First, I oppose the RH bill because it is deceptive. "Abortion remains a crime and is punishable" and then followed by the clause "post abortion management"? If abortion is a crime, there should be no post-abortion management. Since the bill assures "While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner."... what does that say? It's like saying that yes, we condemn abortion, but just in case you decide to kill your child, WE'LL TAKE GOOD CARE OF YOU. Isn't it a little bit deceptive, then?
This line "Abortion remains a crime and is punishable" conditions the mind of the readers that the bill confirms the absolute criminality of abortion, while it does not and it cannot. That's why there's the post abortion management clause. The purpose is to make it look like an anti-abortion bill. In reality, the law on abortion “may” change; it just needs a charter change. One of the problems with just reading the text of HB5043 is that it would be more difficult to see the intentions of those who “really” wrote it and what are the influences behind it. Oh, and besides, do we really need to have an additional law in order for the health care providers to be "humane and compassionate" to the people who have undergone abortion? Do we need another bill just to have the government give enough budget for the facilities needed to treat post-abortion complications?
Another example:
"The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to both public and private schools and shall include related population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards:
a. Reproductive health and sexual rights;
b. Reproductive health care and services;
c. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health;
d. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
e. Responsible parenthood.
f. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies;
g. Abstinence before marriage;
h. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders;
i. Responsible sexuality; and
j. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services."
Abstinence before marriage, and yet:
"SEC. 10. Contraceptives as Essential Medicines. – Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and lord hospitals and other government health units."
At no point in the bill was it mentioned that artificial contraception as a choice of means for family planning is only for MARRIED COUPLES. So how can you teach abstinence before marriage if your are making the artificial contraceptive readily available as essential medicines to everyone who has access to them? Won't that give them the idea that it's okay to engage in premarital sex, then?
Article II Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which says, “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.” However, Representative Edcel Lagman insists that “fertilization of the ovum is not the same or synonymous to conception.”
Looking into a master reference or even countless online definitions, it all states the same thing:
Con·cep·tion (kn-spshn) n.1. a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
Now isn't that kind of a problematic claim? Doesn't Mr. Proponent's statement sort of prove the deception of the whole document? Just sayin'.
The RH bill is biased. Section 9 requires all national and local government hospitals to make tubal ligation and vasectomy services available, with such services even qualifying for PhilHealth benefits. Why is there no similar provision making natural family planning services required in all hospitals? Why are there no provisions for benefits for those who want to avail of NFP? And also, going back to section 10, contraceptives (in short, artificial – not natural – “family planning”) are declared to be “essential medicines”. All national and local hospital and other government health units are required to regularly purchase supplies of contraceptives. In contrast, there is no requirement for the same units to invest in purchasing educational and other materials necessary for the dissemination of information on NFP.
I have too much to say about this bill. To summarize it though, to me it's just plain deception. These are just few of the key points that I have seen emphasized and I greatly agree with. Now on to another one of the things that really bother me: why are the RH Bill supporters so heated up about the Roman Catholic Church for taking a stand?
The Iglesia Ni Cristo has, in recent days, upheld artificial contraception while condemning natural family planning. This, in effect, requires any member of the INC who wishes to practice family planning to use contraceptives. From the Philippine Daily Inquirer (9/16/2008):
"In a statement, INC spokesperson Bro. Bienvenido C. Santiago said, “The Iglesia ni Cristo accepts modern family planning methods or the use of what others call ‘contraceptives’ as long as they are not abortifacient in nature and they do not impose prolonged abstinence from sexual intercourse among married couples... He clarified, however, that INC rejects the rhythm method and other so-called “natural” family planning methods because “it is really contrary to nature.”
If the supporters of the RH Bill are, as they say, not biased against NFP, then they should denounce the Iglesia Ni Cristo with equal fervor for rejecting NFP, as they are now condemning the Roman Catholic Church for not accepting artificial contraception.
In fact, the supporters of the RH Bill are praising the INC to the high heavens for being so “enlightened” as to support artificial contraceptives while saying nothing about the INC’s condemnation of natural family planning. In the same way, the supporters of the RH Bill are crucifying the Catholic Church with their malicious propaganda even as they are giving no attention to its support for NFP.
For the record though, I have nothing against Iglesia Ni Cristo, I'm just trying to emphasize a point here. And here's the thing, doesn't this make the supporters of the RH Bill who judge us Catholics also biased?
And what about that Carlos Celdran stunt? People are reacting against us because he was charged with offense to religious feeling? According to Atty. Jose Sison, people who believe in God whether Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other faith would certainly feel offended if somebody disrupts the very rite or liturgy that is the center of their faith, the celebration of God’s presence in their midst. These rituals are the most sacred to them. This is the reason behind the provision of our Revised Penal Code (RPC, Article 133) penalizing with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years and 4 months “anyone who shall perform acts in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony” which are “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Further more, he states, "For Catholics “the Mass is the center of the Church. Nothing can compare to the Mass because it is the renewal of the Sacrifice on the Cross where Christ offers Himself up for all humanity. It is the moment when heaven and earth unite”. Disrupting the Mass is therefore the most offensive act against the feelings of Catholic faithful. Anyone who disrupts the mass like that Intramuros tourist guide (his name is not worth mentioning) certainly deserves to be imprisoned. His act can never be justified by his deep resentment against the prelates who oppose the RH bill. It is willfully, willingly and feloniously done during a rite most sacred to Catholics and therefore punishable under the RPC. Muslims and Buddhists would also feel offended if such disruption was committed against them. There is no reason why disruption of a Catholic ritual should be treated differently.”
Yes Mr. Celdran had the right to take a stand, he had every right to his freedom of speech... in the same manner that we, Catholics, also have the right to practice our rituals in peace; the constitution has a provision for that and what Celdran did was punishable by law. He wasn't sent to jail because he supports the RH bill and was vocal about it, he was jailed because he violated Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. You break the law, you pay. Isn't that the way things work around here?
Finally, I think this whole bias against the Catholic Church was spurted from the threat to excommunicate the President should he allow the RH bill to be passed. There is the issue of the Church "meddling" in State affairs, hence the issue (Damaso) of the Separation of Church and State.
First, allow me to redefine what "Separation of Church and State" really means.
What Separation of Church and State really means is that the State does not have any State or “Established Church”, it does not subsidize the Church or pay the salary of its clergy, and that no Church has any official access to the instruments of State power (e.g. it cannot use the armed forces to fight other churches or to enforce its beliefs and practices on citizens). Furthermore, in the Philippine legal and constitutional context, the Separation clause has its origins in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which states that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
In a true situation of Union of Church and State, the State will force its citizens to adhere to a particular Church, with punishments for those who do not want to conform. Where there are no such penalties, there is no question of an “Established Church”.
In modern times, the Establishment clause has been broadened in some countries to include the non-use of government property or funds in order to promote the beliefs of a particular Church or religion over that of other churches and / or religions. Nevertheless, the principle that no Church must be established by the state has never been understood to mean that no one has the right to speak out in public in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.
In short, the Separation of Church and State was established in order to prevent the government from forcing a particular church down the throats of its citizens, and from encroaching upon the rights of the Church. It was established in order to protect the Churches, not the State.
Separation of Church and State does NOT mean that Church officials cannot speak or try to influence state policy. In a democratic republic, any citizen has the right and duty to use his influence and moral suasion in order to persuade the government to take a particular course of action. Since Church officials are citizens, they continue to have the right to speak out in favor of their beliefs, as long as they use purely moral, non-violent and legal means of expressing these beliefs. This is what the CBCP does. Its members are only exercising their rights under the Constitution, and they have certainly not resorted to violent means.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that Catholics are required to leave their religious beliefs in their private life, and that they should act like they have no Catholic beliefs at all in the public square. To force Catholics to think and act like they are not Catholics, outside the confines of their private lives, is plain and simple discrimination.
Speaking of violent means, I'd like to move on to my next point: excommunication.
Since most, if not all, of the contents of the RH Bill does not conform to the Catholic Dogma, passing it while in presidential power places PNoy in the Hall of Shame for the Catholic Church. Face it: it is against the morals and the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church, being a society, has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right to excommunicate is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience, reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society.
For the Roman Catholic Church, PNoy, a Catholic, if he will in fact pass this bill that does not adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, knowing that it will have a grave effect on those who are practicing the Catholic religion, will have to consider that act as grievously offensive. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault.
In the same manner that the Filipino people ousted Estrada and put Marcos off the presidency for breaking the laws of the republic that caused the suffering of the nation, PNoy will have to face the charges incurred to the Roman Catholic Church should he pass the law which will be against the morals and beliefs of those practicing the religion. Excommunication applies to every Catholic who incurs a grave offense against the Church; it has been done before. Perhaps this just caused some sort of uproar because it sparked from the RH bill issue, and someone as big as the newly elected president is involved.
But don't you get it? The Catholic Church is just doing its job. They are not twisting PNoy's arm telling him not to pass the bill because it's bad for the Filipinos, we all know that not all Filipinos are Catholics; the Church is merely reminding him that the act will be classified to be a grave offense to the Catholic faith, hence, he will be faced with the highest penalty incurred by the Church. It's a crime against the Catholic Church, not the state. The Church has its own laws it must conform to. It's not a threat; it's a reminder. Same principle applies here: you break the rules, you pay for it.
And by the way, excommunication is NOT a vindictive penalty. It is not so much to punish the culprit, rather to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpableacts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence.
So, tell me, what REALLY is the issue here? Why are you all up in our grill? I mean, seriously. Why am I reading all these posts against the Church, my religion, especially the CBCP... they're just doing their jobs. Can't we all just take a step back and for once, see the bigger picture here before judging anything, let alone, anyone? Or maybe, take a step closer to analyze what the issue really is... before making a stand and yes, again, judging anything or anyone.
I spent two hours on this note. Thought I'd just share that, really.
Credits:
Catholic Encyclopedia (Excommunication)
Carlos Aquino Palad
Vanillae (for the full text of the RH bill and for the ideas you have shared on the posts)
Manny Amador for his Open Season for Catholics article
Mister Webster and eight online dictionaries
Philippine Daily Inquirer
