Reaching another crossroad

In its pastoral letter dated January 30, 2011, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has finally drawn the battle lines in clear and bold strokes “what they object to and what they stand for” regarding the controversial RH bill now being discussed in Congress.

Entitled “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill” the prelates of the Catholic Church in the Philippines whose members comprise 80% of the entire population, wrote to stress, perhaps for the first time as a group, that their position is based not on specific “Catholic religious teachings” but on the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people”.

The Bishops put in black and white that, “far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us cherished since time immemorial” which are now embodied in the Constitution itself stating that “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Article II Section 11); “recognizes the sanctity of family life, protects and strengthens the family as a basic autonomous social institution”, as well as “the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” (Article II Section 12).

The bishops said that the several versions of the proposed RH bill, now “sanitized as Responsible Parenthood bill” has brought the nation at a “crossroad” similar to our situation 25 years ago in 1986 when the “door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity” was opened after they “made a prophetic moral judgment on the political leadership”.

This time, according to the Bishops, the moral choice confronting us at another national crossroad is “to choose life or to choose death”. And as religious leaders, they said that their moral judgment is to choose life by strongly rejecting the RH bill. Explaining their stand, they further said: “Our President rallied the country with the election cry, “Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap”. And the “greater form of corruption” is “moral corruption which is really the root of all corruption”, so it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill”.

The CBCP pointed out that its “position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God”:

(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-mortem spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.

(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.

Following these core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God, the pastoral letter singles out the following specific objectionable portions in the RH Bill:

Firstly, it does not really promote reproductive health because it does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that they are hazardous to a woman’s health for they may cause cancer and other ailments.

Secondly, it promotes rather than reduce abortion. Indeed many scientific analysts wonder why the prevalent use of contraceptives that the RH bill are making available sometimes raises the abortion rates. In truth contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. And because of the numerous cases of contraceptive failure as noted by scientists, abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as “sinful”. “Safe sex” being promoted by the RH bill to diminish abortion is false propaganda.

Thirdly, it will not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS that its advocates are saying. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, available scientific data show that HIV/AIDS continue to spread. Condoms provide a false security strongly enticing individuals towards increased social activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV/AIDS is therefore also a false propaganda.

Fourth, it empowers women with ownership of their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. This is a misguided “new truth” in line with the post modern spirit because all of us do not own but are mere stewards of our bodies which are gifts of God and so we must follow God’s will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience.

Fifth it is not necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape poverty. Our own government statistics office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines but only overconcentration of population in a number of urban centers. Despite the findings to the contrary, we must also consider the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty. In fact many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructure, etc. World organizations estimate that in our country more than P400 billion are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is unavoidable, for our country to escape poverty, we have to address the real causes of poverty and not population. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

(To be continued)

*      *      *