Home > RH Bill 5043 > UST Varsitarian answers Ateneo Professors Position On RH BIll 5043 – rabid mediocrity

UST Varsitarian answers Ateneo Professors Position On RH BIll 5043 – rabid mediocrity

varsitarian_comUST (university of santo tomas) Varsitarian wrote a piece to answer the Ateneo professors support of RH Bill 5043.

UST Varsitarian’s answer reminds me of those muslim extremist zealots whose rabid reply to anything is everything but sensible, smart and intelligent. its an extreme hype of over-activity thinking that if you include as many curse words, name drop every 5 sentences, sprinkle ad hominems and personal insults, the piece will sound intelligent and convincing.

Dishonest, mediocre, anti-poor

BY ISSUING a statement supporting the population-control bill, Reproductive Health (RH) Bill 5043, the 14 faculty members of the other Catholic university—Ateneo de Manila– betray the canker that may eat into any Catholic institution that, while inherently holy, has tendencies toward evil. Star Wars calls it the Dark Side, St. Thomas Aquinas calls it concupiscence. We simply call it intellectual dishonesty.

Since they teach in a Catholic institution, the 14 should either have the readiness to defend the Catholic position or at least have the sensitivity to refrain from doing something that would divide the Church. But not only do these self-proclaimed Catholic educators break away from the Catholic position and urge Catholics to do so: they twist Catholic teachings to suit their self-serving position.

Their distortions of the Catholic teachings on freedom of conscience and the centrality of the human person are shocking. If these teachers indeed have conscience, as they claim to be practicing in disagreeing with the bishops, it will be what the catechism calls as erroneous conscience. And what centrality of the human person are they talking about when RH bill 5043 seeks to make available contraceptives and abortifacients and pave the way for legalizing abortion by the use of millions of pesos that could otherwise go to direct provisions for maternal health and poverty? Population-control measures like RH bill 5043 look at the poor not as persons but as rabbits whose propagation must be checked. How could the poor have freedom of choice and conscience when the state, backed by hundreds of millions of pesos, compels them to take contraceptives and limit their children to two per couple? Were the Filipino poor neutered by the Marcos dictatorship and the Chinese families forced into complying with the one-child rule by the communists allowed freedoms of information, choice and conscience?

Even more shocking is the academic mediocrity of the professors. Their support for the population-control bill is backed by the intellectual school of doomsday social science, whose methods and claims have been questioned by more cautious, less panic-prone, and more socially responsible schools. A cursory review of the endnotes of their statement would reveal that their review of literature is narrow and shallow. It is as if social science had stopped with Malthus and Ehrlich.

They claim, for instance, that “a close association exists between our country’s chronic poverty and rapid population growth… [thus] curbing out population growth rate is a requisite of sound economic policy and effective poverty reduction strategy,” and that the bill aims to control population growth to arrive at a so-called “healthy” economy.

Their statement should at least belie Rep. Edsel Lagman’s claim that RH bill 5043 is a “healthcare” bill; it is not, it’s a population-control measure that harks back to the days of the dictator Marcos who enshrined family planning in the 1973 Constitution and made it a centerpiece of his “constitutional authoritarianism.”

But going back to the claim of the 14 doomsday pundits that there’s correlation between “chronic poverty” and population growth, it’s astonishing that a claim should be made when most recent literature have shown there’s none. Despite being in the academe, they have missed – or intentionally excluded? – important and authoritative studies on population and poverty that deny any link between the two.

The New York Times, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review, and Economist have declared overpopulation as among of the greatest hoaxes of the last century. Nobel-winning economists themselves such as Simon Kuznets have denied any negative correlation between population and economic growth. Meanwhile, Amartya Sen and Gary Becker have recommended that funds for birth control would be better used in directly addressing poverty.

Anti-health

But after repeating the tired litany of doomsday population economics, the 14 Horsemen of the Apocalypse just as casually turn to the alleged health benefits of a birth-control program for women, even if not a single one of them has a medical degree or any diploma remotely connected to the health sciences.

But the doctors, nurses and health professionals of UST, Human Life International-Asia, and Pro-Life Philippines know better. Pre- and post-natal care for women has nothing to do with contraceptives and abortion. Medical science can deal with pregnancy complications. If there’s high maternal and infant mortality, it is not because of unwanted pregnancy or pregnancy complications: it is because of the lack of health services. In the same manner, while many Filipinos die of TB and dengue, the public health budgets for combating these diseases are low compared to the tens of millions used for birth control, which basically looks at babies as diseases that need to be checked, contracepted, aborted.

Moreover, it does not follow that readily available contraceptives can improve the health of the people. Health experts say that pills, injectables, abortion suction, menstrual regulation machines, ligation, and vasectomy are in fact risky and could result in injuries, sickness, and even death.

It must be emphasized that “reproductive health” is not maternal health, which is the more embracing, the more medically correct concept to represent the holistic health care of women. RH bill 5043 is not a maternal health measure but a contraceptive measure: it looks at every pregnancy as “unwanted”; it looks at pregnancy as the cause and a compounding of poverty; it tries to check the fertility of women not because of any consideration for women’s health but for purposes of social engineering!

Anti-youth

Nor is the bill “pro-youth” for providing sex education to young people, as the 14 Wolf-criers claim. It would merely increase the chances of the youth engaging in the risky and reckless behavior that safe sex engenders.

Admittedly, information is the right of everyone. But could we expect quality and correct information and instruction from a government whose public education system are a shambles and whose health services are a disaster—and information and instruction for young people during their formative years? Moreover, since the paradigm and ideology of the bill itself are suspect, the course content of any instruction it seeks to provide is also suspect.

Leave sex education to the parents. They may not do a good job at it, but that’s all right since the state can’t seem to get anything right at all!

Pro-abortion, anti-life

Ah, but RH bill 5043 insists it promotes contraception to stop abortion. This is a bald-faced lie when one considers that most of the backers and their funders are pro-choice (read: pro-abortion). One of the signatories of the statement, Mary Racelis, claims in one article that “educated Catholics” should support the bill because it would curb abortions. She cites the “473,000” induced abortions allegedly performed in 2000 without even questioning the veracity of the figure. Worse, she cites the World Health Organization estimate that the abortions could have been double that figure—800,000 abortions!–without questioning how the UN body could have made such an extrapolation.

Any social scientist worth his salt or any Filipino with a modicum of education would easily make educated questions about such figures, considering that previous demographic estimates made in the name of birth control and safe sex have been widely off the mark, such as Thomas Malthus’s doomsday scenario in the 19th century of an overpopulated earth in the next century (“a libel inflicted on the human race,” said Karl Marx); Paul Ehrlich’s similar scenario in 1980 at the turn of the 21st century (he lost the wager with Julian Simon 10 years later, remember?); the projection by UN agencies and Philippine public health authorities in the early 1990’s that the Philippines would have some 10,000 HIV-Aids cases in 10 years because of low condom use (the country has only 3,000 now); the claim of gays they easily comprise 10% of the population (a projection exposed as limp); and the fantastic claim of the UN Fund for Population Assistance and the 1994 Cairo Conference that the “costed population package” to implement so-called reproductive health care services in developing countries by 2015 would total $77.7 billion with domestic contributions from the poor countries themselves who are supposedly beneficiaries of such services funding two-thirds of the cost!

Racelis and her fellow Ateneo divination experts should ask whether or not the same alarmist situation conjured by the UNFPA and Cairo is being used by the WHO, UNFPA and backers (or true authors?) of the Lagman bill to justify the initial tab to implement the RH bill—some P1.2 billion!

Jesuitical

The 14 themselves belong to an institution that has no apprehensions in getting funding from organizations that promote abortion. Together with the Packard Foundation, which promotes “safe and legal abortion” in other countries, Ateneo has put up the Health Unit—Ateneo Graduate School of Business in Leadership Innovations in Population Management. One wonders how Ateneo’s partnership with an abortion foundation dovetails with its setting up a medical school where students are supposed to make the Hippocratic Oath and uphold Catholic bioethics.

And the Ateneo Institute of Church and Social Studies has published a monograph with articles by social scientists from Ateneo and birth-control demographers from UP and other secular institutes (whose studies are cited by the Ateneo 14) that basically back the Lagman bill. The publication and the discussions were funded by a pro-choice organization.

In all of these cozy and cash-rich sleeping-with-the-enemy arrangements, Ateneo’s jesuitic nature seems to be showing indeed.

Anti-development

In any case, by equating women’s health with birth control, the 14 Grim Reapers betray their enslavement to the population ideology of the UN and its agencies and the population-control industry. They betray at least their academic mediocrity—perhaps ingrained by their arrogance—for not considering very relevant and trenchant studies that question the blurring between development and population funding.

The Ateneo professors should at least stop calling themselves “Catholic educators” or “educated Catholics.” For a truly educated Catholic view on population control, here’s the view of Cecilia Hadley and Maria Sophia Aguirre of the Department of Business and Economics of the Catholic University of America as published in the International Journal of Social Economics (2005 Vol. 32, Issue 9):

“During the last decade increasingly large amounts of money have been spent on limiting population growth of underdeveloped countries. Population control is seen as the corner-stone of development and population activities. Thus, population control has become ‘population assistance,’ and birth control has become ‘reproductive health services.’ Population control is pursued at the expense of women’s rights and to the detriment of real economic growth and social improvement.”

Moreover:

“Rather than helping countries and peoples, the continual focus on population assistance has left them desperate for other forms of aid. This focus has actually infringed upon human rights especially upon many women who do not understand the contraceptives they are being given. The large amounts of funds that developing countries are now exhorted to provide for support population measures drain resources better spent elsewhere on such things as reducing malaria and educating women. In short, ‘population assistance’ has usurped a great deal of the energy and funds of the international community without even empirical justification for such an approach to development issues and has resulted in a neglect for other areas of real need.”

We enjoin Thomasians, Ateneans, and all Catholics to be truly themselves—discerning and critical of issues, always seeking the light amid the darkness foisted on them by shadowy figures that include those who call themselves Catholics, educated, and educators. Let us all fight the grand deception of the population-control complex and reject RH bill 5043.

http://www.varsitarian.net/editorial…ocre_anti_poor

 
  1. December 17, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    I commend the Varsitarian for standing up and saying what had to be said. The 14 Ateneo professors’ Position Paper represents the lowest level to which uncritical thinking from such a prestigious Catholic university has sunk in recent times. The professors may agree with the purposes of HB 5043, but to claim that artificial contraception can be consistent with Catholic teaching is to demonstrate an irresponsible ignorance of nearly two millenia of Church teaching.

    If I may quote from another position paper I wrote (“Catholic Alumni United for Life”, http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/a-position-paper-against-hb-5043/):

    Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.

    One question must be asked: why are these so-called professors still teaching?

  2. December 18, 2008 at 8:04 am

    you got it all wrong and concretely the opposite, the varsitarian article at minimum can be described as “lowest level to which uncritical thinking” was applied by students from a university that is supposed to educate its youth.

    there is no comparison between the varsitarian article and the ateneo professors position paper. one is complete garbage and that is the varsitarian article.

    that is the exact opposite of the ateneo professors position paper.

    while it attempted to do so, the varsitarian article DID NOT answer anything the ateneo professors position paper argued for. it is a total failure. the only thing the varsitarian article answered is the question – just how bad college journalism is in UST.

  3. December 19, 2008 at 3:22 am

    On the contrary, the Ateneo 14’s paper is full of plain bad reasoning and displays near total ignorance of Church doctrine.

    The Ateneo profs pretend, for example, that Catholic doctrine allows for flexibility in the issue of artificial contraception. It does not and never has. If they don’t want to believe the doctrine, then they should say so and stop pretending to be Catholic. But instead, they engage in theological doubletalk. That is thoroughly irresponsible, The Varsitiarian article makes no such error or deception.

    The Ateneo profs also use the excuse of “primacy of conscience,”, which is yet another distortion of Catholic doctrine. They completely forgot about having a properly informed conscience.

    The Ateneo profs did succeed at one thing though: they showed just how bankrupt their thinking is — both in terms of knowledge of Catholic doctrine, and critical thinking.

    And to think we have these failures now teaching at the Ateneo!

  4. Pong
    December 19, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Kudos to the Varsitarian!

  5. January 6, 2009 at 8:45 am

    pong – what is it in the varsitarian editorial that you find worthy of a “kudos”?

  6. January 6, 2009 at 8:50 am

    maddog – the ateneo profs in fact presented church doctrine, the church’s stand on poverty and it’s primary desire to help the poor. the whole point of the ateneo profs position paper is in fact to present arguments on how catholics can support the bill.

  7. January 7, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    The Ateneo professors presented a very INCOMPLETE picture of Church doctrine, and thus very erroneous arguments as to how Catholics could support HB 5043 (which, in truth, they cannot).

    The Ateneo profs conveniently ignored the fact that the Catholic Church’s doctrines have ALWAYS opposed artificial contraception. This opposition is part of the ordinary magisterium, having been taught from the earliest days of the Church, and has also been expressed by many Catholic Church Fathers and Popes. The Ateneo paper does not mention these and attempts to hide this clear doctrinal stand through a pile doubletalk.

    There is no way a Catholic can support HB 5043 and remain true to Catholic teaching. The Ateneo professors have betrayed the Catholic faith. It is about time they stop engaging in this two-faced charade and simply state that they are against Catholic teaching.

    Alas, it seems they are bereft of even that decency.

  8. January 8, 2009 at 9:28 am

    maddog – the catholic church has many teachings and doctrines, they date back many centuries ago and it is not surprising that some of them when interpreted and applied may not necessarily match each other. many can contradict or at least co-exist in the same parallel stream but will never meet at one point.

    the ateneo prof’s bases their faith argument on the church’s view on poverty and specially how the faithful contrinute in the churh’s desire to help the poor. those are true and also enduring beliefs and teachings of the church.

  9. January 8, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    You seem quite unfamiliar with the Church’s doctrines. One of the most distinguishing features of these doctrines is that they are ALL consistent. There is not a single instance of contradiction between Church dogmas/doctrines.

    Now other teachings (not doctrine), such as theological speculation, as well as opinions of Church officials, may conflict, but these are NOT doctrine. Catholic doctrine must be consistent. If they are not, then the Church teaches error, and this undermines the entire authority of all its doctrines. Your claim that the doctrines of the Church can contradict each other is false. Otherwise, the Church as no authority whatsoever.

    The Ateneo professors based their stand on insufficient and narrow interpretation of SOME of the Church’s teachings. That is why they made the error of contradicting other teachings. This is NOT acceptable. ALL the Church’s doctrines are true at all times. You cannot discard some at your convenience.

    The bottom line is that the Ateneo professors goofed up. They give a FALSE representation of Church teaching. That is deceptive and irresponsible.

    If these professors were truly honest, they would admit their mistake, and openly come out and state that they are against Church teaching. But instead they try to justify their error, just as the scribes and Pharisees did in biblical times.

  10. January 8, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    these are the chtuch trachings by which the ateneo profs have based their position on:

    “Catholic social theology since Vatican II has evolved, on the one hand, from the emphasis on order, social cohesiveness, the acceptance of some inequality, and obedience to authorityto the recognition, on the other, of the centrality of the human person, and the concomitant need for human freedom, equality, and participation (Pacem in Terris 1963, Octogesima Adveniens 1971). In the same way that Vatican II was a council for aggiornamento (renewal) for the universal Church, so too did the 1991 Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) aim at the renewal of the Church in the Philippines. After a month of collectively studying and praying to discern the “signs of the times,” PCP-II declared: “As we approach the year 2000, Christ bids this communityourselves, the laity, religious and clergy of the Catholic Church in the Philippinesto be a Church of the Poor” (PCP-II Acts, no. 96).

    As Catholics and Filipinos, we share the hope and mission of building a Church of the Poor. We are thus deeply disturbed and saddened by calls made by some members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that promises to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor. Being a “Church of the Poor” urges us to be with and listen to the poor, so that their “joys and hopes… griefs and anxieties” become ours as well (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 1). We therefore ask those who denounce the RH Bill as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral” to consider the economic and social conditions of our people, as borne out by empirical evidence, and to recognize that the bill is, in fact, “pro-life,” “pro-women,” and “propoor.””

  11. January 8, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    there are no church teachings that are being discarded, in fact they are simply following their conscience based on church teachings.

    as you have said yourself, the church’s teaching on non use of birth control is an “ordinary magisterium” which means this is not an infallible teaching and the faithful can use his/her conscience’s dictate to follow or not to follow it.

    the encylical humanae vitae, the basis for the church’s opposition to the use of modern methods of contraception is not an infallible document.

  12. January 8, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    You have misunderstood the terms, Wawam. The ordinary magisterium in this case refers to INFALLIBLE teaching that was not promulgated through extraordinary means (e.g ex cathedra statement by a Pope or doctrinal declaration by an Ecumenical Council). An example of a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is the existence of God. Quite obviously this is an infallible teaching and one cannot be a Christian without believing it; yet it is only part of the ordinary magisterium because there was simply no need to define it through extraordinary means. The truth of it was obvious in the early Church. The same goes with the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception. As such, Catholics cannot choose to disobey the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception. it is not an issue with which one can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic.

    The Ateneo professors chose to ignore certain bedrock teachings of the Church. For example, Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. Yet the professors support ignored the fact that HB 5043 promotes abortifacients.

    The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, written hundreds of years ago, prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.

    Take note that a document containing an infallible teaching need not be infallible itself. Humanae Vitae may not an infallible document, but the doctrines it reiterated ARE infallible Catholic dogma. The encyclicals that defined the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for example, were not infallible documents in themselves either, since ,strictly speaking, only the explicit doctrinal definitions in the documents were infallible. But these documents contained definitions of infallible doctrine. The same goes for Humanae Vitae.

    The Ateneo professors then are clearly being irresponsible and dishonest in their presentation of Catholic doctrine. They were selective and chose to ignore INFALLIBLE Catholic doctrine, taught since the earliest days of the Church.

  13. January 8, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    humanae vitae does not contain dogma and that makes it not infallible.

    arcbishop lagdameo, bishop of manila and president of the CBCP has in fact stated humanae vitae is not infallible. he said that in a homily during the mass in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the humanae vitae encyclical on july 9, 2008 at the manila cathedral.

    not being infallible means catholics may use humanae vitae as a guide but may follow or not follow it as their conscience dictates.

    read the full text of the homily at the Roman Catholic Archidoices Of Manila website : http://www.rcam.org/Humanae_Vitae/homily_archbishop_lagdameo_humanae_vitae.html

    humanaae vitae not being infallible is probably one of the key reasons why the catholic church and catholic groups do not use it at all in their arguments against the use of moderm methods of contraception. they know it is a weak argument as it opens up a choice for the flock to follow it or not.

    they instead use misinformation and blatant lies like the RH Bill will lead to legalizing abortions when in fact the bill very clearly states it recognizes abortion is illegal in the country and it will not violate philippine laws.

  14. blue lagoons
    March 1, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    those ateneo professors are full of intellectual arrogance and manipulative of the teachings of the church.they are using the teachings of the church to suit their distorted consciences as if they are the depository of truth.i cannot imagine why inspite of their higher learnings they can still afford to exploit the moral teachings of the church.what the hell!!where did they get that?special mentions to their theology professors..where did you get that kind of thelogy?are you trying to prove that you are now the authority in faith and morals?this is horrible!!UNITY TO THE MORAL STAND OF CHURCH not your egoistic and distorted interpretations is what at stake here.remember you have the duty to teach what is the stand of the church not to do the contrary.if you cannot stand by it get out!!you seems to be a devil’s advocate in this issue!!

  15. blue lagoons
    March 2, 2009 at 12:39 am

    i find it strange why genilo a jesuit moralist keep on insisting for a compromise/common ground about this bill =between the church officials and the authors of this bill within fact that the latter are very rigid on their stand.common good is very Christian but not at the expense of the moral teachings of the church.besides he seems to forget that this program already existed long time ago before this present bill was crafted, so why insist?.when he said that there are good things in this bill but does not conform to the moral standards of the church and here comes the authors who are not willing to redefine it, so what is the used of making a compromise?this is simple common sense.one need not to earned a higher degree in theology to understand what is meant to be a good Catholic in this manner.

  16. blue lagoons
    March 2, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    rh bill as proposed by lagman and company and was supported by a group of ateneo professors contain so many half truths,since the devil lies on half truth so it is imperative for the jesuits to clarify,eplain,expound etc. etc. to their flock the real score about this matter.the open statement of international catholic scholars about it will surely help them towards enligtenment.i cannot really comprehend why they were able to exploit and manipulate the teachings of the church to suit their intellectual arrogance.they even used conscience,option for the poor and some teachings of the church in a distorted manner.my GOODNESS!!are they losing their sanity??now look at the stand of their student leaders,it is a clear evidence of the bankcruptcy of catholic moral teachings in their academic community.wake up jesuits moralist of loyola school of theology.this is now your call to rectify these errors!!

    • March 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm

      what half truths are you talking about? if they are half truths, show us what the other half is.

  17. blue lagoons
    March 6, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    wawam@ the open statement of international catholic scholars revealed everything about the half truths that im talking about.kindly read it for your enlightenment.ok!!by the way let me remind you that the standard of catholic morality is not subject to change because it is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.so it cannot be changed according to the will of the majority but it is based on the interpretation of the teaching autority of the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.therefore you cannot say this,a catholic who disobeyed the moral stand of church can still remain as good catholic.=THIS IS CONTRADICTION!!i found it strange and horrible when some of your ateneo professors in philosophy and worst in THEOLOGY shared this kind of distorted mentality about catholic morality!!what a shame!!A BANKRUPTCY OF CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHINGS IN A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY!!WAKE UP JESUIT MORALIST!!NOW,NO WONDER WHY WHEN SOME ATENEO GRADUATES LANDED AS TOP GOVERMENT OFFICIALS THEY ENDED UP AS CORRUPT,MANIPULATIVE AND EXPLOITER BECAUSE THEY GOT A DISTORTED TEACHINGS OF CATHOLIC MORALITY ON CONSCIENCE,FREEDOM ,LAW ETC..=THIS APPLIES ONLY TO SOME, NOT ALL..NO OFFENSE MEANT BUT REALISTICALLY SPEAKING!!

  18. beabautista
    March 11, 2009 at 12:30 am

    REGARDLESS, this is a very badly written article.

    Couldn’t they have come up with better insults? Or is UST just too stuck in the middle ages (in more ways than one)?

    Kudos on the Shakespearean/Puritan/Witch Hunt writing, Varsitarian!

    Much love,

    a student of the horse-riding, doomsday pundit, apocalyptic institution

    • March 11, 2009 at 7:38 am

      that article is an embarassment to college journalism. and that was written by the editor of the varsitarian. we do not think it will win any best college journalism award in the next few decades.

  19. blue lagoons
    March 11, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    beaubautista@ what kind of paradigm are you trying to point out?the bone of contention here is the moral teaching of the church with regards to the sanctity of human life.now in relation to that,the church always uphold the dignity and sanctity of human life=that God is the author of life,against the culture of death..and the controversial health bill whom you are siding with is incline to promote the culture of death ,therefore the church must speak out against it.so what is your problem??perhaps it is time for you to reflect what is your fundamental option in life..may you find the truth that will set you free from the bondage of ignorance!!

  20. blue lagoons
    March 11, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    wawam@ it is the truth that will set people free from the bondage of ignorance.it is not about rhetorics or journalism or what but the message of salvation brought about by the gospels of Jesus.now, it is up to you to accept it or to reject it=you are totally free!!and here is one thing i would like to tell you= there is no way you could change the moral teachings of the church with regards to the dignity and sanctity of human life=no amount of majority decision or popular opinion could sway/alter it..

    • March 13, 2009 at 10:11 am

      what truth? that varsitarian artice had much more ad hominems, insults and idiotic logic than truth, not to mention the quality of the writing is not fit for print, even in college newspapers.

      nobody is changing the teachings of the church, what is being done here (ateneo professors reaction) is presenting other true teachings of th church and in cases where a teaching of the church is in conflict with another, then the faithful is allowed to decide on their own on what to follow.

      it is allowing the faithful to make an informed choice, which is one of the things the RH Bill intends to accomplish also.

  21. blue lagoons
    March 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    wawam@ you are using that kind of fallacy in a very wrong manner.the article presented only the facts issue to issue.by the way,there is only one interpretation with regards to the moral teachings of the church.there are no ambigous or multiple interpretations when the church declares things pertaining to faith and morals.

    now, when you said that its presenting the other true teachings of the church,this is tantamount to anarchy ,its a total collapsed of the orthodoxy of teachings of the church.this is disastrous!!

    by the way, were you not taught (if you are a catholic)that we should formed our conscience based on the ff:=teachings of the church,word of God,fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit,examination of conscience,Godly and cardinal virtues, sacramental and prayer life,and seeking advise.=this is for every Catholic to have a well formed and a well informed conscience.

    may the God of truth liberate you from the bondage of ignorance.

    • March 14, 2009 at 10:16 am

      what facts? ad hominems, insults and illogical arguments are not facts.

      all the church teachings the ateneo profs presented are alll legitimate. you just say they are not because they are winning arguments for the RH Bill.

      you are acting like the varsitarian editor where you do not present facts or good arguments, you just say they are not teachings.

  22. March 14, 2009 at 1:34 am

    The ateneo professors totally ignored nearly two millenia of CONSISTENT CHURCH TEACHING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION. To quote some Church documents while ignoring official teaching is very dishonest.

    A short listing of some early Church Fathers that spoke against contraception can be found in the January 1996 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. This article may also be found online at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, over 400 years old, also taught against contraception. See sections 2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370. These sections are online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

    An English version of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

    An English version of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

    An English version of the Vademecum may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

    Needless to say, the 14 Ateneo professors didn’t include these in their justification for their apostasy.

    • March 14, 2009 at 10:15 am

      you should send those links to the varsitarian editors and ask them to rewrite their editorial. maybe they will include them and finally they will have something of substance.

      the philippine catholic church do not even include those in their argumwent against the RH bill. bishop lagdameo has said HV is not infallible and that is probably the reason why they don’t even bring it up, they know its a weak argument.

      and it being immaterial to the discussion, that is probably the reason why the ateneo professors did not include them in their paper. but regardless, the professors nort including those in the their paper do not weaken their arguments. the professors have in fact talked about church teachings, specially those from the philippine catholic church.

  23. pips
    March 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    Is it really necessary to infuse so much namecalling? It would have been a nice piece if some semblance of control was practiced. But then, it was not.

    I’m a bit disappointed. It sounded like it was ateneo versus ust, jesuit versus dominican, which is really childish, and humiliating.

    How can we reflect God’s shining example on us if we resort to calling people names instead of debating in a nice, educative manner? And church teachings are well and good, being a student in a Catholic university for so long, but i sure we don’t neglect and forget the Bible, seeing as scripture is an important and should be the primary source.

    • March 23, 2009 at 11:36 pm

      the author of the article mistakenly thinks the profuse name calling and ad hominems will make the article sound intelligent and substantive. he thinks we will be impressed by them.

  24. blue lagoons
    March 23, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    pips@ these are the sources of God’s revelation in the Catholic tradition=Bible or the sacred scripture,tradition,teaching authority of the church,signs of the times,beauty of creation,human experience and conscience.therefore the Bible is only one of them and they are equal in terms of importance..

  25. ateneo alum
    March 24, 2009 at 10:08 am

    “There is not a single instance of contradiction between Church dogmas/doctrines.”

    Ok. hold on while i try to stop laughing. That indeed made my day.

    Just try to remember what happened to Galileo Galilei and how the Catholic church back then taught that the Sun moved around the Earth. Galileo dare to say otherwise, so he was found guilty of heresy, imprisoned and later commuted to house arrest. Oh and his works were banned.

    Later on, the Catholic Church apologizes for the treatment of Galileo.

    Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

  26. blue lagoons
    March 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    ateneo alum@ your comment made me laughed.please do research more on what really happened to Galileo Galilei=what is the real score about his case.

    but for you to be clarified about it,well it is a realization on the part of the church not to interpret the biblical text LITERALLY!!(JOSHUA 10:12-15).this has became as one of the foundations of modern biblical studies of the church not to make the Bible as a source of all knowledge and truth, much more as textbook for natural sciences such as;astronomy,biology etc..but as one of the sources of truth for the sake of man’s salvation.so the Bible as the word of God contains only truth for the sake of salvation.

    what was remarkable was the Church made an apology centuries later.but again try to do more research and put your mindset on the prevailing paradigm during that time.this is for you to at least understand a little why the church behaved in that way.

    you know,it is a very big mistake to make a judgment of the past by basing it on what are the prevailing standards of today=this is unfair and unjust..

    by the way, the Church already learned a lesson on this..ok!!

  27. daniel gutierez
    March 24, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    did the church apologize or not?

  28. blue lagoons
    March 25, 2009 at 8:27 am

    daniel gutierez@ yes !! in the early 90’s after 359 years ,during the reign of late pope John Paul II.please do research on this for more enlightenment.

  29. daniel gutierez
    March 25, 2009 at 9:07 am

    so, the church did apologize. so, what made you laugh about ateneo alum’s comment? ateneo alum so far was right.

    and why did the church apologize? for what reason?

  30. blue lagoons
    March 26, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    its already stated above..

    the right is always oriented towards the truth and the good.and the only source of these is God.ok!!

  31. March 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Reply to @ateneo_alum

    I hope you won’t mind my pointing out that you seem to have trouble distinguishing between Church doctrine and the theological opinions of Church officials. The two are very different.

    The Catholic Church NEVER had any doctrine on whether the earth revolved around the sun (or vice versa). The Church apologized for the treatment of Galileo, NOT because it had wrong doctrine. The personal opinions of the Pope, papal tribunals, and even of theologians do NOT determine Church doctrine. Please try to do some research on that topic. This is an old resolved issue. You obviously know very little about it.

    Reply to @wawam:

    the philippine catholic church do not even include those in their argumwent against the RH bill. bishop lagdameo has said HV is not infallible and that is probably the reason why they don’t even bring it up, they know its a weak argument.

    You are glossing over some very important distinctions here. The encyclical Humanae Vitae itself is not an infallible document, but the teachings reiterated therein ARE infallible teachings. It is dishonest of you to gloss over that distinction.

    Let me give you an example: If I write a document and state that God exists, my document is NOT itself infallible. But the claim that God exists, IS a part of infallible Church doctrine.

    The documents cited earlier establish the fact that the Church’s teaching against contraception is an established infallible doctrine. The Ateneo professors were being extremely dishonest when they were “document shopping”. They cited only those Church documents that they could use to buttress their position and totally ignored the more prominent (and historically consistent) documents of the Church that would expose their claims.

  32. March 30, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    and the church documents and church teachings the professors used are true and legitimate.

    that leads us to the point the professors have made – we can support the RH Bill with the use of our own conscience since we can base it on the true and legitimate documents and teachings of the church.

  33. blue lagoons
    March 31, 2009 at 7:38 am

    wawam@ but the point is that, they MANIPULATE,and DISTORT it to validate their ground.

    they interpret it very badly to suit to their diabolical scheme.in connection to this,their errors were already exposed by a group of international catholic scholars and also by maddog above.

    • March 31, 2009 at 7:48 am

      what the professors said were well documented. no manipulation and no distortion. all are factual.

      now that is something we definitely cannot say about how the the catholic church has argued and supported their stand against the RH Bill – most of it are lies, hokey economics, false science, scare tactics and unsubstantiated postulations. that is also well documented.

      the latest of course is the delaying tactics that congressmen have applied to prevent this bill from proceeding through congress.

      • April 1, 2009 at 2:31 am

        Wawam said:

        what the professors said were well documented. no manipulation and no distortion. all are factual.

        Their errors and half-truths are quite well-documented too, as @blue lagoons has pointed out..

        As I have also shown, the 14 apostate professors ignored nearly two millenia of consistent Church teaching against contraception, and were quite selective in their choice of Church documents. That IS distortion and manipulation. You can claim the contrary until you’re blue in the face, but that does not change the evidence and rational arguments presented.

        The Ateneo professors and other fanatical RH bill supporters have resorted to deception, false data, faulty economics, and all manner of underhandedness to justify their claims. Fortunately, we can see right though that.through that

        • April 1, 2009 at 9:17 am

          these are exactly the same things that can said what the catholic church and the anti-RH Bill proponents have been doing. it is very much accurate description of their actions and words:

          “resorted to deception, false data, faulty economics, and all manner of underhandedness to justify their claims. Fortunately, we can see right though that.”

          and that leads us again to this – just for argument’ss sake, given that the two opposing groups seem to be guilty of exactly the same thing – it is then up to individual catholics, with the use of their conscience, who to support and to believe in.

          that is very much like what the ateneo professors are saying – on this issue, catholics can use their conscience to decide whether they support or not support the RH Bill.

  34. blue
    October 10, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    wawam@ there is no room for moral relativism in the catholic church.this is a big big NO!!
    catholic morality is based on the person of JESUS CHRIST=the second person in the HOLY TRINITY not according to one’s personal interpretations nor whims and caprices.

    please do research more on economic data regarding population that will result to poverty for your little learning is driving you mad!!
    based on the studies conducted by new york times,asiaweek,far eastern economic journal=they found out that there is no direct connection of population to poverty.

    what we need in our country are the ff:
    1. proper human and natural resources management
    2. sustainable development
    3. eradicate graft and corruption
    4. good governance

    take note other countries today in europe are experiencing fertility rate problems.

  35. concerned citizen
    October 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Here’s an interesting quote from Annie Dillard:
    “I have never read any theologian who claims God is particularly interested in religion, anyway.”

    Trivia quote aside, the authors (AdMU Faculty) of the position paper re: the RH Bill wrote it in good faith, delivered with a formal and respectful tone. I believe that the paper also deserves a more controlled and respectful, if not respectable, response…not some harsh criticism riddled with tones resembling 1.) a close-minded friar, or 2.) a narcissistic intellectual child.

    What the editor(s) of the Varsitarian wrote was a complete farce of what a good editorial/opinion should be. If they’re saying that “oh, the editors from the PDI, STAR, MB, etc… deliver their opinions in this manner,” well, they’re dead wrong. This silly problematic piece of “Opinion” does not have wit, only dreadful, sarcastic and tasteless remarks.

    Also, what the opinion also lacks is INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY. That’s the most important and basic requirement for editorial writing.

    I want to read an opinion, not some childish rant who thinks he or she can get away with it by just posting sources.

    PS. I’m neither pro nor anti RH Bill since I believe that it’s still riddled with contentious issues and needs refinement and collaboration from BOTH government and religious (by religious I mean Catholics, Muslim, etc… Technically, our country is not exclusive to only one religion. It would also be responsible if they could ask the other sectors for their opinions on the matter). What worries me most is how the Opinion piece was delivered. If they wanted to be taken seriously, they should’ve wrote it with a tasteful and civilized tone.

  36. Maureen Gonzalez
    December 10, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    I admire the Varsitarian. The Article is far from being garbabe. Inorder to understand the Varsitarian’s stand, you have to read it in the light of faith and Divine Filiation.

    Promoting contraception and controlling the population is a lazy, selfish (the lesser the people, the bigger share in the pie notion) and irresponsible approach to alleviating our people from poverty. It reflects how uncaring and lazy the people in the government, relieving themselves of their responsibility to provide jobs, housing, generally a better life for its citizens. Despite their status in life, our less fortunate brothers are intelligent. Teaching them to use contraceptives rather than educating them on how to nurture their kids and balance time between work and taking care of their children, providing better earning jobs, providing better benefits to chilren would be synanymous to undermining their intelligence.

    Another provision in the bill that should worry every good parent is the giving of sex education to our students. Sex education should be discussed within the privacy of the home and with the guidance of parents and on a need to know basis. One child may be ready to understand sex at a certain age, example at 11 but others may not yet be ready. Teaching children to use contraceptives is again a lazy approach that people want to take rather than continously educating our children on the value of chastity. Our legislators should also respect the right of every parent on choosing how to educate their children on sex; I for one would not want any stranger, be it my child’s teacher, to give sex education to them.

    Varsitarian is also correct in saying that contraception would not stop abortion. Studies abroad shows that this would actually increase the rate of abortion. Can a teenager who even forgets to their assignments, chores, or any responsibility remember to take pills or other contraceptions. Missed contraceptions equals unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy equals abortion.

    Woman has a right to good health. Children, from the time of conception has a right to life. No matter what opinion other people may have, the truth remains. Life begins at the moment of conception and that each person is a gift from God. No life will come in this world unless God wills it. In natural contraception, you do not take away God’s right to give you a child. Use of artificial contraception is equivalent to saying to God, I don’t want your gift.

    God is a generous God. If He blessed us with many children, He will surely give us the grace and strength to take care of them, we just have to cooperate with Him.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: