Home > reproductive health, RH Bill 5043 > new health secretary enrique ona supports promotion of all methods of contraception

new health secretary enrique ona supports promotion of all methods of contraception

New health chief on family planning:
Make all methods available

BY GERARD NAVAL

HEALTH Secretary Enrique Ona yesterday said there should be equal promotion of all family planning methods, whether natural or artificial.

Ona, former executive director of the National Kidney and Transplant Institute before he was given the health portfolio by President Aquino, said all methods should be made available to couples if only to aid them in practicing responsible parenthood.

“We in government should be able to present it to them (couples) in a very objective manner and at the same time making sure that they are given all the options…be it natural planning, which my Church, the Catholic Church, supports aggressively, or for those who like to use scientific methods,” he said.

One reason for the equal promotion, he said, is that the government is for all couples, regardless of their religion.

“Responsible parenthood is the responsibility and the decision of a very well-informed couple, considering whatever religious beliefs,” said Ona.

He said it would be a bigger mistake if a couple brings a child in an “irresponsible manner.”

The Catholic Church is the most vocal opponent of the proposed reproductive health bill, labeling it anti-life, because it allows the use of artificial contraceptives.

Asked whether he supports the passage of the RH bill in the 15th Congress, Ona did not give a direct answer.

“I’m not aware of certain controversial issues with regards to the RH and I’m going to review more details…I may or may not support it,” he said.

He, however, said they would continue to use department funds to procure artificial contraceptives, such as condoms, if the need presents it.

As to the issue of sex education, Ona said he is not concerned with what age group will be taught.

“If it is taught in the context of biology and not in the context of pure pleasure (I don’t think there’s a problem)… in short, it should be scientifically taught. This should be cognizant of the concerns of the family and of the public on how it can be taught,” said Ona.

The Department of Education has been pushing for the inclusion of sex education in the curriculum of elementary and high school, sparking debates among different sectors.

  1. July 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

    http://www.rcam.org/RH_Bill/MISCONCEPTIONS_CLARRIFICATIONS_FR_GREG_GASTON.doc

    It is ironic that our HEALTH secretary promotes means to put our women’s health at risk, and unknowingly (or indifferently) supporting abortion – because when contraception fails, abortion will be the next option to persons who uses the faculty of sex only for their own pleasures, including young people who engages in premarital sex, which artificial birth control encourages them to do!

    What we need is education of our married couples to really understand the true meaning of responsible parenthood – getting the commitment of both husband and wife to use only the gift of sexual intercourse only when they are open to the gift of life – after all, HINDI NAMAN TAYO HAYOP NA HINDI KAYANG KONTROLIN ANG SARILI – WE ARE PERSONS CREATED WITH INTELLECT AND FREE WILL! Unless our beloved secretary thinks that we are mindless sex maniacs who just engages in sex whenever, wherever, however, whomever we want!

    Let us be prudent in encouraging contraceptives to our people. We are not helping the Filipino understand himself/herself and his/her role in the family just by giving condoms and UIDs and morning-after-pill (that is known to cause cancer) to our people. We are becoming irresponsible in our actions in doing so.

    GOD HELP THE FILIPINO FAMILY!

    • July 5, 2010 at 8:04 am

      “Let us be prudent in encouraging contraceptives to our people.” A classic motherhood statement. Pray tell, how are we to do this?

  2. July 4, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Christian :

    http://www.rcam.org/RH_Bill/MISCONCEPTIONS_CLARRIFICATIONS_FR_GREG_GASTON.doc

    It is ironic that our HEALTH secretary promotes means to put our women’s health at risk, and unknowingly (or indifferently) supporting abortion – because when contraception fails, abortion will be the next option to persons who uses the faculty of sex only for their own pleasures, including young people who engages in premarital sex, which artificial birth control encourages them to do!

    What we need is education of our married couples to really understand the true meaning of responsible parenthood – getting the commitment of both husband and wife to use only the gift of sexual intercourse only when they are open to the gift of life – after all, HINDI NAMAN TAYO HAYOP NA HINDI KAYANG KONTROLIN ANG SARILI – WE ARE PERSONS CREATED WITH INTELLECT AND FREE WILL! Unless our beloved secretary thinks that we are mindless sex maniacs who just engages in sex whenever, wherever, however, whomever we want!

    Let us be prudent in encouraging contraceptives to our people. We are not helping the Filipino understand himself/herself and his/her role in the family just by giving condoms and UIDs and morning-after-pill (that is known to cause cancer) to our people. We are becoming irresponsible in our actions in doing so.

    GOD HELP THE FILIPINO FAMILY!

    please stop spreading misinformation and blatant lies.

    the new health secretary has said he is against abortion. the RH Bill states it is against abortion or anything that violates laws of the country.

    this blog is very tolerant of opinions and views posted here but these blatant lies is crossing the line too much. we encourage discussion here, disagreements are tolerated but lies is a different story.

    • July 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm

      I noticed that some people in this site will just tell you that your arguments are base on lies if it oppose theirs. That is not how you defend a solid argument. “Misinformation” starts to become a frightening term since we heard it from the RH bill. It also starts to mean something else: “Hindi yan ang alam ko kaya siguradong kasinungalingan yan.” I would suggest that if anyone thinks a statements is not true, then rather say what is, instead of just asserting that someone is lying. It attacks the character of those who want to comment here, instead of their arguments. That is a very bad attitude.

      Anyway, I do not see anything untrue or intentionally misleading information in what Christian have shared so far. In nowhere did RH bill say that it is “against” abortion. As I have already said in another thread on this site, RH bill just recognizes the status quo of abortion in the Philippine law. He said that the “HEALTH secretary promotes means to put our women’s health at risk, and unknowingly (or indifferently) supporting abortion.” He neither said nor implied that Ona is guilty of being pro-abortion. We do not know whether the secretary is aware of the mechanics of the pill and IUD, and how he defines pregnancy, conception, and fertilization, so we cannot tell yet.

      • July 5, 2010 at 8:32 am

        “when contraception fails, abortion will be the next option to persons who uses the faculty of sex only for their own pleasures.”

        Therefore, young people should not have sex for pleasure. Whose MORAL responsibility is that?

  3. July 4, 2010 at 11:09 am

    What we need is education of our married couples to really understand the true meaning of responsible parenthood – getting the commitment of both husband and wife to use only the gift of sexual intercourse only when they are open to the gift of life – after all, HINDI NAMAN TAYO HAYOP NA HINDI KAYANG KONTROLIN ANG SARILI – WE ARE PERSONS CREATED WITH INTELLECT AND FREE WILL! Unless our beloved secretary thinks that we are mindless sex maniacs who just engages in sex whenever, wherever, however, whomever we want!

    it is in fact quite the opposite – your disagreement on providing sex education seem to be premised that even the mention of the word sex even within the context of education leads people to engage in sex.

    you also think that providing couples with pills and condoms turns them into sex maniacs who will do nothing but have sex because they are now protected.

    get your logic right.

    • July 4, 2010 at 8:14 pm

      “…your disagreement on providing sex education seem to be premised that even the mention of the word sex even within the context of education leads people to engage in sex.”

      It is missing the point. I do not think Christian disagrees that couples (or those who will marry) should be educated about sex. Actually, what he said is, “What we need is education.” It is ironic that somebody is asserting the opposite…and that is without any explanation.

      Now, what about the context of education? You are implying that anything, any term, or any topic that was applied in the context of education is educational and acceptable. Check this “educational” reference book for adolescents: http://www.prolifewaco.org/documents/Normal4pages.pdf and give us your comment. Even Philosophy can corrupt a mind although it is purely academic. Sex, furthermore, is stronger than philosophy and requires more care in explaining about it.

  4. mariles
    July 5, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Wilberg :
    I noticed that some people in this site will just tell you that your arguments are base on lies if it oppose theirs. That is not how you defend a solid argument. “Misinformation” starts to become a frightening term since we heard it from the RH bill. It also starts to mean something else: “Hindi yan ang alam ko kaya siguradong kasinungalingan yan.” I would suggest that if anyone thinks a statements is not true, then rather say what is, instead of just asserting that someone is lying. It attacks the character of those who want to comment here, instead of their arguments. That is a very bad attitude.
    Anyway, I do not see anything untrue or intentionally misleading information in what Christian have shared so far. In nowhere did RH bill say that it is “against” abortion. As I have already said in another thread on this site, RH bill just recognizes the status quo of abortion in the Philippine law. He said that the “HEALTH secretary promotes means to put our women’s health at risk, and unknowingly (or indifferently) supporting abortion.” He neither said nor implied that Ona is guilty of being pro-abortion. We do not know whether the secretary is aware of the mechanics of the pill and IUD, and how he defines pregnancy, conception, and fertilization, so we cannot tell yet.

    para ka namang tanga. eto basahin mo:

    Section 3:
    m. While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.

    • July 5, 2010 at 11:50 am

      So where is the argument? If I am “tanga”, what are you with your nonsense comments? I have read the whole bill over and over again long before the first source (which is as typographically inaccurate as the next sources) was followed by another, and there is nothing there (that is if you know how to understand words and implications, whether in English or in Tagalog) that says or implies that it is against abortion. What it says is “While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion…” The term “while”, as it was applied here, is equivalent to “even though”, which implies that nothing has been changed. Actually, the arguments on this thread are just repetitions of those that are already discussed elsewhere on this site. The phrase “nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion” is an ambitious and illusory one. It tries to condition the mind that an Act may, although it did not choose to, change the law on abortion. As long as the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is intact, there is no Act (or anything) that can change that law. Then the statement went on with the appositive, “as abortion remains a crime and is punishable,” which is more realistic on this part since it recognizes the truth that there is something that is bigger than all Acts, and that is the Constitution. Why does it remain a crime and so is punishable? Answer: Because the Constitution tells it so. RH bill, try as it may, cannot affirm nor deny that abortion is a crime; it can only recognize it. The Constitution is the foundation of legality, and an Act cannot help it in anyway to legalize it more. Section 3m could have simply introduced the statement as, “While abortion remains a crime…” G.K. Chesterton is right when he said that short words startle eugenists, while long words soothe them. They bury their true faces behind long words that usually just being ignored but ironically being accepted.

      To those who cannot make arguments and cannot defend their conclusions, but rather cry as a baby, calling others “sinungaling” or “tanga” without showing their own wisdom and knowledge (that is if they have it in the first place), I would suggest that they learn first before they talk.

  5. mariles
    July 5, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Wilberg :
    “…your disagreement on providing sex education seem to be premised that even the mention of the word sex even within the context of education leads people to engage in sex.”
    It is missing the point. I do not think Christian disagrees that couples (or those who will marry) should be educated about sex. Actually, what he said is, “What we need is education.” It is ironic that somebody is asserting the opposite…and that is without any explanation.
    Now, what about the context of education? You are implying that anything, any term, or any topic that was applied in the context of education is educational and acceptable. Check this “educational” reference book for adolescents: http://www.prolifewaco.org/documents/Normal4pages.pdf and give us your comment. Even Philosophy can corrupt a mind although it is purely academic. Sex, furthermore, is stronger than philosophy and requires more care in explaining about it.

    isa pang katangahan:

    “If it is taught in the context of biology and not in the context of pure pleasure (I don’t think there’s a problem)… in short, it should be scientifically taught. This should be cognizant of the concerns of the family and of the public on how it can be taught,” said Ona.

    • July 5, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      Again, where is the argument? What is the point (not of Ona but of the one who pasted the excerpt)? Did I say anywhere that DepEd will not teach it in the context of education (or so it is called)? No. Actually, what I am saying is that even education can corrupt a mind if either or both the educator and the information is in the wrong. Even the Bible can shape the evil inside us if it is use in evil, or at least ignorant, ways.

      Second point is that this statement of Ona should not, in the first place, create an argumentation between opposing sides. That is because he does not understand the situation and stand of DepEd. It is not surprising, though, since he is just a new secretary, and that is of DOH. When he said that, “If it [sex] is taught in the context of biology,” he showed that he has no knowledge about the plans of DepEd on how it would implement sex education. And do you? It is not just about biology, although it would be purely academic. Now, let me further inform you that the reference books that PP wants to use (one of the samples above) is for elementary and high school students, although DepEd might have not the nerves yet to implement it. Now, who is PP? I would not repeat it anymore; you can just read all my comments on all threads here.

      And please everybody, speak up. Don’t cry. To say that someone is like this or someone is like that is no better than a cry of a baby, or a whine of an unthinking “adult”.

  6. mariles
    July 5, 2010 at 7:24 am

    the anti-RH Bill proponents are behaving exactly the same way as they used to in arguing against the bill – lies, misinformation and plain stupidity. the irony is that they claim to be from the church and uphold church beliefs and yet all they do is lie.

    • July 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm

      I have heard the words “lie” and “misinformation” from this site several times already, and as I have said, it sounds RH bill. You will also find the word “misinformation” in all reproductive health care Acts. It is rapidly becoming popular.

      Ironically, though, nobody has supported the accusations yet. Where are the supporting facts that this man or that girl is telling lies? Although there are attempts to exhibit a “logical” argument to support the claims, but then again, there are no facts, whether scientific, philosophical, religious, or otherwise.

      It is like saying, “Nanay, sinungaling yan…wag mo nang itanong kung bakit, basta sinungaling yan.” You don’t even know whether the man is simply ignorant or just “feeling marunong”, and yet you can say that he or she is “sinungaling”. That attitude is not a result of good education, although it might have been a result of education.

  7. July 5, 2010 at 8:41 am

    “the irony is that they claim to be from the church and uphold church beliefs and yet all they do is lie.”

    The church should verify if these proponents are from their rank. Then deny categorically if they are wolves in sheep’s clothing or reprimand the priests of the local catholic churches where they are attending masses every Sunday. Why they propose such a sinful bill if they hear masses every Sunday escapes me. In fact, why is their so much promiscuity in this catholic nation escapes me as well.

    • July 5, 2010 at 8:50 am

      And now that the government is doing something to remedy the situation (unwanted pregnancies, abortions, illegitimate children.etc…a result of widespread promiscuity from loose morals) -be it an unwitting part of INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY or not- the one responsible for the moral upbringing of this land is raising a howl. What gives?

      • July 5, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        You are right. The government is trying to remedy the consequence of promiscuity, which is wrong on its part and on the current situation. Why? Is it because we should not resolve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, illegitimate children, and the likes? No, rather because promiscuity is the real problem and as you have said, “loose morality” is the root cause. Therefore, to cure promiscuity, the government should not focus on how to prevent its consequences but to prevent its cause. If you have migraine, should your doctor focus more on how to alleviate the headache and forget about curing the disease? Is it wise to spend all your money for pain relievers rather than in curing the cause of pain? You can condom all your life or you can pill all your life, but you will remain promiscuous. But if your Fatherland and your Mother Church work together to heal your promiscuity, then you and the government will no longer need to pill you or condom you all your life.

        What will be the antithesis? Morality is a fantasy.

        • July 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm

          “But if your Fatherland and your Mother Church work together to heal your promiscuity, then you and the government will no longer need to pill you or condom you all your life.”

          I couldn’t agree more. So let the mother church MORALIZE about promiscuity, the DOH MINIMIZE the current result of promiscuity.

          • July 7, 2010 at 8:32 am

            No, you did not agree. You missed the point instead. Proper and good parenthood does not consist of discipline on the one hand and over indulgence on the other hand. If you are a parent and this is your way of parenting, your children would not respect you nor themselves. Aside from that, it is an unfair policy. What you are really saying is that the Church should teach restraint while the government, on its part, will seduce the young ones. It is a very bad partnership proposal.

            • July 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm

              “over indulgence” and “seduce the young”?

              There our disagreement lie.
              You might be seeing to much thru the lens of an international conspiracy.

              As a parent I would teach my children not to be immoral and promiscuous. I consider it a parental failure if they become so.

              Would the one responsible for the moral upbringing of this land admit to do the same failure today?

              • July 12, 2010 at 3:22 pm

                Let me begin with principles, then I will go to the practicality, and lastly to the actual situation.

                Sex almost always gives pleasure but the main end of sex, as our “anaphysio” suggests is not pleasure but the propagation of species. Why do you think sex is also pleasurable for animals? Because animals follow their instinct, and if sex gives no enjoyment to the flesh, then animals would have no reason to propagate. Like eating and sleeping, sex is not a willful decision that animals make, it is rather a following of a need. They do not eat and sleep to be healthy or to have a good hair and skin or to have enough strength for tomorrow’s work. They eat because of hunger; they sleep because of tiredness and sleepiness; they copulate because the season urges them to, or in other words, they feel the need to satisfy the libido of the moment. Since animals cannot be trusted to “decide” to propagate, there should be a hunger pain that would drive them into the action. In short, the reason for the existence of sexual pleasure is to motivate species to engage in the activity that would result to the multiplication of their kind.

                The phrase “be fruitful and multiply” is both a blessing and a command in the case of mankind. Why not just a blessing? Because man has the tendency to be blind about the nature of things. The blessing today could be perceived as a thing of no value tomorrow, a problem the day after, and a reason for misery after that. That is true with children. The proverb that says, “Children are a gift from the Lord,” is today just like the other wise sayings that have good sounds but leave no meaning. “Say it but do not believe it,” is the more popular principle. It is because of this tendency that the blessing also came as a command; so that when man no longer see (or already having difficulty to see) the population as a blessing from the Lord, his servile obedience to the Lord would at least keep him doing what he was commanded. That would translate as: “If humans can no longer appreciate the good of having children, and had already forgotten the reason why they are a blessing, their sense of obligation towards God will still serve his purpose.

                Furthermore, with the help of sexual pleasure, God’s plan will still be fulfilled through the people who are still propagating even as an accidental result of pleasure-seeking.

                Now, what happened to sex? How would a promiscuous, or even just the culture of today’s average young people, define sex? [1] Sex equals pleasure. [2] Love equals sex. [3] Sex is a right. [4] One’s sexual behavior and preference are absolutely personal and nobody should meddle in. [5] Sex, although to be sought, should be a “protected” activity. These are the lies that became “the facts” of today. It is hard to think nowadays that these concepts actually are lies. Is it because this generation sees everything far better than the previous ones? No, but because it is blinded by the latex material that serves as a great barrier between human beings, and the hormonal substances that blinds and prevents it from seeing reality.

                My short answers:
                [1] Although sexual actions has corresponding sexual pleasures, it should not be thought of as just a tool for pleasure. In the case of man, the pleasure part of sex is there for motivation and as Godly seduction. We know that although fertility is a good thing, rearing children needs sacrifices, and so one of the human consolation that God gave to those he has given this great task is the pleasure of sexual activities. Sex is for procreation and pleasure is for motivation. It does not necessarily mean that all sexual acts should lead to conception but that in all sexual acts, conception should be expected.

                [2] Sex is an extension of marital love. Science, common sense, and experience show that sex act should be a monogamous one. Promiscuity makes human, especially a woman, prone to sexual diseases. Promiscuity is one of the risk factors of cervical cancer, prostate cancer, chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, HIV, hepatitis C, and several others. A strict sense of territory would not allow polygamy or multiple sexual partnership, and that is what we can really call “perfectly normal”. Premarital, extramarital, and casual sex always have evil effects not only on the directly involved individuals but in the society as a whole. To equate love to sex is disregard its transcendent value and to ruin all its other forms. It is not uncommon today that the phrase “Mahal kita” really means “Gusto kitang matikman.” That is what you should call blatant lie. And is that a result of lack of education? No. It is a result of miseducation. And many of us, if not most, were educated that way. By whom? By DepEd? Not yet. But we (including DepEd and DOH) were educated and are continuously being educated by the culture of “the” sex educator, or I should rather say sex miseducator.

                [3] Is sex a right? Is there really a thing such as sexual right? This so-called right was invented by Margaret Sanger and is ever being propagandized by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America around the world with the help of private organizations and policy makers. I will leave that to all of you as something to think of or to research about.

                [4]Sexual behavior includes promiscuity, homosexuality, and harassment. According to the sex miseducators, sexual behaviors should be private and that no person, regardless of their sexual behavior, should be discriminated; meaning, the society should treat sexual predators as if they
                are not. Come to think of it. How would you treat a publicly known and convicted rapist? A safe companion? Does this concept indicate healthy social morality? Okay, let us forget about morality for the time being, insane as the idea is, just for the sake of argument. Is it practical that whenever you decide whether you are a female or a male, that you have the “right” just to re-declare your gender? And don’t you think it is scientifically senseless? Not to mention that it is medically dangerous. Anyways, there are still more time for that discussion.

                [5] The words “sex” and “protection” used to be indifferent to each other. Now, there are many things that people protect themselves from when they engage in sexual activities. Why? First of all, because pregnancy is one of the most dreaded consequences of sex today; more than gonorrhea and genital herpes. Secondly, because STI’s and other diseases are just around the corner as results of promiscuity but could victimize even those who are not promiscuous.

                [My apologies, I am not used to writing long comments so I could not share my whole mind about the current topic. I will try my best, though.]

                Now, what will you call an action that suggests that pleasure can be obtained without being answerable to its consequences? It is like saying, “Sige, hindi kita isusumbong,” when someone is doing something that he should not do. A simple but common scenario is a mother, whose child is being prohibited by his father to drink sodas, saying, “O sige, tikim ka ng konti, wala naman ang tatay mo.” If you think it is a small thing, you are wrong. The mother’s action is shaping the child’s mentality, attitude, and behavior. Every time, in his whole life, that he would be given an opportunity to do what is not morally acceptable, his ever ready reaction would be, “pwede pala”. I am talking about psychology here, not oral expressions. You will not usually hear the person say what are the guiding rules that he follows in every decision he makes — actually, he is not aware of it either most of the time — but that would reflect on his way of thinking and on his actions. Even if a father is authoritative but the mother is permissive, the child would usually choose the way that is easier to trod. Then what would happen to his relationship with the father? He will be convinced that his father does not want him to be happy, and that he cannot understand him; that all he can see is the mistakes that he has committed. The mother, who is actually in the wrong, will be the loving and righteous educator in the eyes of thei child. Both the mother and the child would “sincerely” refuse to believe that the mother is actually seducing her child.

                Let me apply this now to your last two arguments:
                [1] “As a parent I would teach my children not to be immoral and promiscuous.” I do not think your parenting is a good one. You cannot teach a child not to be immoral and promiscuous. You can either or both show them the beauty of purity and the evil consequences of all wrongdoings. You cannot simply say, “don’t do this and don’t do that,” because even a three-year-old child would try to deviate from your rules. Moral teaching requires full engagement. It is not just a set of commands, but rather a simulation of what may actually happen. If what you would do is to tell them “not to”, more probably they would; and that would be your parental failure.

                [2] “Would the one responsible for the moral upbringing of this land admit to do the same failure today?” I believe it did and it is still doing. We have heard apologies from the last two popes of our times, and that clearly show an admission of failures. John Paul the Great even apologized for the failures of the past centuries aside from his own. The Church, holy as it is, has imperfect members. Both the clergy and the lay people commit mistakes, not regarding the teaching of the Church but the way it is being handed down and practiced. We have our own lapses that affect the whole Church and the society. But the moral descent of the society cannot be blamed to the Church alone, as it cannot be blamed to the civil authority alone. It is not just the mother nor just the father who is responsible for the moral growth of the family. As members of the Church, both ecclesiastical and civil leaders should be good examples of moral living — that is in all aspects of their lives. Church members and other citizens on their part should be honest enough to shape and follow their consciences according to the teachings of the Church or their respective denominations. But that is not the case. We always blame either or both the government and the Church, and we rather follow our own “wisdom”. Fortunately, there is a very great difference between the Church and the government, and that is that the Apostolic teachings are unchanging and is always available to those who really seek to learn. As a matter of fact, the knowledge of the lay people who are truly Catholics do not necessarily come from their parish priests or through the Holy Mass that they participate on. Many Catholics learn from the Apostolic Fathers, the Fathers of the Church, the Saints, the spiritual writers, the Catechism, and from their own experience of God and his Word in their lives. In addition to those are the homilies that they hear first hand. They can honestly say, “Let change begin with me.”

                • July 12, 2010 at 5:18 pm

                  Ok, let ma paraphrase:
                  As a parent I would teach my children not to be immoral and promiscuous by
                  showing them the beauty of purity and the evil consequences of all wrongdoings and by moral teachings that require full engagement.

                  As for rebuttal no. 2, Thank you for agreeing that the Church has failed in its moral responsibility. I say, “let the change begin within it.”

                  I rest my case. Lets just wait for the result of DepEd and the Bishops dialogue?

                  • July 13, 2010 at 8:51 am

                    “…let the change begin within it.”

                    What makes many conclusions wrong is the wrong perception in the first place. The Church is not the CBCP nor the whole college of bishops and cardinals. It is not even the universal college of bishops and their co-workers, the priests. The Church is the People of God, the Body of Christ, the souls who has the Spirit of God. To say, “Let change begin within the Church,” is to actually say, “Every Christian should live a Christian life,” and that is what we are already doing.” We commit mistakes, we fall into sin, but we live from grace to grace, always keeping in mind the commandments of God, the love of Christ, and the mission to be witnesses in words and in deeds. The Magisterium of the Church is its teaching authority, and we, as parts of that body communicate those teachings most especially within the Body. If a politician is a Catholic, it would be counted as sin for the body of bishops not to speak out, if he is publicly and politically committing sins. That is not to broadcast his sinfulness but to correct his error and to prevent this error from spreading out. The concept is as simple as, “Napalo si kuya dahil sa ginawa niya, hindi ko pala yun dapat gawin.” If one was a public sinner, he should be a public penitent to be forgiven; and that is just practical. A Christian politician is not Christian inside the church and politician inside his office; he is a Christian who happened to serve his country as a politician; he is a politician that should have Christ’s mind. Only the State and the Church has the so-called separation, not the humanity of those who happened to be both members of the Church and government officials.

                    So when you say, “Let change begin within it [i.e. the Church], you are saying that if the Secretary of Health and the Secretary of Education are Catholics, then they should be faithful and obedient to the Church. Again, being obedient to the Church does not necessarily mean being obedient to the Bishops’ Conference, but to the teaching of the Church.

                    This is not meant to offend anybody, but as an answer to those ignorant souls who casually say that the bishops and the priests are hypocrites. I would not protest against your very casual accusation (as if you are just greeting a good morning), maybe you have your own arguments to prove that, but look now who is not true to what they profess they believe in. Do they not declare in every Eucharistic celebration, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and yet they are antagonistic to it? And what do you call those people who profess what they do not actually believe? I can give everybody a clue: define hypocrite.

                    Regarding the Church’s failure in its moral responsibility, I will try to give a clearer picture. If I failed to teach my children to use “po” and “opo” when speaking with older folks, does it make me a bad father? Have I failed in my moral responsibility? Of course not. Moral responsibility and being a good father is a very broad truth that has hundreds of factors. I may have failed to teach them “po” and “opo” but it does not mean I failed to teach and show them respect. Without justifying myself or throwing blames on others, I would say that teaching these kinds of things may depend on the situation that I and my children are in, and that my wife and my other relatives are also contributing factors to whether it would be taught successfully or not.

                    The Church, as a whole, never became negligent, although there were times when the clergies were blinded by politics or by cowardice. First factor is human weakness. Second is the situation of the time. Third factor is the process of knowing one’s self. The good news is, Christ is risen and he promised that even the power of hell could not prevail against the Church. In short: The Church may fail sometimes in some particular things but it could not be a failure. She will always rise up like her Lord. It will remain the Kingdom of God on earth, which mouth God speaks through.

                    • July 13, 2010 at 2:18 pm

                      I agree. Let me reiterate: Let the change begin with “the Church (which)is the People of God, the Body of Christ, the souls who has the Spirit of God.” This include all the priests, the bishops, the clergies and then the flock. That was what I meant. In a way, let the change begin within all of us…

                    • July 13, 2010 at 2:27 pm

                      “Po” and “opo” are poles apart from fornication, premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery as gauge of parental failure.

            • July 9, 2010 at 8:30 am

              “seduce the young ones”??? are you talking of sexual seduction? how is the state doing that? your imagination is way over-extended.

              has the state produced and published pornography? pornography is banned and illegal in the country. what is it that the state did to seduce the young?

              • July 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm

                My imagination is not way over-extended, it is just your perception always misses the connection.

                To seduce, according to a dictionary, is to “lure or entice away from duty, principles, or proper conduct.” As always being pointed out by anti-“anti-life” people, contraception is not a reflection of sense of responsibility but of irresponsibility. [I have attempted to post the reply above last week but it was not accepted due to duplication error, so it is only now that it was re-posted, though in a different name.] I have already given an example of how the government is seducing the youth, and I believe that should be enough.

    • July 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Let me answer the last part using the irony of the former Secretary of Health Francisco Duque. The secretary said that “share of the blame for the rise [of HIV/AIDS] lies with the Catholic Church for its opposition to the use of condoms,” and yet on the same report, Duque “identified homosexual men, female prostitutes and their male clients, and injecting drug users as the groups most at risk and by whom the disease has been spread: groups unlikely to be influenced by Catholic teaching on abstinence and fidelity within marriage” (Hilary White, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020308.html). I am speechless. Where is the logic in Duque’s claims? “Why is there so much promiscuity in this Catholic nation?” Simple. Because promiscuous people choose to defy Catholic teachings, as Duque had unwittingly proven.

      This is a Catholic country not because the nation lives as Catholic but because majority of the citizens are baptized (not necessarily practicing) Catholics. Qatar is a Muslim country, but does it necessarily mean that the citizens really live a Muslim life? Even students are students simply because they go to school, not necessarily because they study.

      • July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        “Because promiscuous people choose to defy Catholic teachings…”

        Now, there’s the bottom line in all these…

        Promiscuity did not start with DOH and DEpEd in the first place. I don’t agree with sec doque’s statement, tho…

    • July 7, 2010 at 8:51 am

      Read Casti Connubii, read Humanae Vitae, read Evangelium Vitae, read the Theology of the Body, and all the Church documents about life, family, and sexuality, and then judge whether these people speak according to the Faith of the Church or “all they do is lie”.

  8. July 5, 2010 at 10:13 am

    mariles :

    the anti-RH Bill proponents are behaving exactly the same way as they used to in arguing against the bill – lies, misinformation and plain stupidity. the irony is that they claim to be from the church and uphold church beliefs and yet all they do is lie.

    i have the same question. even bishops have been telling lies about modern methods of contraception.

    • July 5, 2010 at 1:28 pm

      I have a short question: how?

  9. July 9, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Wilberg :

    Let me answer the last part using the irony of the former Secretary of Health Francisco Duque. The secretary said that “share of the blame for the rise [of HIV/AIDS] lies with the Catholic Church for its opposition to the use of condoms,” and yet on the same report, Duque “identified homosexual men, female prostitutes and their male clients, and injecting drug users as the groups most at risk and by whom the disease has been spread: groups unlikely to be influenced by Catholic teaching on abstinence and fidelity within marriage” (Hilary White, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020308.html). I am speechless. Where is the logic in Duque’s claims? “Why is there so much promiscuity in this Catholic nation?” Simple. Because promiscuous people choose to defy Catholic teachings, as Duque had unwittingly proven.

    This is a Catholic country not because the nation lives as Catholic but because majority of the citizens are baptized (not necessarily practicing) Catholics.

    if there is so much promiscuity, then it means the church has failed in its mission. it is the same reason why attendance in masses has been falling – many of the faithful have found the catholic church irrelevant in their lives and outdated. case in point is that church’s stand on contraception.

  10. July 9, 2010 at 8:59 am

    i find it absurd and complete naivete that contraception is now equal to promiscuity.

    the catholic church is promoting contraception with the use of traditional methods of contraception like the calendar method – so the church is ALSO promoting promiscuity.

    the end objective of traditional methods of contraception which the catholic church promotes has the same objective as modern methods of contraception like the pill and condoms – prevent conception, plan pregnancy and avoid unplanned pregnancy.

    how can the church promote promiscuity?

  11. July 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    I would like to see the Philippine Health Department take a massive step to control population by aggressively advertise and open up a free VASECTOMY CLINIC for all willing male patients.

    • July 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm

      “…for all willing male patients.” Now, that’s a real challenge.

  12. July 21, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    It has been a few weeks now with the Aquino administration…so far no news about his plans of creating new jobs and about the economy. No news on how can he attract more investors to the country. To tell you frankly, he slowly showing his true color…..he is an inaction man. Don’t say everything will fall into place….just excuses.

  13. Tobey
    September 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    go vasectomy!

  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: