“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.”
TS Eliot
"Oh no! It costs 2.50 per text. Only people with cash will be able to vote."
If there is one thing that adherents both for and against the proposed RH bill have agreed on lately, it's that they both lack the resources to make themselves heard.
Why is there this mad rush to plead poverty? Is it because we believe that any claim to the moral high ground begins with a low savings account balance? How does such a position encourage reasonable discussion on an issue that is already too emotionally charged to begin with?
One does not need to be poor in order to identify with the poor.
The proposed RH Bill isn't only a flawed piece of legislation. It is also the single, most divisive proposed bit of legislation in Philippine history. Many intelligent individuals have argued both for and against the Bill. And while they might have their differences, they are concerned with essentially one thing: LOVE.
And so, instead of focusing on the many things which divide us, allow me to remind everyone of the really big thing that unites us. Love binds everything together. And it is this concern for the future of love and loving that has everyone drawing lines in the sand regarding the RH Bill.
Rather than rehash all my arguments against the Bill in this entry, allow me to make a recommendation. Let's explore alternatives to the Bill. One such alternative was proposed recently in Time Magazine. Do you really want to fight poverty? Invest in girls.
But if, given the recent global financial crisis, you are adverse to "investing", then maybe you should consider doing something more concrete. Jason Evert, the character education speaker, is in Manila. You might want to drop by Real Love Revolution 2011. Love shouldn't just be about protecting yourself from your mistakes. There is no condom for the heart.
There are alternatives to legislating love. There are alternatives to pontificating about love. But most of all, there are rational approaches to love. Some of them are even mathematical. Because, as the pundit quipped, love is like mathematics. Joy is added. Sorrow is subtracted. Our friends are multiplied. And our love, undivided.
Like many Catholics, I am delighted by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III’s decision to take a firm stand on the issue of reproductive health. I am not happy with President Aquino’s tacit support of what I consider to be a flawed piece of legislation. However, I am happy, in keeping with best traditions of the Church concerning the intrinsic relationship between faith and joy, that President Aquino’s declaration has forced us to confront the necessary creative tension between the rich tradition of the Church and the demands of contemporary Philippine society. To address the needs of our people, we must move from considering matters concerning excommunication to communication.
Or if you subject yourself unnecessarily to asinine alliteration...
Or if you take delight in the metaphysics of self-reference...
Or if you've made it this far without navigating to a site that isn't a waste of your time...
I apologize for the absence. I was occupied by a spirited discussion on abortion in my Facebook profile. One of the most fascinating aspects of the aforementioned discussion on abortion was the sheer number of studies conducted both for and against it. I would click on the hyperlink above if only to marvel at the research conducted by Manny Amador (for those against abortion) and Michael Aquino (for those who believe it should be offered as an option).
Courage comes in many forms. For some, courage involves physical bravery. History does not lack for examples of noble men and women who refused to seek safety or succor despite overwhelming odds. That's why, perhaps inspite of the movie, we still remember the courageous stand of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. For others, courage involves sacrifice. Again, history is quick to point out many sterling examples of conscious self-sacrifice for the sake of a greater good. That's why, again perhaps inspite of the overwhelmingly saccharine, almost saintly portrayal of Gandhi in the movie "Gandhi", we still remember the unyielding courage of Mohandas K. Gandhi and the principle of satyagraha.
And yet, for a few, courage involves nothing than an almost singular passion for the truth, and the determination to be ruled by it. One such person is Roberto F. de Ocampo. He writes in Kill "Bill"?:
AT THE outset I have to admit that I am no stranger to condoms and can attest to their effectiveness. I have four children and could have had more but my wife and I agreed that four was enough and implemented that plan accordingly. Furthermore, the bulk of my career had been in public service from the founding of the rural electrification program (early ’70s) to my stint in the Cabinet, and thus I have been to every nook and cranny of the Philippines and have seen the full range of poverty in our country. Given this quick background, one would think that I should be an obvious supporter of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. I am not. I have serious misgivings about it.
And so, having thrown the gauntlet, Mr. de Ocampo proceeds to articulate, with passionate reason and carefully tempered outrage, why the RH Bill is not merely flawed but is, ultimately, ruinous for all those who respect and cultivate life.
This leads me to my second serious misgiving, namely, the present draft bill contains punitive provisions that are tantamount to an affront to civil liberties and smack of religious persecution. Just read the section mandating private sector employees and private health practitioners to actively promote artificial birth control methods and distribute devices whether or not their conscience and religious convictions agree with the practice. Combine that with the section imposing penalties of imprisonment or fines or both if they don’t follow or are deemed guilty of “perceived violations” and tell me that the bill does not encroach on basic civil rights. Tell me that the bill does not unfairly force a person into a moral dilemma, a State-induced struggle of conscience. This is not education, it’s coercion. This is not choice, it’s threat.
Of course, there are those who would say, “don’t worry, the legislators will get rid of those provisions in the final version.” I wish I could be so sanguine as to simply smile and accept that. But I am not a novice of the legislative process and have been in the trenches of legislative battles often enough to know that a bill’s passage is not a clinical operation but goes from compromise to compromise and finally ends up with implementing rules and regulations to provide it with sharper enforcement teeth. Whatever the outcome, the law cannot be so toothless as to be useless, or why have a bill at all? If it is a law with teeth, it has to be enforced and enforcement of laws often involves the arena of litigation. Litigation on the other hand opens the door for abuses by the unscrupulous and the harassment of even the upright citizen. I don’t know about you, but I for one am not prepared to surrender one of my most sacred human rights and personal choices by seeing it transferred by the State from the arena of personal morality and conscience to the arena of legislation and litigation.
Finally, I find it truly disingenuous for anyone to proceed on the premise that the poor are to blame for the nation’s poverty. This seems to be one of the bill’s underlying economic philosophies—i.e., we could be such a richer nation if the poor would do something better than just go forth and multiply. Pardon me, but in the context of our income-distribution challenged society, the poor are often the victims, not the problem. And let’s not forget that it’s the poor, not the wealthy, whose acknowledged sacrifices as overseas workers are propping up this struggling economy. If a major concern of the bill is to help reduce poverty, then I cannot believe that the bill’s proponents and supporters are unaware of the many other major factors that are the root causes of poverty (poor governance, corruption, severely unequal distribution of wealth, low productivity, unattractive investment policies, etc.) and, of course, the many other alternatives that can be brought to bear to address them (giving up pork barrel, reforming land reform, raising tax collection efficiency, curtailing dynastic politics, etc.).
Courage comes in many forms. Some of them come clad in nothing more than a loincloth, and involves the evisceration of their hated foes. Others still come clad in nothing more than yet another loincloth, and involves turning hatred into admiration.
Today, we are privileged to be reminded once again of the many forms courage can take. And one of them is former Finance Secretary, perpetual raconteur, and sometime lounge singer, Roberto F. de Ocampo.
I recently read the article, Reiterating the CBCP Position on Family, and I was struck by the reaction of the people both for and against proposed RH Bill 5043. It seems that much of the discussion for or against the Bill has taken a decidedly "religious" dimension, and not in a good way. Allow me to offer my humble opinion on this very important issue by making my opposition to the RH Bill 5043 very clear:
As a practicing Catholic, I am well aware of the Church's stand on, to borrow from Archbishop Lagdameo's letter to the Filipino people, "truth and morality, the value and dignity of life, family and marriage".
As a citizen of the Philippines, with the demonstrated ability to doom any presidential candidate I vote for with the ignominy of defeat, I would like to summarize my objections to the Bill as follows:
1. Like Archbishop Lagdameo, I believe that "The Bill dilutes and negates Section III (1) Article XV of the Constitution which provides 'The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious conviction and the demands of responsible parenthood.'"
2. In particular, Sec. 21. (a) 5 seems to be a violation of our duly recognized right to practice religious and civic freedoms:
The following acts are prohibited:
a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.
How can a practicing Christian's health care worker's religious freedoms be respected if that health care worker is required by law to turn over persons seeking care and services not consistent with the practice of his or her faith to someone who surely will?
Many friends have told me that once the Bill is passed, certainly, amendments may be made. But after consulting with experts on the legislative process (who have no position whatsoever on the proposed RH Bill 5043) taking out or amending key portions of the Bill are close to impossible, or at best, unbelievably difficult due to the legislative process itself. Perhaps other people can take that chance, but I can't. Not when so many brave people have sacrificed so much to provide me with the freedoms my family and I enjoy.
Any proposed law or piece of legislation that forces a person, regardless of personal belief, to do something contrary to their legally upheld beliefs, is despotic. The Catholic Church, at most, can only excommunicate. This only affects you if you're Catholic. But a proposed law like this doesn't discriminate: it applies to everyone regardless of belief. It is anti-freedom, which our beloved former President Cory Aquino helped restore in our country not too long ago.
Allow me to end by saying that if there is one thing, among the many, that both people for or against RH Bill 5043 can agree on it is this: we must find a viable solution for the widespread poverty in our country. In my experience though, solutions that unite people, as opposed to divide people, have a better chance of helping more people. Shall we allow ourselves to be prisoners to ideology? Or shall we try to find a way for equally well-meaning people to get on with the business of helping people?
When the Pro-Life blogging community I am part of heard that Manny "Mad Dog" Amador was going to be in town, we decided to venture out from our virtual enclaves and meet up with one of the foremost Pro-Life advocates in the Philippines, at least in our small, but feisty little online circle.
We met up in Dulcinea, Rockwell Mall, where we proceeded, perhaps partly due to the sugar rush engendered by churros con chocolate to map out a commitment to promoting Pro-Life Philippines activities in 2010 through new media channels. Trying to get the numerous, passionate, and yet maddeningly disorganized patchwork quilt of Pro-Life advocates on board and on the same page might be akin to tilting at windmills, but the Sancho Panza in all of us simply refuses to concede the media tussle to our more media-savvy adversaries. Rather, we seek to make a commitment for life an attractive proposition to the hip, media-savvy young folk who deserve every chance to live life free from fear, despair, and disappointment.
Real love begins with the freedom to choose. To be given the opportunity to consciously, whole-heartedly choose life is the best gift anyone can give our youth. As the immortal boyband, Boyzone, covering a sung by The Osmonds proclaimed, "Don't love me for fun, girl. Let me be the one girl. Love me for a reason, and let the reason be love!"
And to commemorate our Manila meeting, and to allay Mad Dog's aversion to manufactured bubblegum pop, here's a toast to all Pro-Lifers, and an exploration of the true meaning of love. Enjoy!
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston offers a thoughtful summary of his opposition to the esteemed university's invitation of President Obama to their commencement rights:
I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person. The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life. Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.
As I have written previously, I respect the office of the President of the United States, and profess my admiration for President Obama's accomplishments as a statesman:
While there is much to admire in the newly-minted US president, there is also much which invites concern. It's not enough to mollify conservative Christian elements in the US by choosing a Catholic vice-president, especially a Catholic who invites attention by asserting that "The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat."
It's more important to, remarks regarding the use of rosaries for martial purposes notwithstanding, address the valid concerns that these elements raise.
What is President Obama's stand on reproductive health? What is his stand on abortions? Will he encourage a culture that promotes and nurtures life?
However, I cannot condone the anti-life policies that President Obama seeks to promote. It's not a political issue. It's a moral one.
Kudos to Damian Thompson, whose blog steered me to Fr. Z's entry.
February is Pro-Life Month, and my friends in the Pro-Life Movement have been very busy of late. My good friends Sunnyday, with her talented writer/puppeteer Nicole have been making the long trek to congress to show support for our pro-life legislators in the deliberations regarding the RH Bill. Buding Dee, Amelia Anne Alba and the lovely ladies of Latch Philippines also came out to enliven the otherwise heated debates with their quiet strength and bubbly charm. Maybe next time, ladies, you will allow a solitary thorn to invade your quorum of roses?
Another good friend, Derek Ross of True Love Waits, has also been busy putting the finishing touches on Unashamed, a Purity Conference to be held on February 21, 2009, at the Megatent, 30 Meralco Avenue, Ortigas Central Business District, Pasig City. Derek is a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement, and we're all praying that the conference draws many youth and youth leaders into a continuing discussion on purity, character, and love.
For more details regarding what ordinary people like us can do to truly celebrate love this February, get in touch with Pro-Life Philippines, or drop Derek a line at barkadahan@wagmuna.com.
"Man is more himself, man is more manlike, when joy is the fundamental thing in him, and grief the superficial. Melancholy should be an innocent interlude, a tender and fugitive frame of mind; praise should be the permanent pulsation of the soul. Pessimism is at best an emotional half-holiday; joy is the uproarious labour by which all things live...Christianity satisfies suddenly and perfectly man's ancestral instinct for being the right way up; satisfies it supremely in this; that by its creed joy becomes something gigantic and sadness something special and small."
I celebrate life. Do you?
