And that's the truth: Is the SC decision on RH a win-win thing?

Monday, April 14, 2014

Is the SC decision on RH a win-win thing?

Lest anyone think the “RH war” is over, dig deep behind the headlines for the truth that will keep us pro-lifers vigilant.

The news give the impression that pro-RH camp has won—what with purple clad advocates on a major daily’s front page already looking triumphant on the day the Supreme Court (SC) was yet to deliberate on the matter, and again advocates in Senate dressed in purple later giving victory interviews on television and congratulating the SC for its decision! Of course, that is how the spin-doctors of the RH Machinery would have the public believe: that pro-RH has won and pro-life has lost.

But wait—prolife advocates are also saying the SC decision is a victory for prolife as well because the SC struck out provisions which in the first place we were all objecting to. But the “red army” is hardly given as much space in mainstream media as the “purple army”, thus, people who just see the headlines or watch tv news would tend to believe RH indeed won.

Then there’s the voluble Senadora Miriam issuing a statement and appearing on tv saying the SC decision is a “triumph of reason over superstition” and unwittingly contradicting herself by insisting on a “motion for reconsideration on the eight provisions of the RH law which were struck down”.

There is yet another cause for rejoicing by pro-lifers—the SC decision of April 8, 2014 in the consolidated cases of James Imbong et al vs. Hon. Ochoa, et al, where the Supreme Court categorically pronounces that “the moment of conception is reckoned from fertilization.”

In Decision, pp 47-48, the Supreme Court states: “In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.

“The Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object—it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.”

To arrive at this decision, the Court relied on the long-established standard medical authority—the second edition of Human Embryology & Teratology, by Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

The Court further says, “Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.”

Now, why is this particular decision not in the news? If Hon. Lagman and company have a strong conviction that life begins at implantation, shouldn’t they now be making noise in media about what is stated on pp. 47-48 of the Decision? Scour the dailies, the tv channels, even Google and other search engines, and you won’t find a single news item on that war-changing matter. It spells a huge defeat for RH advocates because then it would render illegal all contraceptives that prevent implantation, because they would be exposed for what they are: abortifacients.

Quite logically, RH supporters wouldn’t want that publicized, to keep the public (especially women and girls) ignorant, so that in the implementation of the RH law the population controllers could still do as they want. And they intend to do that. After all, they still have their ace card—sex education—to push their agenda; it’s their main avenue now towards poisoning the minds of the young.

Physician Dr. Miriam Grossman in her book You're Teaching My Child What? exposes today’s sex education programs as being based “not on science but on liberal lies and politically correct propaganda that promote the illusion that children can be sexually free without risk.” A blurb about the book says: As a psychiatrist and expert on sexual education, Dr. Grossman cites example after example of schools and organizations whitewashing —or omitting altogether —crucial information that doesn't fit in with their population control agenda. Instead, sex educators only tell teens the “facts of life” that promote acceptance, sexual exploration, and experimentation. What sex educators call an education, scientists would call a scam. Sex educators won’t tell girls their bodies are biologically and chemically more susceptible to STDs; they will only say 3 million girls have a sexually transmitted infection. Educators say it’s natural for children to “explore” their sexuality from a young age and only they can decide when it’s right to have sex—the real truth is neurobiologists say teen brains are not developed to fully reason and weigh consequences, especially in “the heat of the moment”. Teens are told condoms, vaccines and yearly testing provide adequate protection, without being told that studies now show condoms are no match for herpes, HPV and gonorrhea.

See, the war isn’t over. Only the battleground has changed. And that’s the truth.

What the Church has given the world

Introduction

At a recent debate, broadcast worldwide by the BBC, over 87 per cent of the audience rejected the notion that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. Although the defenders of the Church were confronted by two masters of rhetoric, there is little doubt that the vote reflected a shift in attitudes towards Christianity in general and the Catholic faith in particular. To put this shift in blunt terms, whereas we were regarded recently as nice but naïve, today we are increasingly regarded as evil. As a result, teaching the faith and defending Christian ethics has become much more difficult.

To address this challenge at its root, I believe it is vital that we remind ourselves of the extent to which the Catholic faith is a force for good in the world. Jesus said: “You will know them by their fruits,” and even some outside the Church appreciate her fruitfulness. In 2007, for example, an atheist businessman, Robert Wilson, gave $22.5 million (£13.5 million) to Catholic education in New York, arguing that, “without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no western civilisation.”

Inspired by Wilson’s insight, I have been working recently with Fr Marcus Holden, parish priest of Ramsgate and a tutor at Maryvale, to collate the extraordinary contributions of Catholic culture and Catholic minds. The following sections provide some samples of this work, which should be invaluable to anyone who is faced with the question: “What has the Church ever done for us?”

For a more complete account of the fruitfulness of the Catholic faith in these and many other fields, see Lumen: The Catholic Gift to Civilisation, published January 2011 by the Catholic Truth Society.

Fr Andrew Pinsent is a priest of the diocese of Arundel and Brighton and Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University. He was formerly a particle physicist at CERN. He is co-founder, with Fr Marcus Holden, of the Evangelium Project, which is dedicated to improving the quality of Catholic education. See www.evangelium.co.uk.

1. Light and the cosmos

The Opus Maius (1267) of the Franciscan Roger Bacon (d 1292), written at the request of Pope Clement IV, largely initiated the tradition of optics in the Latin world. The first spectacles were invented in Italy around 1300, an application of lenses that developed later into telescopes and microscopes.

While many people think of Galileo (d 1642) being persecuted, they tend to forget the peculiar circumstances of these events, or the fact that he died in his bed and his daughter became a nun.

The Gregorian Calendar (1582), now used worldwide, is a fruit of work by Catholic astronomers, as is the development of astrophysics by the spectroscopy of Fr Angelo Secchi (d 1878).

Most remarkably, the most important theory of modern cosmology, the Big Bang, was invented by a Catholic priest, Fr Georges Lemaître (d 1966, pictured), a historical fact that is almost never mentioned by the BBC or in popular science books.

2. Earth and nature

Catholic civilisation has made a remarkable contribution to the scientific investigation and mapping of the earth, producing great explorers such as Marco Polo (d 1324), Prince Henry the Navigator (d 1460), Bartolomeu Dias (d 1500), Christopher Columbus (d 1506) and Ferdinand Magellan
(d 1521). Far from believing that the world was flat (a black legend invented in the 19th century), the Catholic world produced the first modern scientific map: Diogo Ribeiro’s Padrón Real (1527). Fr Nicolas Steno (d 1686) was the founder of stratigraphy, the interpretation of rock strata which is one of the principles of geology.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (d 1829), a French Catholic, developed the first theory of evolution, including the notion of the transmutation of species and a genealogical tree. The Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (d 1884, pictured) founded the science of genetics based on the meticulous study of the inherited characteristics of some 29,000 pea plants.

3. Philosophy and theology

Catholicism regards philosophy as intrinsically good and was largely responsible for founding theology, the application of reason to what has been revealed supernaturally. Great Catholic philosophers include St Augustine (d 430), St Thomas Aquinas (d 1274), St Anselm (d 1109), Blessed Duns Scotus (d 1308), Suárez (d 1617) and Blaise Pascal (d 1662). Recent figures include St Edith Stein (d 1942, pictured), Elizabeth Anscombe (d 2001) and Alasdair MacIntyre. On the basis that God is a God of reason and love, Catholics have defended the irreducibility of the human person to matter, the principle that created beings can be genuine causes of their own actions, free will, the role of the virtues in happiness, objective good and evil, natural law and the principle of non-contradiction. These principles have had an incalculable influence on intellectual life and culture.

4. Education and the university system

Perhaps the greatest single contribution to education to emerge from Catholic civilisation was the development of the university system. Early Catholic universities include Bologna (1088); Paris (c 1150); Oxford (1167, pictured); Salerno (1173); Vicenza (1204); Cambridge (1209); Salamanca (1218-1219); Padua (1222); Naples (1224) and Vercelli (1228). By the middle of the 15th-century (more than 70 years before the Reformation), there were over 50 universities in Europe.

Many of these universities, such as Oxford, still show signs of their Catholic foundation, such as quadrangles modelled on monastic cloisters, gothic architecture and numerous chapels. Starting from the sixth-century Catholic Europe also developed what were later called grammar schools and, in the 15th century, produced the movable type printing press system, with incalculable benefits for education. Today, it has been estimated that Church schools educate more than 50 million students worldwide.

5. Art and architecture

Faith in the Incarnation, the Word made Flesh and the Sacrifice of the Mass have been the founding principles of extraordinary Catholic contributions to art and architecture. These contributions include: the great basilicas of ancient Rome; the work of Giotto (d 1337), who initiated a realism in painting the Franciscan Stations of the Cross, which helped to inspire three-dimensional art and drama; the invention of one-point linear perspective by Brunelleschi (d 1446) and the great works of the High Renaissance. The latter include the works of Blessed Fra Angelico (d 1455), today the patron saint of art, and the unrivalled work of Leonardo da Vinci (d 1519), Raphael (d 1520), Caravaggio (d 1610, pictured), Michelangelo (d 1564) and Bernini (d 1680). Many of the works of these artists, such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling, are considered among the greatest works of art of all time. Catholic civilisation also founded entire genres, such as Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, High Renaissance and Baroque architecture. The Cristo Redentor statue in Brazil and the Sagrada Familia basilica in Barcelona show that the faith continues to be an inspiration for highly original art and architecture.

6. Law and jurisprudence

The reforms of Pope Gregory VII (d 1085, pictured) gave impetus to forming the laws of the Church and states of Europe. The subsequent application of philosophy to law, together with the great works of monks like the 12th-century Gratian, produced the first complete, systematic bodies of law, in which all parts are viewed as interacting to form a whole. This revolution also led to the founding of law schools, starting in Bologna (1088), from which the legal profession emerged, and concepts such as “corporate personality”, the legal basis of a wide range of bodies today such as universities, corporations and trust funds. Legal principles such as “good faith”, reciprocity of rights, equality before the law, international law, trial by jury, habeas corpus and the obligation to prove an offence beyond a reasonable doubt are all fruits of Catholic civilisation and jurisprudence.

7. Language

The centrality of Greek and Latin to Catholicism has greatly facilitated popular literacy, since true alphabets are far easier to learn than the symbols of logographic languages, such as Chinese. Spread by Catholic missions and exploration, the Latin alphabet is now the most widely used alphabetic writing system in the world. Catholics also developed the Armenian, Georgian and Cyrillic alphabets and standard scripts, such as Carolingian minuscule from the ninth to 12th centuries, and Gothic miniscule (from the 12th). Catholicism also provided the cultural framework for the Divina Commedia (Divine Comedy), the Cantar de Mio Cid (“The Song of my Lord”) and La Chanson de Roland (The Song of Roland), vernacular works that greatly influenced the development of Italian, Spanish and French respectively. The Catholic Hymn of Cædmon in the seventh century is arguably the oldest extant text of Old English. Valentin Haüy (d 1822), brother of the Abbé Haüy (the priest who invented crystallography), founded the first school for the blind. The most famous student of this school, Louis Braille (d 1852), developed the worldwide system of writing for the blind that today bears his name.

8. Music

Catholic civilisation virtually invented the western musical tradition, drawing on Jewish antecedents in early liturgical music. Monophonic Gregorian chant developed from the sixth century. Methods for recording chant led to the invention of musical notion (staff notation), of incalculable benefit for the recording of music, and the ut-re-mi (“do-re-mi”) mnemonic device of Guido of Arezzo (d 1003). From the 10th century cathedral schools developed polyphonic music, extended later to as many as 40 voices (Tallis, Spem in Alium) and even 60 voices (Striggio, Missa Sopra Ecco).

Musical genres that largely or wholly originated with Catholic civilisation include the hymn, the oratorio and the opera. Haydn (d 1809), a devout Catholic, strongly shaped the development of the symphony and string quartet. Church patronage and liturgical forms shaped many works by Monteverdi (d 1643), Vivaldi (d 1741), Mozart (d 1791, pictured) and Beethoven (d 1827). The great Symphony No 8 of Mahler (d 1911) takes as its principal theme the ancient hymn of Pentecost, Veni creator spiritus.

9. The status of women

Contrary to popular prejudice, extraordinary and influential women have been one of the hallmarks of Catholic civilisation. The faith has honoured many women saints, including recent Doctors of the Church, and nurtured great nuns, such as St Hilda (d 680, pictured) (after whom St Hilda’s College, Oxford, is named) and Blessed Hildegard von Bingen (d 1179), abbess and polymath. Pioneering Catholic women in political life include Empress Matilda (d 1167), Eleanor of Aquitaine (d 1204) and the first Queen of England, Mary Tudor (d 1558).

Catholic civilisation also produced many of the first women scientists and professors: Trotula of Salerno in the 11th century, Dorotea Bucca (d 1436), who held a chair in medicine at the University of Bologna, Elena Lucrezia Piscopia (d 1684), the first woman to receive a Doctor of Philosophy degree (1678) and Maria Agnesi (d 1799), the first woman to become professor of mathematics, who was appointed by Pope Benedict XIV as early as 1750.

Thanks to The Catholic Herald for this eye opening article by Fr. Andrew Pinsent.

Questions & Answers about RH Bill 4244

Question 1. We have no time to read and understand the RH Bill, but we have seen the debates on TV. What is so controversial about that RH Bill anyway?

Answer: This is the Reproductive Health Bill 4244 which is based on the premise that the population of the Philippines is the cause of the country’s poverty. The Philippines has been suffering from foreign-imposed depopulation laws since the passage of the Population Act of 1971 (RA 6365, which established a population control policy and created the Population Commission or PopCom, was passed on August 15, 1971). Three months after the declaration of martial law, Marcos reinforced this with PD 79, dated December 8, 1972. The Marcos Constitution of 1973 mandated population targets: “It shall be the responsibility of the State to achieve and maintain population levels conducive to the national welfare.” (Article XV, Section 10). With the issuance of the United States’ National Security Study Memorandum200 ( NSSM 200) in 1975, US foreign policy aligned with the United Nations goal of reducing global population through contraception and abortion. It was after the Fifth International Conference on Population and Development held in 1994 in Cairo and the Fourth International Conference on Women (held in 1995 in Beijing)—both held under the auspices of the United Nations—that population bills began to appear in the Philippine Congress, starting with House Bills 120, 2136, 2519 in 1995; and Senate Bill 554 in 1996. The foreign-funded Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was the catalyst that was masterminding the “PopBills”. Later on, they shifted to "P-R-E" Bills, and now RH Bill. From the 9th Congress to the present 15th, different variations of this same bill under various numbers have been filed. None have been approved so far.

Question 2: Why hasn’t it been passed when its proponents swear it is a good bill?

Answer: If it were such a good bill, it would have been made into law a long time ago. The title itself is a deception: it is not “reproductive” because the aim is to prevent reproduction, and it is not “healthy”, because the side effects of birth control devices cause undue harm to women's health. There are so many things in the RH Bill that Congressmen have objected to, foremost of which is the bill’s insistence on making population control the solution to poverty. The RH Bill wants government to provide the poor with medicines, facilities, devices and services that prevent pregnancy (like birth control pills, condoms, IUD, injectables, etc.) to reduce births. Sec. 10 of the bill states that these “family planning supplies… be included in the regular purchase of all essential medicines of national and local hospitals and other government health units.” The proponents classify these as “essential medicines” as though pregnancy and birth were a diseases to be prevented. This reveals their bias against human life. Anti-RH Congressmen insist it is wrong to imperil the health of mothers and women by giving them such products and services which medical studies the world over have proven to be injurious to the women’s health. And yet, RH Bill asks for a budget of 13.7 billion pesos from the government coffers. An RH Law allows big pharma to capitalize on the human sex drive or libido for the promotion and sale of birth control drugs and devices. Young people are not spared from their sales. In fact, it is they who are the target market. Ultimately, it is big pharmaceutical companies and their collaborators who will rake in huge profits, since purchase of their products will be mandated by law. It is a misappropriation of billions of pesos of taxpayers’ money that should instead be spent on schools and classrooms, roads, deep well facilities, hospitals, and livelihood projects for the unemployed and marginalized.

Question 3: Is it true that under the RH Bill, even Grade V children will be given sex education?

Answer: True. It is stated in Sec. 16: Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education. All students from Grade V to 4^th Year high school will go through “sexuality education” where they will be taught family planning methods that include the use of contraceptives (like condoms and pills) and what it calls “safe sex” which is sexual intercourse that does not lead to pregnancy or STD (sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS). An RH law will make Filipino schoolchildren a captive market for advertising birth control products. This is a serious subversion of the fundamental and constitutional principle that parents are the primary educators of their own children.

Question 4: Six years of sex education? Won’t there be exemptions to that? What if the parents do not want it for their children?

Answer: Yes, six years—for all schoolchildren without exception, and parents may not object. The RH Bill says the “reproductive health and sexuality education will be integrated in all relevant subjects….” such as Math, Physical Education, Social Studies, Values Education, and others. How can parents tell the school to exempt their children when it will not be an optional subject but will be integrated in other subjects for a full six years? Besides, Sec. 16 of the bill says this is “mandatory” and the “curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools”. This means all schools must comply with this requirement, even those operated by Muslims, Catholics, and other religions, whether or not parents approve of it.

Question 5: Six years is quite a long time, and for all schools! What effects will this kind of sex education have on the family?

Answer: This could lead to moral confusion and other damaging effects within families. Although the bill says teachers will be “adequately trained” for this, and that the contents will be age-appropriate, many parents are concerned that such sex education is systematically aimed to open young minds to eventually accept a “contraceptive mentality”. Parents who understand this provision of the bill believe it is wrong for the State to usurp their parental right and duty to teach their children according to their beliefs. They maintain that it is wrong for the government to go directly to the children and teach them about such delicate matters. According to our Constitution, the government should support—not replace or dictate upon—the family. What will happen if what is taught in the school contradicts what parents want their children to learn? Parents are not even consulted about the contents of this sex education program; instead they are patterned after those used in countries that have adopted the RH agenda. Parents are the best judges of their children’s maturity and emotional readiness for sex education. Parents also think the six-year sex education, begun at such an impressionable age, could introduce the children to dangerous concepts relating to their bodies. It may even spur sexual experimentation among the young sooner, especially as they would be learning about contraception and would have access to free medicines, devices and services that prevent pregnancy. Brainwashing our children to adopt an anti-birth mentality will result in an aging population in the near future, with a shrinking workforce that is unable and unwilling to sustain the pensions of their elders.

Question 6: It seems wrong to impose the RH bill on the Filipino family, as it sidesteps our Constitution and makes us mere copycats of supposedly advanced nations.

Answer: Correct—the bill disregards Filipino values in favor of the practices in the countries that have subscribed to the so-called “reproductive health” principles. It wants to change our cultural landscape by starting with the nation’s very young citizens. And not only that—even adults and the working population will be affected, too, because: a) employers will be compelled to have facilities in their premises and to deliver “reproductive health services” to their employees, even if their conscience is against this; and b) health care service providers (such as doctors, nurses, midwives, etc.) are legally bound to be ready to dispense with contraceptives, or perform vasectomy or ligation against their religious beliefs. Once RH bill becomes a law, violators will be penalized. This clearly infringes on Art. III, Sec. 5 of our Constitution which says “…The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”

Question 7: How does the promotion of contraceptive pills violate the Constitution—won’t it help that these are to be given to the poor for free?

Answer: Birth control pills are not one hundred percent effective in preventing conception. Medical research has found that even when a woman takes them, fertilization can still happen, resulting in the conception of a new human being. When the reproductive environment in the woman’s system is disturbed, whether physically or chemically, abnormalities or even death of the unborn child can occur. One effect of the birth control pill is to make the womb incapable of receiving and nourishing the fertilized egg. If it is unable to implant itself in the mother’s womb, the newly conceived baby slides out and dies. This is what is called the “abortifacient effect” of contraceptive pills—it is, in fact, chemical abortion. Chemical and all forms of abortion are clear violations of Art. II Sec. 10 of the Constitution which says: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…”

Question 8: What if instead of using contractive pill, the couple resort to either vasectomy or ligation? Would this constitute a violation of the Constitution when neither procedure kills a human person?

Answer: Vasectomy and tubal ligation are serious violations of the principle of integrity because they destroy very important organs of the human body which are healthy and not life-threatening. All forms of contraception violate the matrimonial principle of total self giving of spouses to each other. Vasectomy and ligation (both prevent fertilization) are permanent and deliberate refusals to give oneself to one’s spouse in marriage. If RH Bill becomes a law, vasectomy or ligation could cause a rift in the couple’s relationship, because it will allow a spouse to undergo the procedure even without the consent of the other. Methods of permanent sterilization have their own side effects, both psychological and physical. Sex without consequences has always been associated with promiscuity of the sterile spouse and/or jealousy of the fertile spouse. The result is a permanent, mutually selfish arrangement that endangers the institution of marriage and the family, and goes against Art. XV, Sec. 2 of our Constitution which states: “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” From the point of view of the Constitution, marriage is a sacred foundation of society which must be protected by the State. The RH Bill undermines this foundation of society and the elements that strengthen it—the spouses’ respect for each other, empathetic communication, and openness that fosters loving decision-making—by promoting a “kanya-kanya, walang pakialaman” mentality which contributes to the disintegration of the family.

Question 9: If the State cannot protect the institution of marriage and the family, what will happen to the children of these families?

Answer: An RH Law would drive a wedge separating children and adolescents from parental authority, with the State taking over. If the RH Bill is passed, parents will practically lose parental authority over their children from the age of adolescence up. For example, as part of the “reproductive health rights” of adolescents, the teenage daughter with an unwanted pregnancy may avail of the “reproductive health services” without parental consent. Parents preventing her from seeking help from the “health centers” will be penalized for defying the law. Statistics and observable experience show that access to free contraceptives combined with freedom from parental consent spells one short step to ruin for adolescent children who may be physically ripe but not emotionally ready for sex. The RH Bill robs parents of their right to raise and nurture their children into becoming good, morally upright citizens as stated in Art. II, Sec. 12 of our Constitution: “…The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Question 10: It’s frightening to think that we are being coerced! What will happen if we don’t cooperate in case the bill becomes a law?

Answer: Sec. 26 of the RH Bill, on Prohibited Acts, says even a person “who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent of provisions of this Act…” is liable to be punished. For example, radio commentators, newspaper columnists, teachers, rallyists or even priests delivering homilies may be penalized as anything said against the bill may be perceived as “disinformation”. Therefore RH Bill violates Art. III, Sec. 4 of the Constitution that says: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press...” This is one reason approving the RH Bill would be unconstitutional because it will gag people and suppress our right to express ourselves in full and responsible freedom.

Question 11: Do you mean to say that anybody who defies the RH law will be castigated? And what punishment awaits offenders?

Answer: Correct—and the offender will be fined or imprisoned or both. For example, you’re the nurse in a private school; here comes a teenage high school student asking for a “morning-after pill”—that which is taken by the woman the morning after a night of so-called “unprotected sex”. The morning-after pill makes sure the girl menstruates as usual even if she was fertile that night, because the morning-after pill can kill even a five-day-old baby in the womb. If you as the nurse refuse to give the girl the pill because you believe it can abort and abortion is wrong, you will be charged, and imprisoned or fined, based on Sec. 29 of the RH Bill which says “Any violation of this Act or commission of the foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00 or both such fine and imprisonment…”. If the offender is a government employee, he or she will suffer immediate dismissal and forfeiture of retirement benefits. If the offender is a foreigner (such as religious missionaries assigned to the Philippines), he or she will, after serving the sentence, face immediate deportation without communication with or consideration by the Bureau of Immigration.

Question 12: Is there anything we can do?

Answer: Yes, plenty. Keep on digging up the truth, think logically and critically, and expose the lies and subtle attacks of the Bill against the Constitution, against morality, and against religious beliefs. Why does the RH Bill never mention the deleterious side effects of contraceptive pills, the failure rate of condoms or IUDs, etc. Why does RH bill require a budget of 13.7 billion pesos—bigger than the individual budgets of the Departments of Energy, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Labor, Science, Tourism and Trade, and even the budget for the entire Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao—for medicines, services and a whole system to control population growth as though it were a disease or an epidemic? Why does RH Bill endorse “reproductive health rights” that alienate minors from their parents? Why does it want children to learn about contraception from Grade School on? The belief that a burgeoning population is at the root of our poverty is an alien concept that RH Bill tries to ram down the throat of the Filipinos—a concept that springs from self-serving foreign policies of rich nations that seek to protect their interests in our land. (For the full text of NSSM 200 downloadable in PDF format, visit http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf) Let’s take a good look at those countries that embraced the contraceptive mentality of the RH agenda decades ago: they have an aging population due to the couples’ or women’s unwillingness or inability to have children; a horrifying increase in the diseases and other disastrous consequences on the health of contracepting women; the alarming spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in spite of widespread use of condoms; higher incidence of teen pregnancies and abortions as contraceptive drugs and devices fail; higher divorce rate and increasing number of broken homes; and many more unfortunate developments (affecting even the environment) that we do not want for our people and our nation. RH advocates carefully avoid any reference to the plunging economies of Europe, the impending crises of Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. All of these countries have acknowledged the root of their problem: demographic pessimism and population reduction.

We Filipinos are the only ones who can understand our poverty and free ourselves from oppression. Let us make our voices heard: start by spreading the truth to our family, then reach out to our neighbors, relatives, friends. Let our Congressmen know what we’re thinking, and tell them you are behind them as they vote for what is morally right. Let our lawmakers and government leaders recognize the power in our faith, the wealth in our talents, and the strength of our “bayanihan” spirit, so that we may all work together towards a full realization of a humane and God-fearing nation.

Updated August 29, 2012 / Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS / Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines

Teresa Reyes Tunay: The Whole Truth

By Jasmine Ong

Some people say that names have an uncanny way of foretelling the character of their bearers. If that were true then this issue’s featured Servant Leader, multi-awarded writer Teresa R. Tunay, could not have been more aptly named.

The origin of the name Teresa is said to be rooted in either of two Greek words, “theros” meaning summer or “therizo” meaning to harvest. “Tunay,” on the other hand, translates to genuine in our vernacular. Whether through God’s infinite wisdom or His playful sense of humor, it seems Teresa Reyes was predestined to personify the warmth and authenticity befitting the name Teresa Tunay.

For indeed TRT, as she is fondly known, bears witness to the truth in the way she lives and loves.

Well-rounded would be an understatement for a woman who wears numerous hats. TRT is wife and mother, professed member of the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites, acclaimed writer and editor, media consultant, film critic, and radio anchor, among many other things. On top of all these, she still finds time to be of service to her parish as well as to volunteer for Mother Teresa’s Home for the Dying Destitute.

But when hard pressed, she distills her primary purpose in life down to three words: purveyor of truth. “Whatever position I happen to fill, in whatever field,” she says, “I am a communicator who bows to no one but The Truth.”

Communicating does seem to come naturally for her, as does her penchant for service. Her extensive curriculum vitae is every aspiring writer’s dream; she has lent her byline and editorial expertise to publications such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, Times Journal, The Tribune, Woman Today, Mabuhay (PAL’s in-flight magazine), and Blue Collar Magazine as well as to government, the Press Foundation of Asia, Inter Press Service in Rome, Italy, Philippine News Agency, and Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

Yet through it all, service remains at the core of her distinguished career. And though she may perhaps balk at the idea and consider it hubris, TRT’s life thus far is a testament to genuine self-giving and dialogue in action through her work. She wields her pen to take up the cudgels for the rights of women and the working class. She is also known to candidly write about matters of faith and spirituality. TRT does these matter-of-factly though, hesitating to refer to them as her advocacies.

She confides a distaste for the word “advocacy”, saying that it “smacks of a faddish preoccupation…which ends when the objective is met.” Instead she would much rather consider her work to be a fight “for truth, justice, love, peace…but I do it on my own, without pledging allegiance to any ‘advocacy’ organization. That kind of fight takes a lifetime without even a glimpse of victory at the end.”

TRT is also not one to be prone to affectations. Despite all the grants and accolades bestowed upon her by prestigious bodies such as from the United Nations, Association of Asian Publishers, Confederation of Asean Journalists, and the US State Department among others, TRT remains grounded.

“You might laugh,” she shares, “but I don’t really care about awards and recognition. One day my mother was horrified to see that I wasn’t bothered when my little nieces were playing with my trophies! I didn’t really care but for my parents’ sake I kept them on a high shelf. But I lost track of all those trophies and plaques when we moved.” From this anecdote alone, it is obvious that TRT has learned to take her success in stride like a true Servant-Leader, with equal measures of grace, aplomb and humility.

Having lived in different countries, TRT’s writing has taken her around the world and back again. But she says there was never any doubt in her mind that she would return home. “The Philippines is where I feel I’m needed most, and therefore where I could be most useful. I sort of just allowed myself to be abroad in order to equip myself for whatever I could do in the Philippines, for Filipinos.”

When asked what galvanizes her to this kind of service, TRT says she is “driven by the passion to see man, creation and life restored to that beautiful state I believe God had meant it to be. Not just to ‘build the kingdom of God’ but to establish God’s kingship here on earth.”

Dialogue plays a central part in this Servant-Leader’s daily life. She says it is through dialogue that her role models—Jesus, Mary, Joseph, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. John of the Cross—make their presence felt in all areas of her life. “I even write letters to them,” she laughs.

As a seasoned traveler, TRT has also had her share of dialogues with prominent figures. “During Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s first visit to the Philippines, she spoke to me while holding my hands. On a trip to Bali, Indonesia, I was given a rare chance to speak freely to the Dalai Lama when he invited me to join his entourage. Pope John Paul II held my hand too, and uttered a blessing with his hand upon my head.”

Yet for one so adept with words, she maintains that the most powerful and memorable dialogues in her life involved no words at all. “The most wonderful dialogue I had with Pope John Paul II was wordless, during his funeral which I attended. I guess presence is more precious than spoken words. And it doesn’t have to be physical presence. Regarding your question about the kind of dialogue that ‘penetrates the soul, unravels secrets, wins it over and leads it to truth’…yes, that I do have, with the God within.

As a fledgling writer did TRT ever dream she’d achieve so much? And does she have any regrets? “No. I guess my dreams were myopic—or at least extended only to a certain age. After all, how far can you see when you’re 18? My career flourished despite my early marriage, its path turned out to be unique, and developments overtook my dreams. I had no more time for dreams or plans because events exceeded my expectations. All I could say was ‘Thank You’ for everything that came my way.

“Regrets—I don’t think so. It may sound (clichéd), but it’s true that God makes lemonade out of our lemons. No unfulfilled dreams or goals either…My only ‘goal’ is what God wants for me, for you, for everybody,” she says with a smile.

One has to wonder whether TRT ever even imagined that taking her husband Pablo’s surname on their wedding day would presage a bumper crop of deeply-rooted authentic dialogues harvested throughout such a warm and colorful lifetime. Because without a doubt, tunay si Teresa. A Servant Leader in the truest sense. (Originally published in Code Red magazine March 2011 issue, the above article is posted here with permission from the author).

And that's the truth

Monday, April 14, 2014

Is the SC decision on RH a win-win thing?

Kiko and Lean

What Mother Church has given the world

Questions & Answers about RH Bill 4244