Thou Shalt Not Vote For….
Interesting moral perspective from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. They say it is morally unacceptable for anyone to support modern family planning in general and the Reproductive Health Bill in particular. They feel so strongly about this that they have even issued voting guidelines for the faithful. They discourage the Catholic flock from voting for anyone who supports reproductive health.
This afternoon I interiewed Fr. Melvin Castro, who heads the CBCP commission that drafted the guidelines and asked him why candidates who commit plunder and acts of corruption are not being condemned in the same way that reproductive health advocates are.
Castro said in effect that plunder and all of those corrupt acts are an offshoot of the lack of respect for the family and therefore not as bad in the heirarchy of catholic morality as family planning which is as he says, anti-family.
Flabbergasted, I asked if they were saying it was alright to vote for a crook as long as he doesn’t advocate modern family planning. His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words–yes.
I grew up thinking that stealing money from the poor was worse than wearing a condom. I grew up thinking that betraying the responsibility given to you by the Filipino people as a public servant was worse than wearing an IUD or taking birth control pills. I believe that today.
I will not begrudge the Church for expressing its political views. In a democracy I think anyone has that right, even religious organizations. I even support the Church’s right to try to convince its followers to do vote in accordance with its doctrines.
But what I learned many years ago is that the Catholic Church’s ideas about morality are in irreconcilable contrast to mine.
I guess this means that I resign from the Catholic Church. This also leaves me free to watch James Cameron’s movie, Avatar, which was also condemned by the Vatican. Anyone else wanna see it?
January 15th, 2010 17:41
Hindi ka nag-iisa, Ricky. There are millions and millions of us who use our brains to decide for ourselves. That is why there is no such thing as a catholic vote.
January 15th, 2010 18:25
MikeL
Lets watch Avatar. haha!
Seriously, I think the Church is a big part of what keeps our country poor and backward.
January 15th, 2010 18:35
The Catholic Church has the right to express its political views. But it should refrain from issuing voting guidelines. It would be better if it will convince its followers to pray for a Devine intercession in their decision making. God’s teachings are very much different from the Catholic Church’s ideas about morality.
January 15th, 2010 20:28
Ricky, The Church since Spanish times have kept our country poor and backward.
January 15th, 2010 20:28
Once again, the CBCP has shot itself in the foot.
January 15th, 2010 20:48
Unlike you Ricky, i resent the Catholic Church’s stand on the RH bill. It doesn’t matter if i was born and raised one. I’m sick and tired of these bishops condemning supporters of the RH bill while they turn a blind eye on the never ending corruption in govt. They should just work for that little troll in the palace.
January 15th, 2010 20:58
i’m watching avatar tomorrow,by the way. their disdain made me curious when i initially was not interested to watch some grown up smurfs.
this post really irritated me..really. a sin (as they say) is a sin..it does not have a weighing system.black and white as that may seem.i did not know it had a weighing system..
they support for the rampant rise of our population through condemning people who take responsibility but are they answerable to the number of people this will result to who will grow up as thieves because they have nothing?
January 15th, 2010 21:15
What do you expect from the REACTIONARY Church? as the Leftist youth of the 60s say, IT”S CLERICO-FASCISM! It’s about time the Church share their enormous wealth to the poor.
January 15th, 2010 21:54
Ricky,
When new in the US, I found out that most if not all pinoys idolize doctors. “Hoy doktor yan!” they would say, as if referring to a celebrity o they owe some big favor to this doctor whom they don’t even know.
Close second are catholic priests. It does not matter what denomination. If you have a priest as a guest in your party, you’re a hit. It is as if they come close to God with a priest around. Thing though is that some of these priest are lost and have flings on the side.
Believing in God has nothing to do with the institution(the church) which through history has been and continue to be corrupt and ruthless.
The problem is the narrow vision that many pinoys continue to follow. Come to think of it, in the PI, it is not only in religion but also in social, moral and polical conviction where we are lacking.
January 16th, 2010 00:32
Good for you ricky!
What I’d like to see is for BIR to impose taxes on church properties. Its about time that these type of organizations are taxed. As far as I know, the Philippine constitution has no provision for such an entitlement. There is also no specific court ruling in this issue on both the Philippines and American jurispudence.
What the US courts have consistently ruled is that a church cannot be involved in political discourse otherwise losses tax excempt status. The basic reasoning here is to draw a line between church and state. Thus if the state does not intefer with church business the same is also expected from the chruch. The tax excempt status of churches originated in the colonial days and it is more of tradition and history rather than legal.
Like like any business entity who has interest in government affairs, if a church wants to be in involved political process then they owe to pay taxes, just like every tax payer is entitled to a vote.
January 16th, 2010 01:08
Vin,
I agree the catholic church like any crackpot group has the right to express its opinions. That’s what democracy is supposed to be about.
January 16th, 2010 06:26
You have to keep in mind who is heading the CBCP currently. Lag is not there anymore. Everything is well planned and made sure to happen. Their men are in put in place exactly for crucial time periods like now just like in 2004. Remember Cap, now we have Och.
January 16th, 2010 11:30
I say TAX all churches and cults. That way, they wouldn’t dip their nibs in legislative matters. Let them take care of wayward souls, but not the State’s programs to address the Philippine population problem.
January 16th, 2010 15:07
The Catholic Church can express its stand against individuals espousing reproductive health rights that are contrary to church doctrine. But to dictate upon people as to whom to vote against is violating the constitution. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church sanction them according to its own canon laws? They can be refused communion, not allowed to stand as godparents, or even excommunicated. Is the Catholic Church taking the easy way out? This is precisely the kind of “a la carte Christianity” that Pope John Paul II warned about - taking a stand against those who support reproductive health rights while hobnobbing with murderers, thieves, and cheats.
January 16th, 2010 15:31
weird yung mention ng “Avatar”. haha! although, i’m still not interested in seeing it. i just sort of have this allergic reaction to james cameron’s big movies.
but seriously, was surprised to read this hilarious answer by Fr. Melvin Castro. will send this article to my Opus Dei family. i wanna see how they react. they’ve been emailing me anti-RH bill articles since last year. hehe.
January 16th, 2010 15:35
Who’s immoral? the candidate who’s against corruption, greed and dishonesy or the Catholic church who uplift and tolerate mass production of babies, which later on becomes, thieves, members of gangs, and becomes menace to the society. The Catholic church is so immoral and hypocrite because population explosion means more money for them. Religion is a big business, bigger population means more earnings to them, and to the Pope. Can they feed the large number of hungry children and help alleviate poverty? It’s the government who shoulders all these issues with regards to problems about human population. The church just sit there, and busy accumulating money for their organization.
January 16th, 2010 15:44
Ricky,
I haven’t seen that interview with Fr. Castro yet. Can you tell us when it will be replayed?
Hopefully you can get him, and a few other CBCP bigshots on again. I’d love to be able to text or call in a question or two for these guys.
January 16th, 2010 22:48
This is the reason, I do not believe in organized religion. Imagine, the poor population is growing leaps and bounds. Still,
the Church holds on to the belief that family
planning is a sin. Which is more sin: to bring
up children into this world that we cannot feed? And to trap them into endless cycle of
poverty?
Organized Religions have been the causes of:
1. Inquisition - the burning of heretics.
2. False Concepts - the belief that the world
is flat. Anybody disagreeing is a heretic. So,
they are burned on the burning stake.
3. Votes Merchandising - they sell their members votes to Politicians. Iglesia ni Kristo Church is a good example. These people are Judas Iscariotes.
4. Religious discriminations, intolerances, religious radicalism, fundamentalism, religious
wars, members’ brainwashings and suicide bombers.
I have no sympathy on these so called religious people. They are BLIND GUIDES. If the BLIND leads the BLIND. Both will fall into the pit. As Christ said.
January 17th, 2010 00:12
I don’t find anything wrong with Fr. Melvin Castro’s answer. The question is wrong. A plunderer is an animal while a condom is a latex. In short there is no relationship between the two.
The church has been firmed on its stand against artificial birth control and has been consistently inconsistent on political issues.
What I see reading from this article, its merely fanning the flames who are against the Church’s stand on birth control and why they’re always heeded.
January 17th, 2010 00:21
i guess its not the religion, per se, but the people who runs it. the bible, i think, is very open to different interpretations and the religious people could be “blind guides”, as hayden said. so i believe that its still up to us, to our conscience, to our beliefs (whether same as the religious or not), to our values what to do, or in this case, who to vote for. we cannot be dictated.but our faith in God should remain.
as with the priest that you interviewed, i guess he has to ask for advice/opinions to his superiors about your challenging question before answering an indirect yes- but its still a yes (because that is a different issue). he should have been mindful of the fact that he is speaking in behalf of the catholic church.
January 17th, 2010 02:10
could you share his exact answer to the question referred here:
“Flabbergasted, I asked if they were saying it was alright to vote for a crook as long as he doesn’t advocate modern family planning. His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words–yes.”
thanks!
January 17th, 2010 07:34
Blind ideology makes one abandon reason. Fr. Melvin Castro was a philosophy major in UP. Can you imagine?
January 17th, 2010 08:22
Churches are the symbol of hypocrisy, I wonder why so many people still go to church when in fact it is obvious that churches are not really what they appear to be.
January 17th, 2010 09:12
Hoagy,
That i can agree. Recall in the 80’s when banks owned by Vatican were linked to money laundering and corruption. Here’s a link:
http://www.rense.com/general74/scande.htm
One wonder how the church amassed such wealth. Yet the church is the last to help during times of disaster.
January 17th, 2010 10:26
your resignation isn’t official until the pope gets your letter, ricky heehee
kudos for pointing out the retromingent thinking behind such a stand.
January 17th, 2010 11:32
alam nyo naman ang simbahan. their power is in the numbers of their constituents. the more catholics, the greater their power. of course they hate the RH bill. wala naman silang pakialam kung naghihirap yung mga parishioners nila. they dont even pay taxes
January 17th, 2010 12:47
The catholic church needs more poor in countries like ours to continue surviving. The desperate mendicant faithful will turn to God and the church for “salvation.” So, its leaders will fight any move to check population. They refuse to accept the other more practical ways (which may be indifferent and not necessarily immoral) to avoid pregnancy. We need to educate all, most especially the poor, as we make these other methods available. But, more importanly, we have to help everyone dintinguish these from the perils of abortion so that none will be endangered.
January 17th, 2010 15:03
Anytime “the church” says NOT to do something, you better believe I’m going to DO IT! That’s just how I roll! I had no intention of watching a movie called The Last Temptation Of Christ until all these church groups came out in mass protests. I watched the movie the next day. Going to check out Avatar tomorrow…
As for politics; if the church wants to impose their irrational - hypocritical - holier than thou BS so be it! Until they start putting their child-molesting priests on the chopping block, they have ZERO credibility with me (except what movies to watch when they say otherwise). If (some) people are so lost to follow political advice from any church when that same church CONDONES the ongoing rape of the Philippines so be it! If they are that stupid, they deserve EVERYTHING they get!
January 17th, 2010 18:27
don’t resign from the church, just speak out every time you think it’s wrong baka maituwid nila someday. di naman lahat ng pari e engot. meron pa rin dyan malawak ang pang-unawa.
January 18th, 2010 04:55
a mere aside:
AT LONG LAST! Men must share in both d pleasure &risks RT @natgeosociety: Hormone Found May Lead to Male Birth Control http://goo.gl/fb/N9zu
January 18th, 2010 16:04
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen Avatar twice in 3D and I’m a devout Catholic. I also stand against the RH bill but I don’t condone corrupt officials any more than those who practice “modern” family planning. It would be interesting to hear his “roundabout answer” that made you conclude it’s a deplorable yes to corruption though.
Oh, and I actually plan to see Avatar for a 3rd and 4th time again.
January 18th, 2010 16:07
Patrick, GabbyD,
Looking for a transcript. Will post it asap.
January 18th, 2010 16:27
albert,
True, hindi lahat ng pari engot. But like the armed forces, the clergy follow hierarchy. Also, the CBCP feels it can do and say whatever it wants without consulting all priests. Its not like they have regular powwows to discuss these things. The bishops, like the pope, are presumed infallible.
January 18th, 2010 16:28
sparks were a bit surprised to a priest that came from UP,its the same emotional reaction from the comment of MK, “hoy doctor yan”.
January 18th, 2010 16:51
@sparks:
Hm.. The infallibility issue. To be honest with you that’s probably one church doctrine I fail to understand even up to now. I mean you know what happened with the heliocentric controversy back in Galileo’s time right?
Anyway, the point is there will always be good and bad priests. But that doesn’t and shouldn’t affect in no way whatsoever the belief in the Christ who should be the center of the faith anyway.
January 19th, 2010 00:35
[...] Ricky Carandang reports his strange conversation with Fr. Melvin Castro, the priest who heads the CBCP commission that prepared voting guidelines for the Catholic faithful. (READ HERE) [...]
January 19th, 2010 00:48
[...] Ricky Carandang reports his strange conversation with Fr. Melvin Castro, the priest who heads the CBCP commission that prepared voting guidelines for the Catholic faithful. (READ HERE) [...]
January 19th, 2010 10:04
As a woman, the RH bill is something I consider a very important issue because it will help educating women on their reproductive health and the choices they can make to lead better lives. Utter condemnation of this bill as anti-life is sheer BS and inflammatory.
January 19th, 2010 10:11
Wow, strong words Ricky. These are one of the many reasons why I turned my back many years ago and never looked back.
January 19th, 2010 11:28
What a simple and powerful way of putting it, Ricky. That the Catholic Church thinks it is more sinful to steal, plunder and kill than to wear condoms or IUD’s.
I’m joining the Avatar Society.
January 19th, 2010 11:45
I was raised as a Catholic and educated in a Catholic School from elementary to college.
But it was soon after graduating from college, worked and got exposed to the world that I started to question some of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
And since then I gradually started to veer away from this Church. And at no time than now do I feel so far away from this religious organization.
Especially so when I see this Church continuing to give Holy..repeat..Holy Communion to the Inhabitants of Malacanang.
And now this.. “do not vote for those who approve of the RH Bill.”
January 19th, 2010 12:34
The CBCP must not be allowed to participate in partisan politics while they are receiving tax-exempt status. The problem lies in our congressmen who are too afraid to go after them. I wrote about this in detail in this post: http://rationalhero.com/2009/11/09/congress-and-the-cbcp/ .
January 19th, 2010 13:24
Too bad for them, Catholics have a mind of their own… I, too, questions many teachings of the church, but has kept my faith intact. Those so called “teachings” are man-made, not even the pope is infallible to me. Faith is between me and my God…
January 19th, 2010 14:34
[...] media helps, but it is not enough, because they, too, are afraid of the CBCP. Some are willing to take a stand, but they are in the minority. Yet with the power of new media, there [...]
January 19th, 2010 17:51
hi, ricky..
i’ve resigned from the Catholic church a long time ago and never looked back .
And they have something against AVATAR ? whatttt ?
January 19th, 2010 23:30
I hope lesser people will get brainwashed by this organization of the so called “holy”. I’m now a former catholic (now agnostic). One weird this is that abortion is legal in Italy where the vatican is located. I also think that the catholic church is one factor why our country is poor.
January 20th, 2010 08:58
[...] with a more fully developed moral compass may want to reassess the situation - just ask ABS-CBN’s Ricky Carandang: This afternoon I interiewed Fr. Melvin Castro, who heads the CBCP commission that drafted the [...]
January 20th, 2010 11:46
I think so, too, Albert. We have been brainwashed to think that God loves the poor more. That the rich are more inclined to commit evil and more inclined to go to hell. Remember that Bible saying? “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.”
And this. Suffering is the will of God. We must sacrifice to get to heaven. Or the ultimate cop out “It is God’s will. Bahala na ang Diyos.”
No wonder Filipinos don’t progress. Bahala na.
January 20th, 2010 14:54
Go ahead Ryan.
January 20th, 2010 23:28
[...] this’ll probably be in the rough draft of my future “why i won’t for eddie villanueva and jc de los reyes.” basically it’s because of the separation of church and state, which cannot be illustrated more by these articles. [...]
January 21st, 2010 06:40
Hahhahahha here is another reason why the Philippines is in such a poor state! Catholic Church’s own sense of morality is just soooo middle ages. I cant believe people are still listening and following them. But I guess with a country with the majority of its population are poor, hungry, uneducated and living in fear the church is seen as a saving grace! Sucks to be us!
January 21st, 2010 10:10
@ Ryan… GREAT!
Let’s pressure our legislators to look into the political activities of all sects and tax those that meddled in politics. That should teach them a lesson! But, even if we did, would our legislators have the guts to do it?..
January 21st, 2010 12:40
Jose Rizal already knew this. to think that was already over a 100 years ago!
January 21st, 2010 12:43
thank you for writing about this. my respect for you has gone up by leaps and bounds.
January 21st, 2010 14:32
If the church can feed all the less fortunate children on our streets, i will believe them.
So insane, and yes I agree coyote, that our Church and all churches for that matter should pay taxes should they want their beliefs should be considered on our country’s future.
Mas kasalanan siguro na mag anak ka ng di mo mapakain. Siguro yun ang dapat ikulong kasama ng mga nagtuturo na tama yun.
January 21st, 2010 16:06
Ooops…correction to my Jan. 19th comment here. It should have read…
“What a simple and powerful way of putting it, Ricky. That the Catholic Church thinks it is more sinful to wear condoms or IUD’s than to steal, plunder and kill.
I’m joining the Avatar Society.
January 21st, 2010 20:18
First, let me just make the record straight in that interview I explained lengthily, roundabout as you describe it to be, that since I am part of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, we are tasked to articulate and explain the Church’s position on Family and Life issues. Definitely, a candidate’s position on other matters count, and certainly, he’s or she’s being not a corrupt official. In my recall of that interview, I never even implied that a corrupt candidate should be elected so long as that candidate adheres to Church’s teaching on Family and Life. A true Pro-family and pro-life candidate would also be anti-corruption and pro-environment candidate. And in our contention nothing could be more corrupt than one who corrupts and undermines Family and Life values. My apologies if I was unable to explain well during the interview. Our love and respect to those who dissent with the Church would always be there. We hope and pray that those who do dissent would extend the same. We are not crackpots and weirdos out there who impose our beliefs on everyone. And yes, I am a UP graduate. And it is in the midst of my sincere and profound search for the truth and the meaning of life that I still belong to the Church, and even became, unworthy as I am, a Catholic priest. God bless you all.
January 21st, 2010 22:21
Fr Melvin.
Thanks for your reply.
I think you said that in the heirarchy of morally impermissible, so called anti life positions (ie provisions of the RH bill that promote modern contracaption) are higher than corruption because they undermine the family. As you say now “nothing could be more corrupt than one who corrupts and undermines Family and Life values”.
So there’s no misundertanding, if you had to vote for one, which would it be: someone who stole public funds but opposes the use of artifical birth control or someone who supports the use of artifical birth control but does not steal public funds?
January 21st, 2010 22:22
Hi Ricky,
I am not sure whether the CBCP admonitions will really be listened to by voters, in fact, statistics negate the belief that women listens to what the the Catholic Church says as far as use of contraceptives is concerned. From the 2006 Family Planning Survey of NSO it was found out that 36 percent of women of reproductive age use modern family planning method such as pills,ligation,iud,and others. Of these, only 0.3 percent are into natural family planning method, which I believe is the only non-sinful method for the Catholic Church. In fact, as mentioned by the NSO press release, pill remains the most preferred method of contraception for several years now as that survey is being done annually. That is why, Noynoy and the other RH advocates who are running for political positions should not be cowered by the Philippine Catholic Church’s blackmail, if this can be called that. Magpakatotoo na lang sila and stick to what they believe in. We need more of them because our soaring population growth is dragging us down to never ending poverty, a situation exacerbated by the greed and corruption of our present leaders.
January 21st, 2010 22:37
Another stats: the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey, (NDHS), also by NSO reported that: the current estimate of contraceptive prevalence rates and the estimates from the 1998 NDHS and 2003 NDHS imply increasing contraceptive use by married women over the last decade: 47 percent in 1998, 49 percent in 2003, and 51 percent in 2008 …. The use of the pill has increased in the past 5 years, from 13 percent in 2003 to 16 percent in 2008. Users of modern natural family planning methods comprise less than one percent.
It was even reported that if women of reproductive ages have access and could afford contraceptives, this rate of usage of contraceptives might even reach more than 70%.
January 21st, 2010 23:10
What has the Catholic Church done for over 400 years of missionary and church-activity in the Philippines? The moral values of the Filipinos are going backwards. Thanks to the strong Catholic presence in our country. The CBCP is not even successful in punishing its ministers who ruthlessly molested and stolen the future of young kids. How can the CBCP be trusted in its pro-life advocacy? Whatever the CBCP’s position re: RH Bill is just one opinion. After all, these bishops are not infallible. Let it be known that salvation is personal; no one is saved based on religion. Let the faithful choose whatever they want based on reason, whoever they vote based on conscience, and let them take full responsibility over their choices.
January 21st, 2010 23:10
My response to CBCP:
1. Separate Church and State please.
2. God gave us free will.
3. Where are the resignation forms? I’m joining Ricky. I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar and believe it has wonderful lessons (come on, bishops, they were adults and chose to mate for life like you know, marriage). I will continue to use condoms to protect myself from the diseases my philandering husband might bring to our home, and I will take birth control pills because I can’t afford to have anymore kids.
Yeah because I have no choice because your influence on the state has prohibited divorce. That’s right.
PS- wait, what about those priests who molested little children in Boston and Ireland? I’m sure it happens here too. I don’t think the Church has any basis for “moral authority.”
I will continue to pray for the salvation of your souls, bishops. But leave my ballot alone.
January 21st, 2010 23:13
You know how the Catholic Church just loves to say that God will provide for all those women who have kids barely a year apart, on family incomes that would barely feed a sewer rat, whose health is constantly placed in jeopardy by near-constant birthing and nursing…not that we expect MALE PRIESTS to understand what a WOMAN’S BODY goes through during pregnancy and childbirth…and yes, I am ranting because I think it’s a sin to raise 14 kids on the earnings of a “pakyaw” construction worker…
I agree that God will provide, and has provided, and that His provision is in the form of birth control and sex education, so there.
January 21st, 2010 23:27
I was reminded many years past when the CBCP made a mistake in condemning a titillating film. The CBCP was successful in asking the government to stop the screening of the said film only to make it a blockbuster hit. The CBCP’s condemnation was a good “advertisement” for curious viewers to flood the cinemas a couple of days before the censure took effect.
Now that the CBCP has issued a guideline to voters — not to vote for candidates favoring RH bill — I think history will repeat itself. The CBCP is, again, doom to fail. This is going to be a “free political advertisement” in favor of Noynoy Aquino and the rest who openly threw their support on the proposed RH bill.
Why does the CBCP threaten these candidates with “no votes” from the faithful? Why cant the bishops just excommunicate these candidates? Let’s see if the bishops have the balls to do that!
January 21st, 2010 23:38
Alas, our church is imperfect. Because I was schooled by the liberal Jesuits make it easier for me to accept its faults, and continue my faith. I hope you can see that your faith, expressing it with and among the Catholics, can still continue despite their seeming folly in this decision.
January 21st, 2010 23:40
Authentic pro-family and pro-life candidates would also anti-corruption. The choices you give are no choices at all. I would vote for sincere, non-corrupt, pro-family and pro-life candidates. That is my choice. To limit it into two choices alone is to limit the capacity of the candidates as well. Do such candidates (pro-family and pro-life at the same time non-corrupt) exist? They do.
January 21st, 2010 23:49
Oh for pity’s sake… WAKE UP CATHOLIC CHURCH! We desperately need birth control! Ano ba?!
January 21st, 2010 23:51
I Think Ricky you are missing the point.
The Catholic Church is merely emphasizing that Life is ultimately the most important thing that we need to uphold, material possession, or committing illegal material possession is secondary, thus discouraging people from electing someone who is pro-RH. But i believe, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to steal or it’s ok to elect someone who we know is a robber or a plunderer. They are merely emphasizing the Very Importance of Life Itself.
And the use of IUDS, condoms and other contraceptives are, as per Catholic teaching, is Much Immoral compared to Stealing because of its non-adherence in upholding the Sanctity of Life.
BUT of course, Stealing is still Immoral, but since it doesn’t primarily concern the taking away of life or degrading Life, or disrespecting Life it has a lesser weight. But it is still Immoral.
You can check the encyclical Humanae Vitae that explains this very important point of the Catholic Church.
Being in a Catholic Third World Country, it is very tempting to give Progress/Solution to Social Ills a higher weight as compared to Life/Family Issues. But in essence, we always need to go back to the basics, of why we live - it is to Live Life for Life Itself - and thus Protecting Family as the Core Essence of our Living, Progress is secondary. And not really for success, or to be 1st World or to be out of Poverty. I believe, even with Poverty, we should always Protect Life at all Cost.
Perhaps, it is safe to look and read WHY the Catholic Church is emphasizing this before we judge the Catholic Church, because most of the times, us, being children don’t understand things simply that are taught by our Elders/Magisterium. Look & Read the Teachings of the Catholic Church, We have a beautiful tradition that over and over again speaks of only ONE IMPORTANT thing - and that is to respect Life. I agree, it is not easy to understand their position BUT with God’s Guidance & True Compassion, Humility, and Reason, we can see the Light more Clearly and can see the History of Humanity more Profoundly.
JC
ps.
And their caution to watch Avatar is not surprising because the Catholic Church view things in light of its Teachings, and not thru Popular culture - which unfortunately victimizes us of not seeing the true light. Their main concern is the movie’s leaning on Pantheism/Treating Nature as God which contradicts Catholic Doctrine. It seems harmless at first, but is in fact harmful without consciously knowing it. But i think by all means, we can still watch it and enjoy, but with Caution. The Church is just articulating loudly and clearly its Role of guiding us kahit at times nakakainis na, KJ pa nga kung minsan. But that’s their Role.
And One more thing. Western Media tend to give a biased reporting whenever the Catholic Church tells things. Thus, It is also wise to read the main article coming from the Catholic Church Itself. And with Openness understand truly why they say those things.
It is very enlightening if we try to understand first and be patient and not be carried away easily because of our immediate biases.
Thanks Ricky for reading this
More Power and God Bless!
JC
January 22nd, 2010 00:04
Fr Melvin,
I ask the hypthetical question above to clarify what the worse sin is in your eyes and that of the CBCP. A hypothetical answer would clarify I was mistaken or not in my interpretation of your answer in our interview.
January 22nd, 2010 00:10
JC,
I understand and appreciate the point you are trying to make. You said it yourself.
“The Catholic Church is merely emphasizing that Life is ultimately the most important thing that we need to uphold, material possession, or committing illegal material possession is secondary, thus discouraging people from electing someone who is pro-RH.”
I just disagree that “sins” like plunder and abuse of public office are as you say “secondary.”
January 22nd, 2010 00:30
i think the use of contraceptives, which my pertain to the taking away of life or degrading Life, or disrespecting Life; and stealing is of the same level.. as they are both in the 10 commandments.. so it is improper to put one over the other..
January 22nd, 2010 04:17
@ ricky
i knew it. i realized that, for the catholic priest, the choice you offered is a false one.
from Fr. Melvin’s answers above, both are important, both are deal breakers.
to me this makes more sense — thats why i asked for a transcript of the interview.
now, this makes the catholic position impractical, perhaps. its impractical coz there are races where these are literally the only two choices.
BUT its consistent with their moral position, and its their job to advocate a position that is laudible, but admittedly difficult to achieve.
January 22nd, 2010 06:10
Kahit ano pa ang sabihin ng CBCP, NOYNOY PA RIN KAMI…
Simpleng pamumuhay ang dapat maging basehan ng mga tao sa Pamahalaan para maka-iwas sa suhulan dahil kung simple lang ang pamumuhay mo hindi ka mate-tempt na tumanggap ng suhol. Simple living is the key to good governnance.
Noynoy Aquino kailangan ka ng Bayan.
January 22nd, 2010 06:11
In a dilemma, there is not a right answer.
January 22nd, 2010 07:45
Less population means less new borns. Less new borns mean less baptism in Catholic Church. This is the reason why the Church has been battling with the RH Bill and its supporters. They are afraid that the number of their members would plummet in the long run.
January 22nd, 2010 07:50
Erick, In my opinion not all sins committed against the ten commandments are equal.
The Catholic Church itself has classified sins into three categories - venial sins, mortal sins and sacrileges.
January 22nd, 2010 08:15
I’m trying to understand really hard, but I just can’t get it.
The Catholic Church in coming out with this “Don’t vote for supporters of the RH Bill” is merely emphasizing the importance of life? I presume that they are referring to the commandment “Thou shalt no kill”? By using condoms and IUD’s, who are you killing? There is no life yet to kill.
So where is the sin?
The Church then says one cannot have sexual intercourse with your wife unless your purpose is to bear a child.
This is really one weird teaching.
January 22nd, 2010 08:50
A sin, is a sin, is a sin…
Plunder, corruption, throwing your children in a river because they have nothing to eat, stealing a lollipop from a classmate…
They are all sins, there are no levels when it comes to sin
but wearing a condom is not a sin.
January 22nd, 2010 09:04
The Catholic Church symbolizes everything that is wrong in this country.
January 22nd, 2010 09:14
Hi Ricky,
I’m quite stunned that a public figure like you would make such a strong stand on such a very very sensitve subject, considering that anyone who reads your blog will view you in a different light. Good for you, and I admire your courage in standing for your convictions.
I myself have resigned from the whole religion thingy a long time ago.
All I see are old men (around the world) trying to hold on to their grip on populaces that are slowly becoming more and more aware of how nature and life truly works.
They interpret the so-called holy books to suit their own motives and to place the fear of a divine being and his representatives on earth so they can manipulate those people according to their will thereby consolidating their hold of their own power and influence.
Religion or non-religion is a personal relationship with one person with what he perceives to be a higher entity. No one person or ORGANIZATION has a right to force their own views about that relationship to others. Let others make their own eisegesis.
January 22nd, 2010 09:46
I agree with Q Ben. I believe that religion, particularly Catholicism, is just a bunch of made-up rules that manipulate people.
January 22nd, 2010 10:03
The thing with religion is that most people want instruction. They want to be guided and told what to do. That makes them vulnerable to manipulation and sometimes blind to reason. Think of the crimes that have been committed throughout history in the name of God or Allah or Yahweh.
January 22nd, 2010 10:29
Ricky,
You’re right about the crimes throughout history, but devout believers would always deny that. They can’t understand that religion as we understand it is just a man-made organization, originally set up to protect and consolidate its adherents and had developed into an institution that has power and influence around the world and is striving to maintain that power.
I believe that ORGANIZED religion, as a concept, is now out-dated. Some would argue that this is a dangerous thought because religion throughout the ages had been the main basis of morality. But I belive in the basic humanity in each and every person and as a society they will create a morality established to protect the individual and establish a harmonious society. There is such a thing as the good in all of us.
Religion or non-religion, whether you belive in the existence of a personal god or not, is a personal revelation. To me, it doesn’t matter what God is or what God is not. They can argue that until the end of time and nobody would ever agree, because everybody has a different life-experience unique to themselves. What is important is that we live with as much peace and tolerance with one another as societies and as fellow human beings regardless of belief, race, nationality, ideology or cultural heritage.
January 22nd, 2010 10:46
while i agree that the church itself has made mistakes…
here is a thought-
think of a world without organized religion. imagine the chaos and all the crimes that would have happened.
accept it or not religion plays a big part on why life on earth as it is now. without religion, IT would be so much worse.
and for those who claim that The Catholic Church’s presence is the root of Philippine Poverty- i beg you to reconsider- think before you state such. The real cause of poverty is the lack of personal discipline and the “I KNOW BETTER ATTITUDE” which shows its ugly head clearly in the comments section.
January 22nd, 2010 11:27
Q Ben,
Amen to that.
January 22nd, 2010 11:31
I am a devout Catholic and I am hurt that people say such things about the Catholic Church. As the Bishop says, plunderers and crooks are an offshoot of lack of respect for the dignity of man. The Reproductive Health Bill is about lack of respect for the dignity of man and is clearly stated so. If politicians agree with that then it is clearly seen that they are against dignity of man. Plunderers and crooks..who are they? so far we can only surmise because we cannot judge or name names even if it looks like it. Hence, the Bishops cannot name names for that matter. Is it so complicated to see that? Many things are said against the Catholic Church but just the same , our Lord said He who is without sin throw the first stone.
January 22nd, 2010 11:37
G.K. Chesterton said that he who does not believe in God will believe in anything. The Catholic Church is not about rules…its about how one should behave as a child of God. Many people have lost their way because they don’t have an address. Many people say bad things about the Catholic Church because they don’t like her teachings..okay. So where do you go? immanentism? subjectivism? existentialists? communism? pantheism? Did the Vatican explicitly say don’t watch Avatar?
January 22nd, 2010 11:58
I was just wondering, the Catholic Church is claiming that the RH Bill is anti-family and anti-life.
But doesn’t the Catholic Church in itself become the one who is anti-family and anti-life since they tolerate parents to continue on producing offsprings who later on BECOME POOR, HUNGRY, AND UNEDUCATED?
Doesn’t that argument in itself destroy the essence of what a good “life” and “family” is?
If hunger, poverty, and ignorance is the trail that this church wants us to follow, then clearly, the Catholic Church is the one who is “anti-life and anti-family” and should be condemned for its fallacious teachings.
January 22nd, 2010 12:04
I really do want the cbcp to openly come up with the list of candidates who support the bill when these people campaign against them.
coz it will make it easier for voters to know who the Pros are so people could vote for them.
it will be a great irony when more rh bill advocates are elected because of their campaign.
January 22nd, 2010 12:07
(cont.)
On the other hand, if the RH Bill becomes a law, then it would promote control in the population. Thus allowing parents to be more capable of feeding and sending their children to school. Now, doesn’t that make the RH Bill a “pro-life” and “pro-family” as opposed to what the Catholic Church is claiming?
January 22nd, 2010 13:18
so ricky, what do u think of fr melvin’s response?
January 22nd, 2010 13:42
From Melvin Castro’s response -
So pro-RH candidates are BY DEFINITION corrupt? So that’s how Melvin Castro gets around his twisted logic - by changing the definition of corruption to include pro-RH candidates! That’s rather disingenuous of you Mel, but I expect as much from a priest.
January 22nd, 2010 14:04
As I understand it, the RH Bill is an act that would make available services to accomodate family planning. If Catholics do not want this service and if they REALLY believe in the teachings of their church, then they can opt not to avail of these services. Why force non-Catholics to conform to their way of life?
It is the responsibility of the government to look after the well-being all its citizens regardless of faith. There is still a separation of church and state, right? I mean, the government is not a Catholic institution, right?
If Catholics don’t want to avail those services, then they can opt not to. Forcing one’s own set of values into another is just vanity. “I’m good, you’re a sinner” leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
And, the Catholic church can always try to force its adherents not to avail of such service… if they can.
Or is it because there is fear that the Philippines is losing its Catholic identity? In any case, does it really matter?
January 22nd, 2010 14:07
Thanks, Ricky. There are a lot of people like you who have left the Catholic church because of its stance on critical issues like the RH Bill.
A number of them have already spoken up at http://rationalhero.com/ .
I invite those here who want to speak up as well to fill up the “confession box” on the home page, and to read the stories of those who have also come out like Ricky to confess the sins of the Catholic church.
January 22nd, 2010 14:24
Something that hasn’t yet been brought up here is the hypocritical differentiation between natural family planning (NFP) methods endorsed by the Church and artificial contraception.
The intent behind both method is the same - prevent conception (i.e. the meeting of egg and sperm). I don’t understand how they can prefer one technology (i.e. ‘know-how’) over the other.
What is so ‘natural’ about the billings method or the basal body temperature method (NFP)? You monitor your body temperature the whole day, then check the viscosity of your vagina’s discharge before you have sex. How different is that from using a pill? Or IUD? Or condoms? These artificial commodities are not abortifacient - they do not terminate the zygote. They prevent the meeting of egg and sperm. Like other natural family planning methods.
January 22nd, 2010 14:44
And to illustrate misinformation (ignorance?) sowed by some priests, here is a video of Fr. Bing Arellano, spiritual director of the Alliance of the Holy Family International.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAvf4sPqgE
1. While the bill says 2 kids is the ideal - this suggestion is in no way punitive. You can have as many kids as you want if you so choose. Then he goes to say the ideal for Filipinos is 5 or 7 children.
2. Nowhere in the bill does it say sexuality education will start at Grade 2. Then he says 8 year old kids will receive “pornography” from their teachers. WTF? The point is to teach young people about their bodies and the consequences of having children. The point is to prevent them from getting pregnant at a young age.
3. Reproductive health services (even abortion) is available in many other predominantly Catholic countries.
4. Yes, the real issue is about life - a life worth living. A life worthy of being called such.
5. Yes children have rights and they should be respected. Now, that space between the sperm and egg cell - that is not a child.
6. Fr. Arellano then says being the only Catholic country in Asia, we are the conscience of this region. Diyosmio. Ibig sabihin mga barubal pala ang mga kapitbahay na bansa natin dito? Then if you remove us, mass mayhem will ensue! Holocaust! Genocide! IGNORANTE amp.
7. “The Philippine Constitution is the only Catholic Constitution in the world.” HELLO - di ba may provision for the separation of Church and State?
8. Eto, panalo. The RH bill is supposed to be “anti-labour because the Philippines has as its number one export labourers, because we have many children.” Then he says we shouldn’t curtail the reproduction of many children because “we will be impoverished.”
Thats Catholic economics for you. Ang t*nga amp. He then sings praised about labour export.
What happend to the sanctity of the family Fr. Bing? Many children grow up with one or no parent at home because they’re working overseas.
January 22nd, 2010 14:46
The use of contraception is a personal choice. The beliefs of one group should not influence the government to deny that personal choice to Filipinos, especially when that choice has proven health and economic benefits. If the church were truly an effective voice of moderation in this country then we wouldn’t even need to debate about RH. You would probably see drugstores stop selling condoms because there is no demand.
Unfortunately that isn’t the case and there is an urgent need to address the worsening RH and population situation in the country.
RH is about making those choices available to Filipinos. The decision to take advantage or abuse those choices is what the Church should worry about.
January 22nd, 2010 15:14
Wow. So it finally showed that this is just another anti-religion claptrap.
So organized religion is now outdated because its followers rely on getting instructions and being told what to do? Well how is that any different from the government? Any kind of society would have rules and regulations set in place so that argument about the Church imposing rules is moot. And like in any society, there’s also this thing called “freewill” in the Church you know.
JC’s reply here (comment #68) said it best. Read it again. May you read it with an open heart and mind. God bless.
January 22nd, 2010 15:35
Patrick, if the Church does support “freewill”, then how come it provides the less free option? Compare the two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Government approves RH bill, government clinics provide artificial FP methods alongside the natural FP methods it already provides. Catholics are free to choose either artificial OR natural methods according to conscience.
Scenario 2: The Church scenario - which is the status quo. Natural FP only in government clinics.
Which scenario is most conducive to free will? And why is the Catholic Church supporting the more restrictive scenario?
The Church position is abhorrent, not so much its stance but its actions to support it. Bishops are threatening to withhold communion, pushing churchgoers to withdraw votes from pro-RH candidates, and creating an oppressive environment for poor women who wish to control their childbearing. Church leaders are pushing for excommunication of city councilors who voted in a similar health measure in Davao, I kid you not.
Patrick, I believe everybody should be free to pursue their religious belief, but I don’t believe that a religious organization has the right to impose its particular stance into law.
January 22nd, 2010 15:43
Reading JC’s reply -
He’s still saying that a congressman who uses a condom is still more immoral than someone who steals. If you still don’t see why that is such an absurd position - in fact if you still believe this absurd position is defensible because the Church supports it - then you’re beyond help.
January 22nd, 2010 16:07
I’m not at all sure that all the Catholic priests agree with the stand of their Church on this RH Bill. Some are more open-minded about it but would not comment for fear of censure from their superiors.
The Church is not infallible. Nor is the Pope..no matter what they say about the Pope being infallible on matters concerning faith and morals.
That again is a teaching I find hard to swallow..infallibility of a human being on faith and morals.
But I did believe it and swallowed it without question while still a student in a Catholic school.
January 22nd, 2010 16:38
Hello Ricky,
You wrote that Avatar “was also condemned by the Vatican”.
Condemned is too harsh a word. I read the short article which you hyperlinked from your blogpost. The way I read it, the Vatican wasn’t condemning the movie but criticizing it due to its subtle thrusts on the worship of nature. I assume you know the difference. So why the exaggerated remark?
You may be free to state your opinion publicly in this blog of yours. But as a journalist, and a public figure at that, you should still be cautious with the words you compose. I don’t want to think that you’re espousing hatred and anti-Catholicism here. But anyway, that’s your call.
Best regards,
Pepe Alas
January 22nd, 2010 16:39
There should be women priests, bishops, cardinals and married clergy within the Catholic church. Then they can comment with more intelligence and compassion on condoms.
January 22nd, 2010 16:55
Patrick
the difference is that I chose to participate in the selection of my representative in the government. Therefore I have an indirect hand in choosing the sets of rules and regualtions I allow my self to be governed by. Through my vote I can agree and disagree with those sets of rules.
The sets of rules of a church is dictated by men who interpret an old tome that has been transcribed from an ancient text whose real meaning might very well be lost in translation. And it is given weight by the claim that it comes from the mouth of a deity and imposed on a populace that fears that diety.
I am a non-Catholic. Therefore those sets of rules for Catholics don’t apply to me. And forcing your set of Catholic values on a government that also represents non-Catholics is BS. Why should I follow your rules when I don’t believe in them?
Church and State are separate as it should be. If the Catholic church doesn’t like family planning, then it can force that belief down the throats of Catholics and leave non-Catholics alone. Non-Catholics belive family planning, through artificial methods, is acceptable, then our government should reflect that, with the allowance that people who do not believe in artificial family planning methods have the option of not using it.
This country is not solely for Catholics. Thinking otherwise is being intolerant and selfish
January 22nd, 2010 17:56
Q Ben,
Beautifully succinctly put.
January 23rd, 2010 08:48
Well said “Q”… Very well said!
January 23rd, 2010 11:53
I just have this one quote to add to Q Ben’s frankly excellent input. From Catholic professor Daniel Cowdin (emphasis mine):
January 23rd, 2010 13:10
avatar was not condemned.. not giving praise to a movie is not synanimous in condemning it..
January 23rd, 2010 15:04
I like how the priest and Patrick haven’t replied yet. I guess they ran out of crooked reasons to tell us. Or maybe they are asking help from the Vatican on how to defend their arguments? Hehe.
January 23rd, 2010 18:40
The Vatican did not condemn “Avatar.” Get your facts straight; you are misleading a lot of people.
January 23rd, 2010 19:25
For the record, here’s a Google translation of the L’Osservatore Romano article in question.Whether it can be described as “condemnation”, I leave that to the individual reader, especially if that reader understands Italian.
January 23rd, 2010 19:31
To add to the link I posted above (Hi Ricky! it’s awaiting moderation!) here’s an interview with the critic who wrote the L’Osservatore Romano review.
That being said, I guess a lot of Catholic blog readers here are piling on Ricky’s use of the word “condemn” because that happens to be the weakest part of the argument.
January 24th, 2010 01:39
hi ricky, what do you think of fr melvin’s response?
January 24th, 2010 08:01
in a nutshell, this is his response:
1) i reject the hypothetical tradeoff u pose because a legitimate pro-life candidate is also anti-corruption
2) i reject it also because i also reject the candidate that has the reverse position to ur hypothetical candidate: a candidate who is pro-life and pro-corruption.
what do u think of this moral position?
January 24th, 2010 22:26
I agree, sometimes the effects of politics & religion are bad for the nation, why believe in politics? why believe in religion? YOU SHOULD BE BELIEVING IN YOURSELF to what can help / save more!
like when disaster strikes again, the religion and politics cant save them all!
January 24th, 2010 23:30
What I find very disconcerting about this is the fact that it still happens, no matter how they condone it. And continually condoning it only results to more unhappy marriages, miserable single moms, or even dead females because of abortion.
January 25th, 2010 16:37
When I was younger (a long long time ago, I used to go to the public plaza. There I listened to the informal little debates between Catholics and other Bible spouting religious zealots.
There was no moderator, of course. So there never was a winner. Nobody ever ended up saying “Yes, you have convinced me that your religion is better than mine.”
But people continued to mill around this spectacle, this entertainment.
But one thing I noticed, whenever one side ran out of logical arguments, the common cop out would be “It is one of the mysteries of our faith. You have to have faith.” Or this.. “It is God’s will.”
These statements conveniently serve as escape clauses. They don’t convince anyone to your side.
January 25th, 2010 17:19
I’m glad that those who don’t like Noynoy are stating that, they cannot, “in conscience,” vote for Noynoy. I FULLY AGREE! I won’t either, in conscience, vote for a candidate I feel does not represent my “own principles and values.”
That’s why, in my conscious, logical mind, managed emotions, and personal judgment, I’M VOTING FOR NOYNOY AQUINO!
No one has the right to dictate upon another their own personal standards and values when it comes to the right of suffrage. I and I alone can define what I value most, and the beliefs I subscribe to, only guided by my trust in God, his commandments and the “golden rule.”
The matter on “intelligence” is subjective. And no one among all of us can give a guarantee on anything beyond TODAY! Like Remonde, we may no longer be around tomorrow.
But let’s realize that we (regardless of candidate we support), all have the same visions/aspirations, e.g. a prosperous country, a strong middle class, equal opportunities for the underprivileged, equal justice for all, Medicare, peace & order, etc. But you and I cannot guaranty that the candidate we support will indeed deliver. It will always be a calculated risk.
We have to realize that all our collective visions/aspirations will happen if we continue to believe, hope and put our trust, not just on a particular person alone, but on the will of the Almighty!
January 25th, 2010 22:50
I think the Church is Not thinking.. kung ano lang ung gusto nila ang sinusunOd… thats why Hindi nagIimprove ang ating country and our line of thinking kasi nagpapaUnder tayo sa Church…
January 26th, 2010 05:02
You guys are forgetting one important aspect of religion (although Phil Cruz seems to have touched on it briefly with his last comment) and that is Faith in God. That’s the thing that truly sets apart the Church from other organizations in society like the government. We have faith that the Holy Spirit is working through and in the Church to guide people on their decisions. Well at least those who consciously seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance and God’s will. I’ll refrain from quoting the Bible lest I get the ire of some of you here.
And yeah, I just remembered this today. Thankfully I have far better things to do than engage myself in religious debates online. I don’t know what dream I was having that would remind me of this blog post but hey, here I am posting a reply in the wee hours of the morning. I suppose “Bro” just didn’t want me to leave this without some parting words.
So this is where I leave you guys. I can only fervently hope and pray for your spiritual enlightment. Most people obtain this through their own (offline) life experiences and not through a blog’s comment section by the way. May God bless us all.
January 26th, 2010 07:38
Patrick, motivation doesn’t excuse the actions of the Church (or its believers). The 9/11 hijackers believed they were acting on God’s guidance, too.
January 26th, 2010 09:18
Excuse me, Patrick but…
How did you come to the conclusion that those that did not agree with you lack, as you put it, ’spriritual enlightment’. By what capacity do you judge that those who do not agree with you are not enlightened as you are?
‘Holier-than-thou’, don’t you think?
January 26th, 2010 13:17
@ — refuse to give my name
“The Catholic Church symbolizes everything that is wrong in this country.”
The Catholic Church is for love, charity, purity, and all those goody-two-shoes concepts. If you say they are all wrong for our country, then go ahead and lead/join/organize a movement to counter those symbolisms for THE SAKE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN.
Tsk tsk tsk. Oh, brazen proud youth…
January 27th, 2010 22:39
[...] Jan, 2010 by Ryan Tani in Oplan Pepe If you haven’t read Ricky Carandang’s recent post, Thou Shalt Not Vote For… please do. Read through the comments as well and you’ll find that Father Melvin Castro tries [...]
January 27th, 2010 23:22
I uploaded a brief interview with Ricky Carandang about this post here:
http://rationalhero.com/2010/01/27/ricky-carandang/
January 27th, 2010 23:56
@astatine (post 84)
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.” Arthur C. Clarke
So you don’t murder, rape, oppress just because god will punish you if you do so? I just don’t see why you think people cannot be good for goodness’ sake.
And for all those against the RH bill, I would suggest listening to Obama’s speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
January 28th, 2010 00:36
Mr. Carandang,
By asking the hypothetical question “which is the worse sin?”, you are muddling the issue. Sin is sin, right. As such, any answer, whether pro or anti-RH bill, will fall on dissatisfied and questioning ears because the premise of your line of questioning is flawed.
As such, any answer will give us “something to talk about.”
Frankly, this whole “blame the Catholic Church” routine is so passe’. I was expecting more from you.
The Catholic Church is not forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone is free. The Congress and Senate can pass the RH Bill today, and there isn’t anything the Church can do. She may protest and everything, but it will not change the law.
What the Catholic Church is doing is proclaiming her core beliefs and protecting those who wish to freely express their Catholic faith in ALL aspects of their lives, both spiritually and physically as parents, employers, and medical practitioners.
As a CATHOLIC TAX-PAYING FILIPINO PHYSICIAN, I find the RH Bill (HB 5043) as oppressive with regard to my freedom of religious expression.
The provisions of the RH Bill threaten my practice (by fine or imprisonment or both) if i do not prescribe or refer my patient to someone else who will prescribe artificial contraceptives. It does not defend my right to decide where my taxes should go. Should i become a father one day, it would deprive me of my right to be the primary source of sex education for my kids.
MY LIFE (Filipino, tax-payer, physician) is an expression of my Catholic faith. They are not separate. My Catholic faith does not end after Sunday Mass. It extends to ALL ASPECTS of my life. As such, the RH Bill oppresses my freedom of religious expression.
We all have our own belief systems. They may be theistic, atheistic, agnostic, objectivist, humanist, etc. The law should protect and respect our rights to express these beliefs freely.
The RH Bill falls short of this quality.
January 28th, 2010 02:03
I believe in Jesus …. not Jesus Inc. … Politics and the church ….. hmmm as much as they deny the fact …the Church leaders are in the same boat as politicians please lets be serious running the Business of God involves money and power and yes Ego. Lets try to educate the people …read your history books about the church and politics and greed and yes immoral conduct by the church leaders themselves
January 28th, 2010 04:19
@ricky
in ryan’s interview, you said fr tried to backtrack. you also said that he didnt answer the question directly.
without a transcript, i cant say anything about this, but fr. melvin’s position is clear in his comments here.
he (and the cbcp) says 2 things:
1) i reject the hypothetical tradeoff u pose because a legitimate pro-life candidate is also anti-corruption
2) i reject it also because i also reject the candidate that has the reverse position to ur hypothetical candidate: a candidate who is pro-life and pro-corruption.
i suspect this is why he didnt directly answer the question — its because he reject the question’s premise (and didnt want to say, i reject the hypothetical choice offered… etc)
January 28th, 2010 08:22
To those who inisist that the church’s anti-rh stance due to their charitable works for the poor:
While it’s true they can be charitable, that does not excuse them from the inanity of their stance on other social matters.
It is like telling us that the police should not arrest a murderer because he was also a “good son” to his parents, or a “good friend” among his associates.
@Patrick
As my compatriots have stated earlier, it was also “faith” that convinced several zealots into slamming two planes into the World Trade Centers in New York.
It was also “faith” that prompted the Catholic Church to press for an abstinence-only policy on the matter of sex education.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-26-1Ateenpregnancy26_ST_N.htm
Nevermind that this policy has already backfired in other countries, we just have to keep the faith, right?
January 28th, 2010 09:01
Mr. Cruz,
Sorry but I’m not muddling the issue. With all due respect, you are.
Surely you recognize a heirarchy of sin. Meaning you would not claim that jaywalking is commensurate to murder would you? Even the Church recognizes that which is why when you go to confession sometimes you have to do 10 hail marys and other times you have to do only 5. I’m merely disagreeing with the Church’s heirarchy of sin, which says that practicing family planning is worse than stealing taxpayers money.In my opinion, THAT is a moral abomination.
January 28th, 2010 10:52
@ricky
” I’m merely disagreeing with the Church’s heirarchy of sin, which says that practicing family planning is worse than stealing taxpayers money”
this is the whole problem in a nutshell. the CBCP says they are equivalent. there are reasons why CBCP believes its equivalent. its based on a principle.
i suppose you believe that they are different issues. more than that, they can be ranked. thats your call.
but at least characterize CBCP’s position the way they say it ought to be characterized. isnt that fair?
January 28th, 2010 11:38
Good for you, Ricky, for supporting the RH bill based on sound logic and reasoning.
January 28th, 2010 11:46
GabbyD
That’s what I’m doing. I’m taking issue with their position.
January 28th, 2010 12:49
mr carandang,
you are confusing breaking the law and committing sin. these are two very different things. your “jaywalking vs murder” argument is flawed, and, quite frankly, disappointing.
The only ranking system of sin that I know of, in my limited knowledge, is that which differentiates venial sin from mortal sin.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm
as for subclassifications, there is none.
also, the gravity of a sin is not subject to empirical observation and should not be measured based on “number of Hail Mary’s”. A priest gives penence to a penitent according to his wisdom, not based on a price list. Also, surely, you don’t confess to one priest all the time for a standardized penance, right?
The Church is NOT against family planning per se. It is against the contraceptive mentality and artificial contraceptives because it separates the sexual act from its intrinsic nature of being both procreative and unitive in its full expression.
The Church believes, and so does the Philippine Constitution, that LIFE begins from the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION (sperm fertilizes egg), and that it should be protected at all costs.
The use of pills not only prevents ovulation or fertilization. Should breakthrough ovulation occur (and it does), pills prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum/zygote/LIFE. That is why the Church considers pills as abortifacient. The IUD works in the same way, by preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum.
These are just some reasons why Church considers artificial contraception as sin.
There is no moral abomination in this line of thought.
Population control and management does not address the issue maldistribution of resources. Surely, as a journalist, you know of the abuses of many of the people in power. We cannot magically improve the quality of our lives simply by reducing our population if those “who have” are still grabbing and holding on too majority of our resources. A couple can have 5 children and still live in dignity if the resources in our country are well managed and not hoarded and stolen by those in power.
The RH bill does not address this issue.
January 28th, 2010 12:54
Mr. Cruz,
I concede that your knoledge of “sin” is better than mine and I accept your definition. I use the term”sin” in a secular way, not a religous one. I should have used another term. The religious meaning is, quite frankly, irrelevant to me.
January 28th, 2010 12:57
addendum:
if u have resigned from the Catholic Church, why take issue in the first place when you know very well that you won’t see eye to eye regarding this issue?
again, “something to talk about.”
ho hum.
January 28th, 2010 13:00
@ricky
but thats not all ur doing. u said:
“Flabbergasted, I asked if they were saying it was alright to vote for a crook as long as he doesn’t advocate modern family planning. His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words–yes.”
if i understand fr melvin’s position, the answer is NOT yes. the answer, is far more complex than “yes”.
thats what i meant when i said u are mischaracterizing their position.
look, at the end of the day, u can disagree with their position. thats totally fine.
but at least characterize their position correctly and attack the the correct position– not the straw man answer u took home from the interview. di ba fair naman yun? isnt that what journalism is about? characterizing a (possibly complex) position correctly, and then dealing with it?
January 28th, 2010 13:06
@ricky
addendum:
you see, i’m worried about people, reading this blog and coming home with: “Flabbergasted, I asked if they were saying it was alright to vote for a crook as long as he doesn’t advocate modern family planning. His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words–yes.”
this as the take home message, when apparently it is not.
when i read it, i was like “No way the priest said that! but ricky reported it, so there has to be somthing to to it!” i asked for a transcript anyway, to sate my curiosity.
you see, when u write things down, people tend to believe it. thats why ryan interviewed you — u have credibility. being a credible journalist is a good thing.
in this specific case tho, there is a problem coz people need to know what he actually said, what he actually meant, instead of an interpretation, which makes him/them sound like, well, an idiot.
January 28th, 2010 13:26
… “The religious meaning [of sin] is, quite frankly, irrelevant to me.”
mr carandang,
i find this statement disturbing. it may not matter to you personally, in terms of formulating opinions of your own.
Shouldn’t their definition of “sin” be something to consider? Isn’t “knowing where people are coming from” an integral part of the communication process and in objective journalism?
why interview someone if you have no intention of getting enlightened and understanding why they believe as such.
It’s OK to have an opinion, but it’s not OK to incompletely present the position of one person. Remember, a half-truth is still a whole lie.
The fact is that you interviewed a man of religion regarding an issue with religious undertones.
That makes the religious definition of “sin” relevant.
January 28th, 2010 16:25
@aben
By your definition, shouldn’t we also charge women who miscarry with manslaughter charges?
I do not agree with the Church’s stance on when life begins, moreso after seeing just how badly they fudged their own encyclical Humanae Vitae, from which they base their stance on Reproductive Health.
January 28th, 2010 19:03
please confirm if you are a non believer / atheist now that you’ve announced your resignation from the catholic church. i also observed that atheism is one of the things that keeps you sane?
January 28th, 2010 23:21
@twin skies
A miscarriage is defined by William’s Textbook of Obstetrics as the spontaneous loss of pregnancy before the 20th week age of gestation.
On the other hand, manslaughter is the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice.
Please make the connection because i can’t.
The problem with today’s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs. Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization until the advent of the contraceptive movement in the 1950s-60s when they moved to define life as starting from the moment of implantation to make them feel less guilty. However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.
The questions i pose to you are these:
1.Is a fertilized ovum alive (i.e. has life) or dead (i.e. has no life)? Surely there is no “in between” answer.
2. Is a fertilized human ovum by a human sperm (zygote) already “human”?
Also, this definition of the beginning of life is not merely a definition of the Church c/o Humanae Vitae. The Philippine Constitution Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception.
Numerous embryology textbooks also define the beginning of life at the moment of fertilization. To quote:
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
- Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th ed. 1993, p. 1
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
- Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. 1996, pp. 8, 29.
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.
To these I add this one:
Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert is arguably the leading text in the field. Gilbert is on faculty at Swarthmore College.
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
If that can be said with such certainty of one vertebrate, it can be said of all vertebrates.
end of quote:
=====================================
please excuse me for making such long posts, but i really am a stickler for definitions before making any arguments. These definitions on the beginning of life have no religious ideations infused in them.
They are scientific and logical.
January 29th, 2010 00:17
Point taken aben. I can’t really argue against your point for the moment.
I still don’t agree with your stance regarding Reproductive Health, but it has left me with much food for thought.
January 29th, 2010 00:19
If I may ask, what is your perspective regarding the recent Guttmacher report regarding the increase of teen pregnancies in the US?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
January 29th, 2010 12:17
@ ricky
hey, if you could set the record straight about what he actually said; i think thats a good thing.
again, u can believe whatever u want. but i think we need to clarify what he said.
January 29th, 2010 20:00
@twin skies
although i’m not a statistician/epidemiologist, i take the report as it is.
it discusses that it is too soon to tell whether the 2006 increase in the rate of teen pregnancies in the US is a mere fluctuation of data or the start of an increasing trend.
Various factors need to be considered as the study suggested: changing reproductive behavior, changing attitudes towards unintended preganacies, and the presence of reproductive health programs (contraception, legalized abortion).
it’s too soon to make any conclusions as of the moment.
January 30th, 2010 05:55
“His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words” …..
I often encounter this, with priests and preachers. As if they deliberately make it more confusing as if to conceal something.
January 30th, 2010 12:24
I pays to get the facts first.
January 31st, 2010 12:13
Without “facts” we live in the “land of the blind,” where the “one-eyed monster is KING!”
…and emotions run deep in our cultures. It must be tapered with wisdom and a solidly founded leadership character.
February 1st, 2010 08:50
@aben cruz
I’ve been thinking about some of your statements earlier, and have decided to reply:
“The problem with today’s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs.”
Well yes, that’s true, and quite frankly, I don’t see what the problem with this fact is.
“Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization until the advent of the contraceptive movement in the 1950s-60s when they moved to define life as starting from the moment of implantation to make them feel less guilty. However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.”
Let me get this straight – your assertion is that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and hence any form of contraception – which by their nature prevents said and conception from taking place to begin with – is wrong? This goes double for IUDs and condoms – I don’t see point of outrage if these methods physically prevent from the sperm and egg from ever making physical contact.
As for your various quotes.
According to their definition of a human being, even my skin cells and hair would be “human life,” given they also contain complete chromosomes. While a fertilized zygote is human being, it’s not a person. For the first two-thirds of the pregnancy, the fetus is no more than a parasite. Brainless, eyeless, limbless, it has absolutely no chance of life without a constant supply of nutrients drained directly from the gestating host.
February 1st, 2010 18:14
…this is getting to be interesting (referring to the “condom” point of view)!
…just to lighten the discussion without disrespect to anyone…but “pun” intended…
…will it then be a sin or illegal for two consenting adults, when one shoots the other, both of which know the one being shot is wearing a bulletproof vest (all of these being done in front a a PNP rookie, of course)?
back to the exchanges…i think I’m beginning to appreciate where the “gray area” might be…
February 1st, 2010 21:33
@Chito
You make it sound like a Mythbusters episode XD
February 2nd, 2010 00:06
Dr Aben,
Thanks Much. That’s really very enlightening indeed. Coming from someone who is in the Medical Field - gives much credence why we should not support the RH Bill.
Ricky,
I think the basic issue too here is, apart from whether RH Bill is Good or no Good, is the way we SHOULD handle NEWS Item before we express our outrage - and thus affect the opinion of people who are much less knowledgeble.
Points to Ponder:
Am i using the same language/definition as that of the original source?
Where are my biases coming from?
From which angles are we seeing the issue?
Understanding where the other party is REALLY Coming from MINUS our Personal Biases will surely won’t shortchange your Viewers/Listeners with half/quarter truths.
Certainly, this will indeed promote REAL COMMUNICATION and from this, we can get REAL UNDERSTANDING.
God bless and More Power!
JC
February 2nd, 2010 08:44
@JC
Given Fr. Castro’s track record, I would not put it past him if he honestly believes that voting a corrupt politician is worse than voting for a Pro-RH politician.
This is the same man who has stated that sex should only be for procreation, and that anything, including ANY form of contraception outside natural family planning, is just wrong.
http://news.abs-cbn.com/node/14834
At the very least, I see him as a religious zealot who honestly believes he’s doing the right thing. At worst, a dominating jackass. Given how reality works, he’s probably somewhere in the middle.
Just my two cents.
February 2nd, 2010 12:44
Here are some points I’ve gathered so far.
1. Our constitution guarantees protection to the unborn w/c begins at conception.
2. Some authorities believe that conception starts at fertilization, while others believe it should start at implantation.
3. Our constitution does not define when conception begins. Am I right here?
4. IUDs prevents implantation.
5. Contraceptive pills prevents fertilization. But, in some cases, it can prevent implantation if there is already a fertilized ova. A matter of timing in taking the pill.
6. Condom prevents fertilization. I still could not think how it could prevent implantation though.
Can someone explain why the Catholic church is against the use of condoms. It is really hard to swallow thinking that is much Immoral compared to Stealing. Does it have something to do w/ the artificiality of this devices.
Semantics seem to play a role. Now this is just one of the unsettled issues of the controversial RHB.
February 2nd, 2010 12:59
GabbyD, I’m afraid I can’t find a complete and relevant transcript. My fault.
But I think the reactions of Father Melvin and the other regligious here support my point. In te heirarchy of sin, support for RH and other “anti family” measures (ie modern family planning) are worse than corruption. This has not been denied and in fact has been explained in the reactions here. Again, I support the Church’s right to say anything it wants, but I’m just saying here that that kind of thinking is incompatible with mine..amd I hope many other reasonable people living in the 21st century.
February 2nd, 2010 23:37
Ricky,my 1st time to see this blog. i greatly appreciate your openly expressing your views on this controversial RH issue.I enjoyed and learned a lot from the pro and anti-RH bloggers, even if it against my views.
I am a Catholic and I support the RH, does that make me an Anti-Life, anti-Family, anti etc.? I think most of us here believes in the “sacredness” of life just like the so called “pro-life” group. ( I am more than just “pro-life” and pro-life to me is not enough! we have to be pro- qualitylife!
…and what kind of “Life” are they referring? is it just a life for the unborn? how about those already born, the malnourished children who, some unnecessarily die at a very young age…how about those neglected, abandoned, neglected or children lying in the streets, begging, scavenging,some snatching, stealing, etc…
where is the sacredness/dignity of life that there? when children/families are living in poverty, a miserable life?
What is the church doing? feeding for just a day or days? can they provide housing for all of them, can they send all of them to school? or send all of them for treatment when they are sick? etc. Will the church take responsibility for all these?
If No, then let the government decide what is best for the many poor Filipinos.
Even if the RH Bill will be passed they still can promote the NFP, but for those couples whre NFP is not applicable to them, they should be given a CHOICE on what is effective for them. with RH Bill passed, this will now be more available and accesible to poor couples who otherwise cannot afford.
For the many years I’ve been working with the poor families, as a Social Worker, I really see the need of RH programs and services.
February 3rd, 2010 04:18
@Twin-skies
“…”“The problem with today’s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs.”
Well yes, that’s true, and quite frankly, I don’t see what the problem with this.”
Then where is the sense of order? of truth? i hope you can see the implications.
“… According to their definition of a human being, even my skin cells and hair would be “human life,” given they also contain complete chromosomes. While a fertilized zygote is human being, it’s not a person. For the first two-thirds of the pregnancy, the fetus is no more than a parasite. Brainless, eyeless, limbless, it has absolutely no chance of life without a constant supply of nutrients drained directly from the gestating host.”
you and i both know that a zygote is vastly different from your skin and hair cells. You yourself described a zygote as a human being and intrinsically ordered to develop fully.
at the moment of fertilization, even before implantation, the zygote divides and differentiates into specialized cells and tissues.
Then you bring about the issue of personhood. This is a largely debateable issue, the definition of which is context-dependent (law, medicine, philosophy).
The questions are:
what is your definition of personhood in this context?
Does human life, or, is a human being required to be a person first before it needs to be protected? Our Philippine Constitution does not make that distinction.
fully developed limbs and organs do not make a “person”.
Also, a pregnancy is considered term at 38-42weeks age of gestation. The age of viability (the fetus can survive outside the uterus with intensive care if facilities are available) is 20 weeks (midway through the pregnancy).
May i warn you that your line of thinking of a “fetus, for the first 2/3 of pregnancy is a parasite” is very dangerous. i urge you to rethink your stance.
With your definition, we will inevitably see the legalization of the morning after pill (which is designed to prevent implantation) and of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions (which is what we see in the US today). what will then be the distinction for the 3rd trimester?
let us remember that life is life, whether at fertilization, implantation, fetal growth, or at birth.
our mothers did not consider us as parasites in their wombs. we were their children.
@Bem
in order to understand the stand of the Church regarding condoms, we must first try to understand how Christianity views the sexual act. in fact, it has nothing to do with artificiality.
This is what I know. (I AM NOT AN EXPERT). Christianity views the sexual act as the most beautiful expression of love, of mutual self-giving, in the context of marriage. The intrinsic nature (based on the Natural Law) of the sexual act is for procreation (what for does a man ejaculate but to fertilize an ovum, whether or not the female is ovulating?) and for its unitive purposes in marriage to strengthen its bonds.In its fullest expression, there is love, mutual respect, responsibility, and the openness to life in the sexual act. For Christians, this unitive (fidelity) and procreative (fecundity) aspects cannot be separated. Imagine the implications if these become separate.
(Actually, we don’t need to imagine.)
The use of condoms and other contraceptives separates the unitive and procreative nature of the sexual act.
This is a belief, that, while many may disagree, MUST, at the very least, be RESPECTED, in the same way that we respect our INC brothers who don’t eat blood, our our Jehova’s Witness brothers who refuse to receive blood tranfusions, our our Muslim brothers who don’t eat pork.
We must respect their beliefs.
February 4th, 2010 17:45
@Aben
So you agree with me that condoms are not abortifacient and it does not kill life (well if you have a creative mind you might come up with one : )). But from the way you explained it (in a limited capacity as you have claimed) the catholic church seemed to have put it under the same category as the other methods of contraception in question. It falls under the same degree of morality. That using condoms is more immoral that stealing. Would you agree that the church miscategorized it?
February 5th, 2010 00:22
@Bem
technically, all fall under the category of contraception (condoms, iuds, pills, diaphragms, spermicides) because they prevent fertilization per se.
Condoms do not kill life. However, it makes the sexual act UNOPEN to life.
the danger with IUDS and Pills is that they have a secondary mechanism of action which prevents implantation when breakthrough ovulation and eventual fertilization occurs.
again, may i reiterate the confusion with the so called “ranking” or “hierarchy” of sin/immoral act.
mr carandang is implying, in his own words, that the church deems it “more immoral” to use condoms than stealing. without the benefit of a transcript which mr carandang has failed to provide us, we do not really know what fr. melvin said. his blog post is his interpretation of what fr. melvin said, carrying in himself his own personal biases.
If the church actually had a ranking system and made stealing more immoral than contraceptive use, what do we hope/expect to happen? will it even change the current corruption situation? i highly doubt it. it would depend on people like you and me to march to EDSA, to file criminal charges, to not vote for these people in the next elections, etc.
i think many of us are being sucked into the “blame the Catholic Church for being so backward and moralistic” mentality.
we must try to educate ourselves and understand why the church believes as such before we pass any judgment. and respect where the church stands.
this is just my opinion, but i think the reason the church doesn’t seem to be as vocal with corruption compared to contraception is that we already know that corruption is immoral. It’s already up to us to act on this knowledge and stop corruption because, really, what can the church concretely do to stop corruption? File corruption charges? Arrest corrupt officials? They are not supposed to “meddle”, right? That is our job already as tax-paying citizens of this nation.
I think (again this is my opinion) that the church is MORE VOCAL (but not necessarily ranking immoral acts) regarding contraceptive use is because there is a lot of confusion regarding the matter. With this confusion, the church is only making a stand on the issue based on its teachings which i previously mentioned.
February 5th, 2010 07:56
@aben cruz
“Condoms do not kill life. However, it makes the sexual act UNOPEN to life.”
What about masturbation?
February 5th, 2010 08:28
Okkay, I think I was unclear on that last question, and it may have sounded snarky.
To elaborate: What about in cases where the male experiences an ejaculation outside of the act of sex, such as during masturbation, or during nocturnal emissions (aka Wet Dreams)?
Furthermore, I do have a problem with one of your statements:
“Condoms do not kill life. However, it makes the sexual act UNOPEN to life.”
What about in cases of rape?
regardless of what the church says, I doubt the victim in this case ever wanted to participate in the “procreation” of life.
February 5th, 2010 09:06
Dear Mr. Carandang,
May you kindly help us in getting the following petition known in your website:
Dear Friends & All:
Please visit
http://www.gopetition.com/online/33104.html
To sign an online petition that will be sent to
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Respectfully Urging for Reform to the Labor Practices of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the employment of priests, religious and church workers
Petition as follows:
We the undersigned respectfully urge His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
To reform the labor practices of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the employment of priests, religious and church workers who must be provided coverage of Social Security, Medicare, Disability and other safety nets like reasonable job accommodation during period of disability. The Church, as an employer must conform to U.S. labor laws that protect workers from exploitation.
We urge His Holiness to assure that Overseas Foreign Workers (OFWs) be treated with respect as to their civil rights and not be subjected to oppressive working environment like unreasonable work schedule, denial of access to their salary, passports, entry permits and other personal belongings, as well as limitation in reasonable personal contact with the outside world.
We urge His Holiness to immediately address the situation surrounding the termination of the health insurance, homelessness and other labor issues of Rev.Eusebio Maghari, formerly of New York Archdiocese. Kindly alleviate the suffering of Rev. Maghari and other similarly situated individuals.
We urge His Holiness to review the circumstances surrounding the past employment of BLB, a Filipina OFW in the Saipan Diocese with the purpose of preventing such incident from happening again to other similarly situated individuals.
We the undersigned not only appeal to His Holiness sense of Justice and Charity, but more important we urge the Roman Catholic Church to practice what it preaches in terms of respect for human rights and concern for social justice.
We urge His Holiness to listen to our plea and recognize the truth in our petition
Believing that our cause is just and rooted on conscience, we hereby sign this petition in solidarity based on the circumstances that are known to us without any malice on our part
(THE UNDERSIGNED)
‘Ecclesia Semper Reformanda’ (The Church Must Always Be Reformed)
To sign the petition please visit:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/33104.html
Background (Preamble) #1:
Rev. EUSEBIO Pablito Maghari, a 59-year-old Filipino assistant priest at St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church in Staten Island, New York who was on his way to incardination was ordered out of the rectory on the first day of December by the NY Archdiocese and told to go back to the Philippines after becoming ill last September from acute kidney disease requiring dialysis treatment three times a week.
Although his doctors attested that Rev. Maghari remains able to work, he was stripped of his salary, health insurance and the authority to say mass and administer the sacraments by the NY Archdiocese after he refused to go back to the Philippines . A green card holder, Rev. Maghari was invited to join the NY Archdiocese to relieve the shortage of priests, but must now rely on Medicaid for his medical needs.
Rev. Maghari, a priest for thirty four years, has been a diabetic for seventeen years and said that without kidney transplant sending him back to the Philippines is like a death sentence since dialysis cost more than $1,000 a week. Currently homeless, after six years of service in NY Archdiocese his health insurance coverage expires after December 31
Joseph Zwilling, the spokesman for the NY Archdiocese told reporters that the archdiocese can no longer be responsible for the ailing priest and the responsibility falls on the bishop in the Philippines to care for Rev. Maghari. Mr. Zwilling stated that the determination was made having reviewed Rev. Maghari’s medical records and the parish situation.
Sources of information:
http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1261142114311920.xml&coll=1
Ailing priest rises above his plight
By DEBORAH YOUNG
STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE 12/18/2009
http://www.philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5996&catId=1
NY Archdiocese kicks ailing priest out of rectory, told to go back to the Philippines by: by Lenn Almadin-Thornhill 12/11/2009
Sick priest to stay here for treatment
By EDMUND M. SILVESTRE
Filipino Reporter 12/11/2009
http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2009/12/hoping_to_reverse_his_dismissa.html
Hoping to reverse his dismissal, parishioners rally around ill Staten Island priest
By Deborah E. Young 12/7/2009
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/parishioners_support_ailing_st.html
Parishioners support ailing Staten Island priest
By Staten Island Advance 12/6/2009
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_ local/… from_post. html
Ailing priest removed from Staten Island parish
BY Christina Boyle cboyle@nydailynews. Com 12/4/2009
http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2009/12/archdiocese_washes_its_hands_o.html
Archdiocese washes its hands of ailing Staten Island priest
By Tom Wrobleski 12/3/2009
http://gothamist.com/2009/12/04/archdiocese_boots_si_priest_because.php
Archdiocese Boots S.I. Priest Because He Needs Dialysis
Background (Preamble) #2:
Statement by Maria E. Embry of Antioch California dated 12/28/2009 as follows:
On March 23, 2009 I was assisting a family from Lagawe, Ifugao, Philippines in locating BLB, a female OFW employed by Father J.R. in Saipan because of the deteriorating condition of V.B.B., her 100 year old U.S. WW11 veteran father, who kept on asking to see her before he dies. Additionally, BLB’s son was also ill. After I was able to locate BLB on March 28 thru the Saipan Philippine Consulate, she informed me that Father J.R. would not allow her to leave until the end of April. The Consulate kindly accommodated BLB on April 19, a Sunday, her only day off from work to file a complaint against Father J.R. for her unpaid six months salary.
On April 20 V.B.B. died and my telephone contact with BLB was disconnected after she told me that Father J.R. took her passport and entry permit. My contact with BLB was only resumed thru the intervention of the Consulate and Bishop Tomas Camacho of Marianas Island Diocese, who also informed me that Father J.R. would be paying BLB’s salary. BLB arrived in Ifugao on the day of her father’s funeral. Ret. Col.R.M. of Arizona , Mr. P.Y. of Colorado and other individuals also assisted BLB.
The Philippine Consulate sent me the following e-mails regarding this matter
WDLM-044-2009 3/29/2009
WDLM-064-2009 4/16/2009
WDLM 067-2009 4/21/2009
WDLM-068-2009 4/22/2009
WDLM-070-2009 4/22/2009
Sincerely,
Maria Elizabeth Embry
Antioch California
February 5th, 2010 12:41
@Twin-skies
i urge you to do your research on these questions and seek reputable sources (cathechism of the catholic church, etc.). as i mentioned, i am not an expert on these matters.
i hope your journey will be enlightening. please be open.
February 5th, 2010 12:42
addendum:
the CCC (cathechism of the catholic church) is a public document which you can easily obtain.
February 5th, 2010 13:07
@aben
When a rape victim in Brazil had to undergo an abortion because the fetus she was carrying was threatening her life, the Vatican did not waste any time excommunicating the doctors and medical staff who decided were part of the operation.
They argued that they should have attempted to save the baby, nevermind if the birth killed the mother
She was nine years old.
The church did not dispense any similar condemnation for her rapist stepfather, and neither was he excommunicated.
February 5th, 2010 13:08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm
February 5th, 2010 14:22
@Twin-Skies
I heard of the story as this was reported in CNN, and I think that the mother was also excommunicated.
The reason why the Church never excommunicated the rapist stepfather was because according to them: “abortion was a greater crime than rape”.
That didn’t impress a lot of people. Neither was the president of Brazil.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/
February 5th, 2010 14:33
[quote]Flabbergasted, I asked if they were saying it was alright to vote for a crook as long as he doesn’t advocate modern family planning. His roundabout answer,—as I understand it is …in so many words–yes.[/quote]
Your question was quite misleading. And the priest was so evasive rather than confronting your question head on.
First, the Church does not encourage to vote the crooks so long as they do not promote the RH bill.
Second, the Church distinguishes the public sin from provate sin.
Promoting the RH bill is considered as a public sin in the sense that politicians are publicly gathering support for its passage.
Plunder and thievery on the other hand are private sins in the sense that no politician ever claim publicly that he/she has stolen from the public coffer.
The Church cannot publicly condemn a sinner who committed private offense in the same breath that the government cannot execute the accused based solely on suspicion.
In fact, the advocacy of the Church is no different from the advocacy of the, let us say, VACC who lobby publicly for death penalty.
In regard to excommunication, such is applicable only for public offenses such as teaching and promoting heresy.
February 5th, 2010 16:59
Ricky,
SS kasi yung blog post mo e. just look at the avatar comment. Hay, journalists. will do anything to get a scoop.
February 5th, 2010 17:32
THE RH BILL IS A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUE.
It is useless to discuss this with a person who brings out the “when does life begin” BS card. That discussion will go nowhere. The start of life is subjective and trivial.
Bottomline, the Church is full of horse shit. Where in the bible does it say that contraception, sex ed and morning after pills are immoral? The last time I checked the Onan Genesis story is about Onan not following a blanket command by god to impregnate this chick thats why god killed him, not because he spilled his semen.
February 5th, 2010 23:41
There is a huge range of “corruption”. Some examples: buying pirated movies and software, using a company or government computer for personal tasks, leaving work early, hiring a cousin or brother, etc. Clearly theses examples of corruption do not equal supporting the RH bill, assuming one agrees with the Church’s position. Given the huge range of corruption among public officials, asking the theoretically question about which is worse is pointless. It is a “gotcha question”. It is not a helpful at all in exploring the “lesser of two evils” question. Indeed, the Church can never officially take the position that it is OK to vote for the lesser of two evils.
February 5th, 2010 23:59
Reading over the comments I think that Ricky Carandang is playing a game of “gotcha”. He is trying to force Fr. Castro to choose between the lesser of two evils and Fr. Castro has rightly tried to duck the issue.
The “lesser of two evils” question is a very important one, especially for voters, and can never be adequately answered, especially hypothetically with so few details as Fr. Castro was given. How “big” is the corruption? How strong the support for contraception? How likely is the bill to pass? Whom are the other candidates? Etc. Without these details there can be no adequate discussion of which candidate is the lesser evil. Fr. Castro was right to avoid answering the question directly.
February 6th, 2010 15:09
Well, Melvin Castro did answer the question in this comments section, and the second answer was no better than Ricky’s interpretation of his first answer.
Basically he’s arbitrarily redefining “corrupt” to include any congressman who supports the RH bill. That’s kind of dishonest, and it demonstrates the kind of twisted logic the Catholic Church uses to justify an unjustifiable position.
February 6th, 2010 23:48
@Aben
Doesn’t the standard days, two day, billings, basal body temperature, symptothermal and the lactational amenorrhea methods, all of w/c is endorsed by the catholic church, separates the unitive and procreative nature of the sexual act? All of this methods, when applied by a couple, has the intention to avoid procreation don’t you think? That means there is separation of the unitive and procreative aspects. I don’t see any difference here if you compare with the use of contraceptive devices except its artificiality.
I recently asked a priest about the hierarchical structure of immoral acts (sins). He confirmed that there is, that’s why heavier penance is given to heavier sins and vice versa. That’s why there’s mortal and venial sins as you have mentioned. Don’t take my word for it, ask your parish priest.
I respect your belief, its just that I often see inconsistencies. And the funny thing is, the priest I talked, he sees it too.
February 7th, 2010 03:20
I don’t know what to say about this topic anymore, most of you have already taken the words out of my mouth regarding this matter.
Mystery of faith here, mystery of faith there.
I’ve long lost my believe in the Catholic Church, but not my believe in God.
These self contradicting statements from the Catholic Church make me feel very disappointed.
February 7th, 2010 13:09
A bit off-topic, but I was wondering about this fact?
If they church is so against contraceptive pills in the guise that it’ll promote more promiscuity, shouldn’t they also be going after viagra pills?
They don’t seem to be quite as vocal on that matter
February 8th, 2010 22:37
Whoa! What is sad is that our priests are trying to muddle up issues that are purely political. I think that the Church had gone overboard (overacting) on the RH Bill issue. The Priests may advocate natural method of family planning if they wish to, but never influence the choice of the people to use other means as couples see fit. Freedom of choice is a fundamental right of every individual guaranteed by our constitution, free from any restaint or influence.
February 9th, 2010 10:03
There is nothing wrong with using viagra pills per se. I don’t think the issue here is about sex in general, and the long-held view that the church is against sex and that sex is immoral is not true. The church believes that sex is sacred, actually, but always within the confines of marriage.
I’ve always found that the church’s position on various issues can be defended on reasonable grounds. The pope’s address in Regensburg, which drew a lot of criticism a while back, is all about the interplay between faith and reason and how faith devoid of reason is dangerous and can lead to severe consequences (suicide bombings, etc.) Before we dismiss the church’s views prematurely because we think the church hierarchy is simply a group of medieval prudes trying to unreasonably force down obsolete and incompatible ideas down our throats, let’s all take a step back and try to look at things from their vantage point for once. You might be surprised at what you’ll find out.
Regarding the use of condoms, aside from the church’s views on sex as being procreative and unitive and how condoms pose the risk of separating these two aspects of the sexual act (this was already articulated by aben), the church is also speaking out on the social repercussions of contraceptive use. There is a correlation between increasing the use of contraceptives and an increase in abortion, precisely because condom use leads one to believe that sex is without strings attached (the chance of pregnancy), which increases the probability of sex outside of marriage (which almost always involves two people wanting sex but without kids… that’s for married people!). when “accidents” do happen, and they DO happen because condoms aren’t 100% foolproof… abortion is almost always considered in order to rectify the situation. And we all know the church’s stance on abortion, how abortion is murder, etc etc.
I do concede that individual church leaders do make mistakes at times, and serious ones at that. The Brazil case is one. In fact, a lot of other church leaders have even decried what happened and said that the bishop was not exercising prudence in handling the matter. Where the church sometimes fails is when we’re talking about how the issues are handled on a pastoral level. More care and concern should be exercised in this regard.
February 9th, 2010 14:38
I am not surprised why we cannot move forward as a nation because majority of us, Filipino, still do not use our common sense and conscience when it comes to religion. I have to quote the statement of Noynoy Aquino when asked by Che Che Lazaro in PROFILES about his stand in RH issue and if he is not afraid of the wrath of the Catholic Church. Noynoy succinctly replied, “turo sa’kin ng simbahan ko eh sundin and konsensya ko.”
To us all, we don’t have to be surprise why our nation is marred by corruption and immorality because even the Church has no moral ground to secern on what is right from wrong, good from evil.
We have to note that it was no less than Jose Rizal who evinced the crimes committed by the Church when he published Noli and Fili. And several years later, the Church excommunicated the great Senator Claro M. Recto when he passed a law making Noli and Fili a mandatory reading in our schools.
In sum, we should use our common sense and conscience whom we vote for this election and not from the unreasonable and immoral principle espoused by the CBCP.
February 9th, 2010 14:39
I am not surprised why we cannot move forward as a nation because majority of us, Filipino, still do not use our common sense and conscience when it comes to religion. I have to quote the statement of Noynoy Aquino when asked by Che Che Lazaro in PROFILES about his stand in RH issue and if he is not afraid of the wrath of the Catholic Church. Noynoy succinctly replied, “turo sa’kin ng simbahan ko eh sundin and konsensya ko.”
To us all, we don’t have to be surprise why our nation is marred by corruption and immorality because even the Church has no moral ground to secern on what is right from wrong, good from evil.
We have to note that it was no less than Jose Rizal who evinced the crimes committed by the Church when he published Noli and Fili. And several years later, the Church excommunicated the great Senator Claro M. Recto when he passed a law making Noli and Fili a mandatory reading in our schools.
In sum, we should use our common sense and conscience whom we vote for this election and not from the unreasonable and immoral principle espoused by the CBCP.
Thanks Ricky for this audacious article. More power!
February 9th, 2010 14:49
For Bruce in Iloilo
you said, “Church can never officially take the position that it is OK to vote for the lesser of two evils.”
Several years back, the late Jaime Cardinal Sin declared “I will use Satan’s money for the poor…” Compromising was never been a Christian values. Even Christ was offered by Satan everything but he choose nothing.
Thanks. Peace!
February 10th, 2010 08:29
Just a suggestion, maybe people from catholic church should be a little bit careful with what they are trying to say, they should remember that what they are saying represents the whole catholic church and not only for the sake of a persons opinion.
February 11th, 2010 09:55
There is nothing wrong with using viagra pills per se. I don’t think the issue here is about sex in general, and the long-held view that the church is against sex and that sex is immoral is not true. The church believes that sex is sacred, actually, but always within the confines of marriage.
I’ve always found that the church’s position on various issues can be defended on reasonable grounds. The pope’s address in Regensburg, which drew a lot of criticism a while back, is all about the interplay between faith and reason and how faith devoid of reason is dangerous and can lead to severe consequences (suicide bombings, etc.) Before we dismiss the church’s views prematurely because we think the church hierarchy is simply a group of medieval prudes trying to unreasonably force down obsolete and incompatible ideas down our throats, let’s all take a step back and try to look at things from their vantage point for once. You might be surprised at what you’ll find out.
Regarding the use of condoms, aside from the church’s views on sex as being procreative and unitive and how condoms pose the risk of separating these two aspects of the sexual act (this was already articulated by aben), the church is also speaking out on the social repercussions of contraceptive use. There is a correlation between increasing the use of contraceptives and an increase in abortion, precisely because condom use leads one to believe that sex is without strings attached (the chance of pregnancy), which increases the probability of sex outside of marriage (which almost always involves two people wanting sex but without kids… that’s for married people!). when “accidents” do happen, and they DO happen because condoms aren’t 100% foolproof… abortion is almost always considered in order to rectify the situation. And we all know the church’s stance on abortion, how abortion is murder, etc etc.
I do concede that individual church leaders do make mistakes at times, and serious ones at that. The Brazil case is one. In fact, a lot of other church leaders have even decried what happened and said that the bishop was not exercising prudence in handling the matter. Where the church sometimes fails is when we’re talking about how the issues are handled on a pastoral level. More care and concern should be exercised in this regard.
February 24th, 2010 23:42
Wow, that really shut Aben, et al up.
Hey Aben, what say you?
February 25th, 2010 00:35
@ Mon, Mon, Mon. First:
Nevermind that a few priests and bishops disagree with the Brazil excommunication. What matters is that Church leadership has upheld it. Until this excommunication is reversed, this severe lack of prudence becomes more than “individual mistake,” but an institutional mistake — one that every member of the church is guilty of by sin of omission.
Second:
So your argument is that condoms lead a belief that “sex is without strings attached,” which leads to wanting more sex, which leads to an increase in premarital sex, which leads to an increase of unwanted pregnancies, which leads to an increase in abortions?
LOGICAL FALLACY FAIL! Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
February 28th, 2010 14:06
whoa. i didn’t know that the discussion here has gone long. i really like the how aben cruz has tried to argue his defense for the Catholic Church’s stand. but i think he lost it along the way, and started arguing about when life begins.
“We all have our own belief systems. They may be theistic, atheistic, agnostic, objectivist, humanist, etc. The law should protect and respect our rights to express these beliefs freely.”- aben cruz
if so, then being anti-RH bill does not protect the right of those who are non-Catholics to practice the kind of family planning they want and need.
you don’t see INC people urging the government to stop providing pork blood to every Filipino regardless of religion, right?
i don’t see anything wrong about the Church promoting NFP. but if non-believers want contraceptives available to them, shouldn’t the government support and provide for that, in the spirit of equality and respect for all religions and non-believers?
March 14th, 2010 16:32
Dear jester-in-exile,
first off, i would like to say that i admire your blog and salute it. you’re a law student, right? i agree with you on alex lacson, i’d like to see him on our roster of senators also. but regarding the reproductive health bill and avatar, i’d just like to make my own comments on those cases.
don’t worry this is not a long apologia on the catholic church’s side and position on the matter. but anyway, with all due respect, i’d just like to say something.
i wish people wouldn’t write off the Catholic Church so quickly when it talks about the reproductive health bill. malay mo, the Church officials might turn out to be on to something there and might not really be the big simpletons they seem to be. they might actually have a point and the best interests of society in mind. the RH bill affects women initially and first and foremost, doesn’t it? a society ought to know how to treat its members rightly, and that includes women. and this treatment ought to be in line with natural law, and the church’s position on the matter just might be the only one out there that’s right in line with that. this may sound corny but the morality of the Catholic Church is just simply, LOVE. its decisions and guidelines merely quite simply emanate from the centrality of this tenet. Love and natural law may sound like they have nothing to do with the RH Bill, but if you take a closer look you might find that maybe it does, maybe it really does.
regarding avatar, i don’t recall the Church prohibiting people from watching it. i know that the Church was just precautioning people from confusing nature with God, or the relationship with something created and the Creator. i haven’t watched the movie yet and i am Catholic and do intend to watch it in the future and i have learned of the Church’s mild precaution. however, i do not look to either the Church or avatar with an evil eye, for what they said was merely a parental reminder or a friendly reminder, whatever…point is, it was just a reminder to not lose your proper bearings, period. that was all.
on this note, i’d like to say that i think i like your blog, and i hope you’ll blog more. thank you and take care!
March 14th, 2010 18:15
whoops, sorry! i thought this was still the blog of the jester in exile. not pala…my bad. =) my apologies.
April 7th, 2010 06:20
hm… last time i saw Fr melvin was during my classmate’s ordination… got the point there in the article… well as we all know, catholic faith is based on traditions as well equated with the doctrines… however, there are points given that i may beg to disagree. am not sure if he was just caught up in a tight situation when he answered Yes and vote for a criminal as long as he does not advocate modern family planning. as a rational entity, we are entitled to judge an action as right and wrong. same with morality. some acts may be morally upright to a group of individuals, but to some they are socially and morally deviant. Personal FAITH should not just be based on what is socially acceptable or not; nor with what “his or her church” is dictating. am not saying that what “OUR CHURCH” advocates is wrong or not. for me as long as i live my life in accordance to the life of Jesus, a sinner i may be, i should be using my God given reason to comprehend what is right and what is wrong not just for myself but for the greater good of the majority.
April 10th, 2010 00:11
I am a devote Catholic as most Filipinos are. The Church however must understand their role in the society. One thing great about the Catholic Church is that, its continually evolving to what the current times is demanding.
The Catholic Church should respect the Laws of our Government leaders are making as long as the laws made are made with the concept that it will benefit the country as a whole.
The Catholic Church should leave the sermon in the Church. It is true that the Church has a lot of influence on us Filipinos and the Catholic Church should continue to influence filipinos still on morality in the confines of the Church.
April 10th, 2010 18:35
It’s just sad to see many Catholics react on this matter. This just proves how little faith we have these days. Leaving the sermon inside the Church is ridiculous. It is just like saying that leave inside the Church what you hear and see inside the Church. Better yet say “I am a different person when I am inside and when I am outside the Church” or “I am a different person on a Sunday than I am on any other day of the week”.
If you despise your parents move out of the house. If you despise your Bishops get out of the Church and move to another one. These are the times when people put up another church just because they hate the teachings of the Church (take note of the capitalization).
Promoting contraceptives is like promoting immoral sex and saying “go out and fornicate” which violates the Church’s teachings.
We should be thankful that our country has still its conscience which is the Church. Don’t blame the Church for holding back the country’s development.
April 21st, 2010 03:52
The best politician who’s running for a Presidente must be a PRO-GOD, PRO-LIFE & PRO-PEOPLE. Those 3 consists of the following: corruption, liar, greediness, lust, murderer, etc. or else the new Presindent will be the new anti-Christ or evil.
That family planning or the Reproductive Health Bill should not be approved or else there will be a “free sex” from 10 yrs old and above and soon the approval of ABORTION.