In its pastoral letter on Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill) dated 30 January 2011, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) strongly rejected the RH Bill because it is an anti-life bill.
Interestingly,
the bishops did not start its pastoral reflection on the life-situation of the
Filipino people, particularly the direct beneficiaries of this bill, the poor
women and their children and families. Should it start with the death-dealing
situation of the poor women and their children and families, the moral principles
used by the bishops will be shaped by the harsh reality of maternal death and
suffering of the poor women. If and when these moral principles become a
hindrance to protect life, and promote quality life, of the poor, the prophetic
stance would be to judge the situation in favor of the poor. In doing so, the
bishops are doing option for the poor.
Instead,
the bishops started its pastoral letter by reminding the Filipino people and
the policy makers the principles enshrined in the Constitution stating that the
State (1) values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights (Article II Section 11); (2) recognizes the sanctity of family
life, protects and strengthens the family as a basic autonomous social
institution, and (3) the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception” (Article II Section 12). The bishops stressed that “(f)ar 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 have
cherished since time immemorial.”
The
bishops revisited their vital role in the success of Edsa I. By exercising their
“prophetic moral judgment on the political leadership” against the morally corrupt Marcos administration, the bishops, especially Cardinal Sin, called the Filipino people to go to Edsa and they responded like sheep to their pastors. Edsa people power successfully dethroned President Marcos and installed Cory Aquino as president. The bishops reminded us, especially President
BS Aquino, that moral corruption is the root of all corruptions. As such, they
were telling President Aquino, who is vocal in his support to RH Bill, that
like what they did in that historic national crossroad in Edsa I, they will not
hesitate to voice their prophetic judgment against his political leadership: “it
would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill.” This is a strong warning, prophetic or not, because the bishops have many followers to protect life.
The
President has strong influence in the policy makers among his allies in Congress who are more than willing to please him, and I think the bishops were
exercising moral arm twisting here to the Aquino administration. And it seems
that President BS Aquino and his lieutenants did not get the message,
or if they did, they outrightly rejected the moral call of the bishops.
Without
the charismatic leadership of Cardinal Sin, can the bishops inspire the
majority of its members to launch another people power to win this historic
moral battle? Do other religious groups share the same moral
stance on RH Bill?
In
this new national crossroad, for the Catholic bishops, there are only two
option: either “to choose life or choose death” Is the RH Bill anti-life? Does
the bill violate the Constitutional dignity and rights of the women, their
children and their families?
Looking
at the specific objectionable portions in the RH Bill as identified by the bishops, we can surmise three (3)
major concerns:
(1)
Contraceptive
mentality is anti-life.
(2)
Postmodernist
understanding of freedom.
(3)
Holistic
approaches in solving poverty.
Contraceptive mentality
as anti-life.
The
main argument presented by the bishops against RH Bill is centered along the
use of contraceptives. The bishops accused the advocates of RH Bill of disseminating false propaganda about “Safe sex”. By providing contraceptives, RH Bill
entices individuals towards increase sexual activity which may cause to (a) abortion
of the sacred human life created during conception and cancer to the mother; (b)
unwanted pregnancy and consequently, resort to abortion which is sinful; and (c)
infection of HIV/AIDS. Thus, according to the bishops, the RH Bill does not
really promote reproductive health because it failed to protect the sacred
human life that is being formed or born; and exposed the women at high risk of
getting cancer; it also promotes rather than reduce abortion; and it does not
prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Postmodernist
understanding of freedom.
The
RH Bill empowers the women with the misguided “new truths” in line with the
“post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies
without the dictation of any religion.” Informed and right conscience, in tune
with the teaching of various religious and cultural traditions regarding the
dignity and worth of human life, will tell us that we are not absolute owners
but stewards of our own bodies.
Holistic approach in
solving poverty.
The
RH Bill is not necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape poverty. “Our own
government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in
the Philippines but only the over-concentration of population in a number of
urban centers. Despite other 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 infrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate that
in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The
conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to
address the real causes of poverty and not population.”
I
will comment separately on these three concerns.
A copy of my comment in PDI, Dsqus
ReplyDeleteWhat i understand is that population explosion is not really the cause of poverty. it is the neglect of giving good quality of life to every Filipino due to causes you mentioned. where does a woman stand now if RH bill i approved. She can choose to use contraceptives or make her husband use condoms. She can choose the natural planning method. As you said, population is concentrated on urban centers. The solution to it is to develop the suburbs where there are big areas of land still suited for quality residential living. I am reminded of the suggestion of one poster, Lucky Luciano, to close NAIA and develop Clark as our international airpot. it entails vision and a listening president to do just that.
With RH bill, I am predisposed to agreeing to it minus contraception. The bishops did not explicitly thought out the safeties of the mothers and the unborn but with their stance against RH bill, based on the constitutional guarantee of protection of ife in a way is saying they are also after the welfare of poor mothers and babies who die because of pregnancies. What must be corrected to fight poverty are corruptions and social inequities. Keep well. :-)
I agree with you, my friend.
DeleteConcerning the population issue, Fr. Bernas said, "I leave the debate on population control to sociologists." It doesn't mean that we leave it all alone in the hands of the experts, but their expertise will help us better understand and, in effect, better participate in the problem solving process-- we participate in the discussion, in identifying problems, in analyzing their root causes, in deciding what best serve the interest of the many, in designing plan of action, and in implementing and monitoring the action plan in our own little ways as a people.
We have many brilliant minds but why can't we make programs that will narrow the gulf between the rich and the poor?
Women must stand... unite and speak out!