Clarificatory Note on ‘Catholics for RH (C4RH)’
It came to our knowledge that a group the calls itself “Catholics for Reproductive Health bill” or C4RH has been publicly claiming to be a Catholic association or group whose published mission is “to bring Catholics into full harmony with their faith and realize that there is no dissonance with their being Catholic and simultaneously believing in the advocacy and goals of reproductive health and rights.”
We wish to make it clear that the Church does not recognize this group to be an authentic Catholic association or group since it espouses and supports a stand contrary to the magisterial teachings of the Church. The uncompromising stand of the Church to uphold the dignity of the person and to protect and respect the life from conception to natural death has always been the constant teaching of the Church. Public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church.
Let it be clarified that the Church does not recognize the “Catholics for Reproductive Health” as a genuine Catholic association or organization in accordance with Canon Law. Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself with this group gravely errs.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,
+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, DD
Bishop of Tandag
President, CBCP
May 17, 2011
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
When you say natural death, do you also mean death by starvation? I am Catholic and it goes against my grain to bring children into this world and then just starve them to death or not give them a life with dignity. If Jesus were flesh and blood right now, he will be in the slums tending to these children and may be calling you sepulchres too. You fight for the zygotes, who are fighting for these starving children? Go ahead and call yourselves the real Catholics but you should not be proud. I support Catholics for Rh!
ReplyDeleteWhen we say natural death, we mean death with no human intervention, like murder, suicide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
ReplyDeleteI am Catholic and it goes against my grain of sense too to bring death to a living human. Your rhetoric gives the impression that we pro-life people who fight for the life of the newly conceived human approve of starving children to death. Where do you get your basis for that from? Whereas we fight for LIFE from conception, we also fight for EDUCATION. We also fight for ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION. We also fight for POVERTY ALLEVIATION. We also fight for FOOD on the table of poor children. We also fight for MEDICINES for the sick people. Do not make the new living human zygote fight with starving children. Both of them are "living" and both of them need to be given food and allowed to live.
Surely, you have the right to support which organization/association you wish to support (and we respect your right), but let it be known that the Church does not recognize C4RH "as a genuine Catholic association or organization in accordance with Canon Law".
I know what natural death means. If you say that you are also fighting for the starving children, I do not understand why you are against the RH bill.
ReplyDeleteIf I am Catholic, and I believe in the RH bill, then I should not be a Catholic anymore according to the Canon Law. At this point in time, I'm already disgusted by the Catholic bishops and am ready to be a non-Catholic. I don't feel at all separated from Jesus though. You are now the current sepulchres. Sad!
Of course, you know what "natural death" means. However, I felt the need to define in my simple words, or at least give examples because you inquired if it also means "death by starvation".
ReplyDeleteYou do not understand why I am against RH Bill? It is plain and simple. You have to understand, that distributing condoms, contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, injectibles, and others stipulated in the bill, will not feed and fill starving children. To feed and to fill is to give food and drink, not to distribute condoms and pills. Food is to starving children. Food. Food. Not condom. As job is to jobless, not birth control pill.
I do not know where you got your resources from but where in the Canon Law does it say that you should not be a Catholic anymore because you believe in the RH Bill? According to the letter in this blog, the C4RH is not a genuine Catholic organization. It does not say whatsoever that you should not be a Catholic anymore. If you have it, please state the exact paragraph number of the Canon Law. I am ignorant of it and I shall want to check.
It is with deep grief to learn that you are ready to be a non-Catholic. I hope you still are not, but you already are sounding too anti-Catholic. But in any case, we shall always pray for you.
Catholic bishops are fighting for LIFE, for the life of the unborn. We should rejoice with that. Should the unborn be your child, we know that somebody is caring and fighting for your child, even when his own parents does not want him or did not plan him.
You are sad because you call us current sepulchres. We are happy because we take the pain you inflict on us. "Blessed are you when they persecute you for my name's sake," says Jesus. Please do not get separated from Jesus. In everything, remember His Passion.
I guess I would have to go step by step on this one to arrive from starvation to condoms. Yes, you are right, distributing condoms will not feed the hungry children. I will use the example my husband's math teacher in grade school used (that was more than 25 years ago, you probably were not born yet). Let's say you have a loaf of bread and you only have one because your parents are not professors like some kids, just peddlers on the street trying to sell buko juice and actually they might not even afford to buy a whole loaf but let's be dreamers for a minute here. 2 kids, plus two parents with a loaf of bread for a day is probably good. Make that six kids and two parents for a loaf of bread a day. Now that is harder. Not let's go back to reality and say that if I didn't sell a lot of buko juice today then I might not even have enough for a loaf since I also have to pay my utangs from the previous month - had to do that because I have to feed my family whether I make money or not.
ReplyDeleteNow that is where the Rh bill comes in. Let's say we actually listen to the sermon and try to do abstinence, but sometimes the male lust in particular is hard to stop. Since you sound like a very intellectual person, I encourage you to read up on how much rape is happening within the confines of a marriage taking into consideration that the statistics you will find is very conservative given most women are too scared to report rape against their husbands. Half of them might not even know that they have a say on whether they should have sex or not thus not know that they are being raped. I'm sure we will get to the condoms here eventually. So given that really, abstinence will not work because half of the two will not cooperate, what do you do knowing bringing into this world another kid means starvation for that kid and maybe the rest of the kids. I'm not sure if you can relate to this because I'm guessing you never ran into this problem. I think this is the time you use ask your husband to at least use a condom even if you really didn't want to have sex anyway but hey you are just a woman. It is the 21st Century but you are still in the Philippines and somehow still a second class citizen. This bill would probably have empowered you to at least have a choice not to bring another hungry mouth you know you cannot feed into this world but your religious priests who by the way eat three meals a day tells you it is a sin to do what you are thinking of doing. So now you are living a life in hell and then are scared to death you are going to hell because of condoms. What despair....can you relate Rowell or is this just an intellectual discourse for you. No, I'm sorry I do not know anything about the canon law. Was is really written by God? Tell me. Or is it written by my fellow men who said they were moved by God to do it. I do believe in God and in Jesus but I think the bishops have overstepped their bounderies when they scare the legislators who are supposed to protect the common good - common, meaning also women and children. And I know you are going to say the fertilized egg too but please, just leave it to the people to decide later whether they want to avail of the program or not. The government is trying to help the ones who cannot help themselves and give them a chance to a life that they have more control of and maybe break the cycle of poverty. They might have enough on their tummies they can enjoy life more. I don't know why as a Catholic you cannot agree with that. No, I do not know the Canon law but I know Jesus said that whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me. I want the Church to be living in a poor woman's life. Right now, I think they are just reading the Canon law without any practical applications. I also suggest you go to Manila if you are still in Dagupan city to visit Quiapo or Cubao and observe the life of a homeless kid. Maybe you will understand where I'm coming from.
I hope I at least convinced you that although this whole bill is repulsive to you and people close to you, there are people who are living in very desperate conditions that the government is trying to address. I think it is a very Christian move if not Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments, "Moonwater". I appreciate your time for discussing with me. At least we get the chance to hear from each other's viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteNow, let me comment one by one on your arguments regarding the:
1. LOAF BREAD
Taking the mindset of your husband's math teacher 25 years ago, i think you will agree that 2 parents with no child make them richer, eh? Mathematically, 1 loaf bread will last for two days if that is the case. Since they have zero children, 1 loaf bread will be saved a day which could be used to pay for their "utangs" the previous month.
Now, for example, you have 3 kids. Your argumentation leads me to think that you would prefer to lose your third child just for you to be able to eat a loaf bread without starving. Supposing you are conceiving your 3rd child. Since you posit that we "leave it to the people to decide later", it means that you have the choice to kill the baby in your womb. You may not understand our position yet on the killing of the unborn (Im not talking about abortion here but abortifacient pills) but I want to make a request that you study more about the actions of contraceptive pills. Because this is where our fight for LIFE comes in.
2. BUKO JUICE and THE HOMELESS KID
This is where our fight for EDUCATION and JOBS CREATION comes in. If the man were given the chance to finish schooling, he will have the opportunity to find a good work. If the man had more opportunities to have a better job, he wouldn't end up selling buko juice. Now, let's leave this idealistic dream of ours of every poor having a good job. In reality, there really are people who sell buko juice or people who have no means of earning a living. I have been here in Manila for a couple of years now and I have seen and observed the life of a homeless kid. In fact, I didn't have to go here. I can find that too in Dagupan. But I suggest that you go and ask the buko juice vendor what he wants. If given a chance, he wants to have a decent job. He needs a good-paying job, "Moonwater". I suggest that you go also and ask that homeless kid in Quiapo or Cubao what he truly needs. He needs a home, a shelter. He needs food and education. And yet the government will distribute condoms? Regardless of age? I do not know why you, a Catholic (and anti-Catholic?), can not understand our position.
3. ON BEING INTELLECTUAL
Thank you and I appreciate it very much. I do believe that the RH Bill truly needs intellectual discussions, for this concerns already the LIFE OF THE UNBORN and the LIFE OF THE FAMILY. I encourage you also to have an in-depth study about the RH Bill and its dreadful consequences.
4. RAPE and ABSTINENCE
I know this will soon come out in our discussions. Question1: If the woman is on birth control pill, does it stop her husband from raping her?
Answer1: NO. The birth control does not do whatsoever to stop her husband from raping her. In fact, he might increase its frequency if the husband knew that the woman would not get pregnant.
Question2: Is there no other law than the RH Bill that resolves rape incidence?
Answer2: THERE ALREADY IS! The Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710). No need for the RH Bill. As answered on Question1, the RH bill doesn't at all resolve the problem on the incidence of rape. It might worsen it.
Question3: If you cant stop one person from abstaning, since it requires the cooperation of the couples, will you allow rape to happen, as long as one of them is using contraceptive?
Answer3: Based from your argumentation, your answer would be a YES. For you, since you cant stop one from abstaining, then let rape happen, as long as the man is using condom or the woman is on contraceptive pill, or as long as the woman will not get pregnant. This, I based only from your arguments. Take note, contraceptives does not solve rape problems (even if we are on the 21st century).
5. CHOICE
ReplyDeleteYou already have that choice, "Moonwater". I already have that choice. Filipinos everywhere around the globe already have that choice. If the RH Bill is passed, Juan dela Cruz can plan the number of his family of his own choosing. If the RH bill is rejected and thrown into the garbage bin, Juan dela Cruz can still plan the number of his family of his own choosing.
6. OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES
The bishops are not overstepping their boundaries. They are just doing their job! They are in charge teaching matters of faith and morals, therefore they much teach and act on legislations contrary to, in the case of RH Bill, morals. Aren't the legislators themselves overstepping their boundaries when they enact laws contrary to morals?
7. PROTECTING THE COMMON GOOD
With the onslaught passage of the RH Bill, the common good will not be protected. The common good, I dare say, will not be protected. Especially on matters regarding conscientious objection.
8. WHY AS A CATHOLIC I CAN NOT AGREE WITH THAT?
As a Catholic, I will be the first to agree with the idea that people have enough on their tummies, but not in the way that you think of. Not through condoms, but through food. Not through contraceptive pills, but through jobs. Not through IUDS, but through education. I do not know too why as a Catholic you can not agree with these.
9. CANON LAW
You ask me, "Was it really written by God?" I tell you, you know the answer to that question. And if not yet, I tell you, "No. It was not written by God." But allow me to ask you also one question: "WAS THE RH BILL WRITTEN BY GOD?" (You don't have to answer this. I just want you to ponder.) You have the impression that they [the bishops] are just reading the Canon Law without practical applications. I beg to disagree. That is not what they "just do". You are wrong with this, "Moonwater". At this point in time, you are not aware that they are saving a newly conceived baby already.
I do not know the Canon Law also. No, I am ignorant of it. I agree that Jesus said that whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me. That's why we are fighting for the life of the unborn, the most innocent, the least of the least of Jesus's brothers. The least because even their parents who should be loving and caring for them rejects them. Jesus also said, "Let the children come to me", and yet the pro-RH say, "Let the children not live if we choose to."
You live in a world that is not the same dimension as mine. I know that whatever I will say to you will not convince you to change it. I will clarify though that I am against rape. You twist my words around. I gave you that example hoping you will pick up on how NOT empowered the women are at all. How do you salvage a bad situation. But you are an idealist and refuse to see that rape happens in a marriage and Filipino women are too scared to speak up against it. You give solutions that are clearly from somebody that cannot put themselves in the shoe of that woman. Did Magna carta have a section that says there should be a mandatory education on women about their rights? I am hoping when the RH bill gets passed, that sex education will cover unwanted advances by men including rape and hopefully hotline numbers where women can call with anonimity.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of condoms and food, i think you are totally not in touch with reality. You again have observed but failed to empathize. The number of people in our country have definitely surpassed its natural resources. There are just too many people to feed. I think it's only wise to let them decide whether they can use contraceptives - according to their own conscience. Free will after all is given to us by God. Who are you to stop them from acting against their own conscience and who are you to judge whether what they do is a sin or not. They are not living your life and you are not living theirs.
On the subject of government and morality. The job of the government is not to keep its people moral but to keep the peace and order and hopefully welfare of the people. Now, this is again where we are going to have divergent views. Although I think the govt doesnt have to use moral means to do its job - example: punishment by death of certain offences, I think the RH bill is a moral bill unless you are a fundamentalist Catholic who keep insisting that life begins at fertilization and contraceptives just kill the unborn. But luckily, there is a separation of Church and State and so it is really a moot point to try to convince the Catholics that it's ok because it will never be ok on the Catholic's point of view. They really just have to realize that there other people in the country that do not have the same point of view as they do and they don't have to use the contraceptives they are scaring everybody about. In fact they can abstain as much as they like and nobody will judge them. But again this bill is for the ones who do not have that loaf of bread and who didn't have a Catholic education to teach about the immorality of rape and contaception. Hopefully, if they have enough on thei tummies, they can actually have kids that might think the way you do Rowell. Because you just might not know it but your mom might haved 'killed' an unborn using contraceptives to give you a Catholic education through college.
Just a question. What's the problem with condoms? Is it considered immoral too by the Catholic teachings? I heard the Pope actually said it was on for use by male prototutes. Since he said it was ok to use by male prostitutes, does that mean that he also says prostitution is ok or does he just acknowlege that that reality exists?
Please read this. It's a blog from somebody on your side. I hope you keep an open mind. On my end though I don't see myself getting convinced at all since I have been once thinking the same way you do. I went to an all girls Catholic school and so for a while I know it to be true that sexual intercourse should only happen with the purpose of procreation. I had a since changed that thought ever since I had my social science class in UP diliman years and years ago. I will not bore you with more details of my life. I am signing off and wish you all the luck, still hoping in my heart of hearts that I can convince you if not now but eventually (after you have experienced more in life). I now feel like an older sister waiting for her younger brother to wisen up. But you can be a stubborn one so I shall give up. But read this.
ReplyDeletejboygonzalessj.wordpress.com
DeleteAn Honest Commentary on the RH Bill.
Thank you "Moonwater" for sharing Fr. JBoy's blog. I have actually read that when it was first published.
ReplyDeleteThank you also for bearing with me. And I share with you the same thought that I might not be able to convince you also.
We have not talked about the other frequently discussed topics, but since you are "signing off", in a similar fashion, I shall rest now from my arguments. As a matter of fact, it is not my aim to win over you in this discussion. I just wished I could have enlightened you. (This I learned from my Archbishop.) I shall not rely on my words now for your enlightenment. From this day on, I shall rely on praying for you.
This stubborn younger brother of yours only have one last wish: that you come to see once again the splendor of the Church, not through her sinful past, but through her holy apostles, fathers, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and saints. I invite you to accept universally the universal teachings of the universal Church and not just pick whatever we want to believe in.
Today (August 28) is St. Augustine's feast day. And we are reminded of the great bishop's words. Let us meditate on this:
"IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU LIKE IN THE GOSPELS, AND REJECT WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE,
IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL YOU BELIEVE, BUT YOURSELF."
God bless you and may God watch over your children.