding, things that precede every majority decision, things that majority decisions must respect?”
These involve such things as the right to life, the right of married couples to found a family according to their religious beliefs and moral convictions, and to be the primary educators of their children. Here as elsewhere, the truth must be the basis of the law, rather than the result of legislation.
Amidst the many voices trying to influence the outcome of your deliberations, I call upon you in the words our Lord first said to Abraham, “Do not be afraid!” Listen to what God is saying; “obey God rather than men” (cf Ac 5:29). For “unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain” (Ps 127), and the Lord himself has assured us, “I am with you always, until the end of the age”(Mt 28:20).
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!
St. Thomas More, pray for us!
San Pedro Calungsod, pray for us!
Monsignor Palma makes several assumptions here:
First, “an overwhelming majority” is oppressing a “religious minority”. The Catholic Church with all its members is hardly the minority. And most Catholics want an RH Law.
Second, the RH Law is “harsh” and will “always remain wrong”. From the readings I’ve done to understand the controversy, I gathered that papal infallibility (or the notion that the Pope is always right in matters of doctrine) is not in question here.
Third, he asserts “the right to life, the right of married couples to found a family according to their religious beliefs and moral convictions, and to be the primary educators of their children.”
But what if married couples would like to use condoms and they do not think it’s sinful?
There have been several instances in our history when the wishes of the country’s established Catholic Church hierarchy were openly defied: during the Filipinos’ revolt against Spain; in 1938 when a bill to require religious instruction in public schools was vetoed by President Manuel Quezon; and in 1956 when the Church tried to get Congress to pass a law banning Rizal’s novels from being taught in schools.
To read the speech of President Quezon banning religious instruction, click on this link.
To read my story on the Church attempt to ban Rizal’s novels, click on this link.
Today we are witnessing another watershed moment – one that the Church warns would cast the Philippines into perdition – but which most Catholics believe could help lift the poorest of the poor out of poverty.
Last week I received the following text message:
“Anti RH bishops don’t speak 4 d entire clergy. We the silent Catholic clergy support RH. Poverty dehumanizes; 2 address it brings us closer 2 God. Pass RH now!”
Jesuit priest-lawyer Joaquin Bernas said he received the same text message. Surprisingly, Father Bernas made this conclusion:
Yet the message expresses a sentiment close to the heart of Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle himself who, in an interview by the Tablet, said,
“The Church cannot and must not pretend to have easy answers to the dilemmas facing men and women today. Instead, it must be an attentive and listening Church—only that way will people believe that God listens to them too.”
He (Tagle) went on:
“The Church must be a humble Church, modeling herself more on Jesus and being less preoccupied by her power, prestige and position in society.” Still more: “I realize that the sufferings of people and the difficult questions they ask are an invitation to be, first, in solidarity with them, not to pretend we have all the solutions. [People] can resonate and see the concrete face of God in a Church that can be silent with them, can be as confused as they are, also telling them we share your situation of searching.”
Fr. Bernas and Cardinal Tagle must know things about each other and about the Church that we don’t. I’ve just learned that Fr. Bernas and the Cardinal share one thing – both are JESUITS from Ateneo de Manila University.
[CORRECTION as of 10:24 PM, December 11, 2012: Cardinal Tagle is not a Jesuit, although he "took his Philosophy and Theology at the Ateneo de Manila University's San Jose Major Seminary," according to the CBCP news website. The Ateneo website adds this interesting tidbit about Tagle:
"After graduating from AB Philosophy in 1973, he took up masteral studies in theology at the Loyola School of Theology and San Jose Seminary."
The two priests' paths must have crossed around that time since Fr. Bernas was appointed Provincial Superior of Philippine Jesuits from 1976 to 1982.
It was only from 1985 to 1992 that Cardinal Tagle was sent overseas for further studies to the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C., where he earned his doctorate in sacred theology.
According to the Ateneo website,
"Tagle served as member of the International Theological Commission while it was still chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI. Tagle served as a theologian of at least two ordinary synods at the Vatican."
This means the present Pope personally knows Cardinal Tagle.]
ADDED NOTE: Dec 12, 2012, 1:54 PM. - Commenter @Simon Olivares pointed out it would have been impossible for Tagle to finish university by 1973 (at the age of 16). There is no definitive biography with proper dates of the Cardinal.
Today, both Cardinal Tagle and Father Bernas express different attitudes to an RH Law. Fr. Bernas is open to seeing an amended RH Law passed. He even praised parts of the newly-amended House bill saying:
There are many valuable points in the bill that can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions that give substance to these good points. They should be saved.
You can read Fr. Bernas’ entire column here.
But Cardinal Tagle would like to trash the entire law because he said it encourages a “contraceptive mentality.”
The fact that there is such profound disagreement between two prominent clergymen leaves wiggle room for lay members of the Church to agree or disagree with the RH Law, based on what their conscience tells them.
I’m not in favor of RH bill. kaya dapat this coming election eh iboto natin yung team buhay at wag yung team patay. Eto mga opinion ng tao about RH bill http://philboardDOTnet/local-and-world-headlines/rh-bill/
Can’t read the opinions kasi dapat mag-subscribe muna.
I actually contemplate the reason you named this blog, “raissa robles | If RH Law passes, “D.
E.A.T.H.S. bills” are next, warns Catholic Church official”.
In any event I adored it!Thanks for your time-Marcus
Did you all see what happened to the church in New Bataan after the storm? They still had mass for the ist misa de gallo inspite of what happened. But what struck me is that nothing was ever done by the church hierarchy to improve it, at least for the nine day novena. I am sure thay are again waiting for generous souls to rebuild the church. But for God’s sake, the catholic church has a lot of money. Instead of attending to the needs of the faithful, the church hirarchy gets itself busy meddling with the affairs of the state.
It seems to me that if the Catholic Church exercised as much energy and effort in educating and influencing their flock as they are doing to counter the RH Bill it should not matter if the RH Bill is passed or not.
True Catholics should follow the doctrine of the Church. So how many true Catholics does the church believe are out there? Not many, if the huge effort being made by the Church to scotch the bill is anything to go by.
A lot of very reverend heads stuck in their buckets of sand.
Magandang balita at action ang ginawa ni Pnoy tungkol sa RH-Bill..
http://www.rappler.com/nation/17932-aquino-certifies-rh-bill-as-urgent
Dapat na ba tayo magsaya?
So many brilliant comments; so many scientific reasons so
few listeners. SO LITTLE EFFECT on the bragadoccio of the
DAMASOS.
I say like many CPMers will say and want to happen. Bring
the rascals to their knees. TAX all religion and their leaders,
advocates and their PROPERTIES.
LET US START IT HERE AND CARRY THE SNOWBALL HERE
IN THIS CYBERSPHERE.
IF THE CONSTITUTION IS wrong not to TAX RELIGION, let’s
amend the constitution, and let the AXE FALL on the necks
of the deserving.
LET the accountants do the inventory of the wealth and
riches denied the population; let them ask where they
spend the legal loot; let there be an accounting of really
HOW MUCH has the church has spent on their charity
and how much has the people contributed to the subsistence
and luxuries of the church leaders.
THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW,
LET CPMers grapple with the question:
Why should,INDEED, why should the religious
be exempt from taxes, WHY?
Are they ALIENS not human beings as exempt from the
divine dogma that EVERYBODY CANNOT ESCAPE FROM
DEATH AND TAXES?
WHAT justifies their being EXEMPT from Taxes; which is
summit of INEEQUALITY.
Bravo sir@ Alizarin Viridia………..they had been exempted for centuries, now will be the right moment for all Churches to be tax.
@ Alizarin,
Tama ka Alizarin, Kong ganyang patuloy na nakikialam ang simbahan lalo na ang mga Paring Katoliko ay dapat na silang singilin sa mga TAX nila na hindi binabayaran at dapat nang magbayad. Ang hindi ko maintindihan BAKIT ayaw nilang maturuan nang wastong pagplano nang pamilya ang bawat Mamamayan lalo na ang kabataan kong saan sila nga ang dapat maturuan? Ayaw yata nang taga simbahan na mamulat sa katutuhanan ang Taong Bayan na maganda ang BUHAY lalo na kong ito ay PINA PLANONG MABUTI…Nakapagtataka dahil gusto nilang PARI at OBISPO na maging Tanga ang bawat mamamayan para hindi makita ang kanilang mga Pansariling Kasakiman…KASAKIMAN at KASALANAN sa DIYOS kong patuloy natin Hahadlangan ang mga Bagay at Kaalaman na Makakatulong sa MADLANG PEOLE…
DAPAT LINISIN MUNA ANG SARILING BAKURAN BAGO KAYONG mga PARI at OBISPO MAKIALAMAN sa MAMAMAYAN at PAMAHALAAN dahil NAKASAAD ito sa BATAS????? MAHIRAP BANG INTINDIHIN ITO MGA DAMASO????
i go for taxing all religions. time that they share the burden our government had been carrying. they all live in luxury but their flocks are sleeping over cartons in the sidewalks or under a pass. it isn’t fair. they want to take part in the political ventures, then they need to share their bounties…
See How House members voted on the RH bill for second reading.
Raissa, I read your link on the Church’s attempt in 1956 to ban Rizal’s two books. So, the Cardinal was proven wrong after 1956 and thereafter up to now 2012! Thanks.
Off-topic:
I hope malacanang reads this article. I will post it here since i believe every pinoy should be aware of this.
China’s mining occupation of the Philippines
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/59379/chinas-mining-occupation-of-the-philippines
1. Pnoy hits back against arguelles and bacani for saying that malacanang threats congress if they voted against RH bill = no pdaf/pork.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/286253/news/nation/pnoy-defends-cabinet-presence-during-rh-vote
Im glad we have a president who have balls like rizal who fights for every filipino not only to a single sect. Yan ang ehemplo nang tunay na pinuno.
[Delay po kasi sa US]: Kanina nung pinanood ko yung mga rason ng mga Anti-RH nalungkot ako sa mga dahilan nila sa pagboto parang pinaboran pa nila si damaso kaysa kay rizal na isang doctor. They prefer theory and prediction over medical science.
2. Nalaman ulit natin na wala ng karapatan ang CBCP na mamuno sa simbahang katolika sapagkat patuloy silang nagkakalat ng maling impormasyon. Dahil natalo sila sa 2nd reading balik na naman sila sa taktikang manira at name calling.
Ramon Arguelles called us pro-RH “Agents of the Devil” at 1:27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y1MGwhqUfZI#!
Then does it mean they are angels for stealing money intended for the poor? Using the money of PCSO because its somebody birthday party, requesting for a SUV with specifications or building a retirement home in cagayan.
Not to mention Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao borrowed money from PCSO eventhough they have stocks at ayala worth 8m.
Source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/226430/news/nation/bishop-who-got-pcso-funds-was-a-top-ayala-stockholder
Unnecessary daw ang RH sabi ni Pabillo (rant starts at 2:46)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zpTVlExs7IQ
He even got the guts to dictate on how should the government spend the tax payers money when they (CBCP) themselves DONT WORK & PAY TAXES like a normal employed filipino citizen do!
3. This article also proves that CBCP wants vatican to meddle with our countries sovereignty.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/286218/scitech/socialmedia/anti-rh-bill-advocates-turn-to-twitter-to-get-pope-s-support
di totoo yang iwi-withhold ang pork! case in point: aming rep anti-rh pero dami namang projects dito galing sa pdaf nya.
@ filipino_mom,
Tama ka @ filipino_mom, Dapat maglabas nang katibayan itong mga taga C.B.C.P. kong talagang hino hold nang pamahalaan ang PDAF nang mga congressman. Gumagawa na naman sila nang kasinungalingan para makakuha nang simpatya nang mamamayan.
Dapat kasi hindi nalang silang mga C.B.C.P. Makialam sa PAMAHALAAN sapagkat wala silang karapatang makialam dahil sinabi mismo ni JESUS noon…”IBIGAY kay CAESAR ang kay CAESAR at IBIGAY sa DIYOS ang sa DIYOS…Amen…..
@ Marcial,
Nagustuhan ko itong sinulat mo Marcial, I’m glad also that we have a President like Pnoy who has the Balls like dr. jose rizal who has the guts to fight for every PILIPINOS against the many relegious sect. Tama ka panahon na para ipaglaban ang KARUNUNGAN,KARAPATAN at lalo na kong para sa KABUTIHAN nang BAWAT MAMAMAYAN…SALUDO AKO KAY PNOY….
AT HINDI KO NAGUSTUHAN ANG PAKIKIALAM NANG TAGA SIMBAHAN KATOLIKO…KAYA MGA ANTI R.H.BILL NA KANDIDATO AY HINDI KO IBOBOTO SA DARATING NA ELECTION…
Where can I find the list of Representatives who voted NO citing religion/Catholic Church/God as the reason? I know that Syjuco is on top with that recitation of the Apostle’s Creed on the floor. :-)
We need to know these lawmakers who forgot they made an oath to uphold the constitution where separation of the Church and the Government is clearly defined.
isali mo na si rep antonino. the state should not meddle with the church daw.
Pwede na ‘to… dissect na lang natin iyong mga joker sa listahan. Sigurado, magiging hit na comedy skit ‘to… LOL!
http://anc.abs-cbnnews.com/articles/997/rhbill-how-they-voted/
@ Fancis @ 32
Contraceptive measure of Onan – to spill his seeds on the ground
Contraceptive use of “modern man” – to spill his seeds into the condom
Does this prevent HIV? What about the infection from the foreplay – especially the fondness for inverted positions, and oral sex?
Has anyone visited google site for CONTRACEPTIVES RECALLED where contraceptives were mislocated in their blister packs juggling the hormone contents?
THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF THE ANTI-RH
A frequent argument or tactic of the anti-RH which was evident in the explanations to their votes is the false dichotomy. It involves presenting only two options, as if these are the only two, and that it is imperative to choose one over the other .
Many congressmen like Mitos “fake” Magsaysay framed it in this manner, and so did countless others in variations of these arguments: Is the RH bill the solution to poverty? Food or condoms? Jobs or condoms? Is this what our people really need?
This has been answered exhaustively in other fora- it is not an either-or; it is just one of the tools the state can use to achieve its social justice objectives; and those are not the only options to choose from and they are not mutually exclusive i.e. choosing one does not preclude the other.
To show you how dumb this argument is, you can apply it to Mitos Magsaysay, who is running for Senator. Will electing her to the Senate lift us from poverty? Is she really what our people need? Siya ba ang sagot sa kahirapan? Trabaho ang kailangan, hindi si Mitos!
See how dumb the false dichotomy issue is, not to mention the example?
@andrew, i know, right? this has been presented over and over and over again. kaya nga habang nakikinig ako sa mga sinasabi last night i can’t help but cring, roll my eyes and think that those who gave this argument never listened to the discussions or talagang nagsisinungaling lang.
Well, politicians don’t speak to the educated in their electorate, or the opponents, or even the majority. They speak to their friends from whom they draw courage for idiotic positions.
Like, I’m gonna start blogging against RH because I don’t want any more killer typhoons to hit the Philippines. And maybe God will also tone down the volcanoes and earthquakes. They scare the bejesus out of me.
“Is this what our people need?” No. We don’t need MAGSAYSAY! btw she’s just riding on the last name of Ramon …is My Guy…Mitos is all say say say…she’s a witcha to me!
@leona: kaya nga d ba pekeng magsaysay yan. and she gets offended pa ha kapag sinasabi yan eh totoo naman.
The Archbishop of Cebu that President Quezon was referring to ( link provided by Raissa re: Pres. Quezon vetoing the bill requiring religious intruction in public schools) was Mons. Gabriel Martelino Reyes, later to become Archbishop of Manila and would have been the first Filipino Cardinal had it not been for his early demise. Bishop Gabby Reyes of Antipolo who was present in the gallery of the House of Representatives during the votation last night/early this morning is the nephew of the Archbishop.