The Smoldering Poker
By Amelia H.C. Ylagan

from “Corporate Watch”, BusinessWorld
October 27, 2008

Thomas Aquinas never had sex, so how was he to know about sex and its pleasures? He was once tempted by a woman “so lovely but shameless…a very viper in human form…sent to corrupt him with wanton words and touches”. Thomas attacked her with a smoldering poker (a real one, from the fireplace, one Thomist writer jokes) as he cried out to God to grant him the “gift of constant virginity”.

When he was barely five, Thomas’ parents sent him to a Benedictine monastery as their “offering” of one of their (seven) sons to the religious life, as was expected of middle income families in Italy in the early 13th century. His total immersion in the pious life was interrupted only by baccalaureate education at the University of Naples, where he excelled in philosophy and law. After the university, he went back to the monastery, but decided to shift to the Dominican order, much to the disappointment of his family, who thought the mendicant Dominicans below the more prestigious contemplative Benedictines.

Thomas’ brothers were the ones who sent the prostitute to tempt him, in their effort to dissuade him totally from the religious life, lest he shames their middle-class pride by begging in the streets like the Dominicans did. But thanks to that smoldering poker at hand, Thomas banished all carnal desires forever in his life, and dedicated his mind, body and soul totally to the pursuit of knowledge for the greater glory of God. Tomás of the little town of Aquino, in Napoli, has become among three or four of the most influential thinkers in the history of not merely Christianity but of Western thought in general, as most theologians and philosophers, regardless of religion, acknowledge. He bequeathed to us all the timeless Summa Theologica and some 80 other treatises on God and the moral life of Man.

Thomas Aquinas believed in Reason and its manifestations in Natural Law, augmented ultimately by Faith, as the road map to that Eternity which is the end goal of Man’s existence. He espoused the concept of a Prime Mover, a God who created everything as Good according to Eternal Law and set all to motion according to Natural Law. In the exercise of free will (even before the fall of Adam and Eve) Man then devised for himself Moral Laws, adding but not subtracting empirical refinements to Natural Law in the instinctive struggle to keep the patterns necessary for the perpetuation of Good.

In the light of Natural Law, Aquinas knew much about human sexuality. “What is the purpose of sex—what is its essence?” he asks. Reason gives three answers to Aquinas, which he in turn proffers to us: first, for procreation—to perpetuate the pattern of life in the universe; second, as a language, or medium—for the manifestation of the bond of human love; and third, for pleasure—for pleasure is a legitimate enjoyment of the goods of Creation, much like one enjoys the beauty of nature or the arts.

“The exceeding pleasure experienced in the sexual act, so long as it is in harmony with reason, does not destroy the balance of virtue,” St. Thomas says in the Summa Theologica. This may sound pretty liberating for some prudish religious purists. However, St. Thomas warns of the caveat that all three motivations for sex must be present in the mind, hearts and bodies of consenting adults for the act to be truly in synch with Natural and Divine Laws.

And so must smoldering pokers be doused by the harsh realities of living a true Christian life, in this day when a crowded world seems to think we do not need more babies to feed through the uncertain years ahead. Contraception and abortion are being legitimized by many governments, claiming the urgent need to allocate rapidly depleting natural and other resources more equitably to address the inconvenient truth of a dying world. In the Philippines, almost half of 91 million Filipinos are hungry or near-hungry. At the 14th Congress of the House of Representatives, House Bill no. 5043 was presented, providing for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and population development, among other related reproductive and population issues.

The Catholic religious hierarchy, speaking to the 72% Catholics in the country, flatly said no to HB 5043, in keeping with the very clear message of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, against artificial birth control. Moral and religious arguments have raged back and forth, with signatures being solicited, mostly against HB 5043, by pro-life groups. The pro-choice faction of Filipinos, like those in the rest of the world, are for women’s rights to “choose their own destinies” as to bearing children or not, utilizing modern contraceptive aids, or abortion in extreme cases.

But will allowing artificial birth control really give more freedom to women? Though St. Thomas was not exactly a women’s rights advocate (he had practically zero dealings with women in his 40 years in the monastery), he was sensitive to the role of women as “helpmate” and not “helper” in procreation, where Man would deposit his seed and Woman would nurture new life in the natural maintenance of order in the universe. Contrary to what pro-choice advocates would like to think, legalized artificial birth control would only falsely reinforce the chauvinistic thinking that women can be “used” for pleasure, anytime, without the fear of unwanted pregnancy. HB 5043 squarely puts the decision and the responsibility of possibly damaging her own body to provide ready satisfaction for herself and her mate. Does it somehow cross the mind that population control might be a secondary issue to the libertine “pleasure-for-pleasure’s sake” culture of these times?

It is extremely unfair and unjust for the governance of a dominantly Catholic country to throw its people into individual moral dilemma at a time when economic problems may dull judgment towards a deeper understanding of what a moral cop out at this time might mean. In the face of man-made problems of a growing population and mounting poverty, must faith in the natural order be tested and a man-made solution superimposed on the pattern set by the Prime Mover? Will artificial birth control put things right in the Philippines?

HB 5043 is like the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden. It promises so many hedonistic “rewards” in exchange for a costly loss of the deep human essence of Life.
ahcylagan@bworld.com.ph

An outsider who tuned into the debate that is raging in the Philippines over what’s politely known as reproductive health could be forgiven for thinking that contraception is banned in this largely Catholic nation and that the legions of light are engaged in a fight against the forces of religious repression for the freedom to take a pill or use a condom.

This is so far from the truth it is laughable. Access to contraceptives is already unrestricted in the Philippines. The government family planning service, which has been in place since the 1970s, has an infrastructure of workers all the way down to the grassroots. The private sector is equally active; the International Planned Parenthood Federation supports two federations of NGOs providing various types of family planning services: Family Planning Organizations of the Philippines, and PNGOC (Philippine NGO Council), the latter with 97 member groups. Sex education is also an integral part of the high school curriculum.

So what is the purpose of House Bill 5043, which is entitled “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development”? Raul del Mar, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, has described it as pushing an open door. If so, what makes it so objectionable to the church and those legislators and members of the public who are pushing from the other side?

The answer is, coercion. The contraceptive-driven fertility decline program of HB 5043 may be the most coercive ever designed outside China. It obliges the government to provide free contraceptive services and products; it establishes an “ideal” family size, setting the stage for a proposed two-child policy; it imposes a national sex education curriculum at fifth grade level. Couples would be denied a civil marriage license unless they present a “certificate of compliance” from a family planning office certifying that they have been adequately instructed in family planning and “responsible parenthood”.

If before, quota-driven programs have led to gross human rights violations, this time around this bill could easily penalize with fines and jail sentences workers who will be unable to meet their quota. Employers who refuse to provide reproductive health care services to their employees will likewise be subject to penalties. Worse, it curtails freedom of speech, since any person who dares to talk against the program will also be subject to jail sentence and fines.

This program turns the Philippines into a veritable police state with the government using police powers to interfere in the personal affairs of its citizens. It will surely drive a wedge between couples since a health worker must provide sterilization services even in the absence of spousal permission — or incur a penalty; and likewise between parents and children, since the latter can have access to reproductive health services without parental consent. In a generation or two, the six years of value-free sex education the bill mandates for school children will surely create sexually active adolescents.

Railroading and foreign influence

Naturally this legislation, which has a history stretching back more than a decade, has been sold to legislators and the public as something demanded by international human rights codes and a long overdue step for the betterment of families and the nation. But the high-handed tactics of its promoters indicate its true character.

The debate which is raging both in and out of Congress was sparked when two House Committees — Health and Population, and Family Relations — denied church and pro-family groups a chance to submit their position papers during the committee hearings, in contravention of the Constitution. This railroading of the bill’s approval at the comittee level was meant to fast track the submission of the committee report needed so that the bill could be put on the calendar for plenary debate.

In response, church groups organized a big rally celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Catholic “charter” on human life, Humanae Vitae, and launched an educational campaign to encourage civil opposition to the bill.

In the House, Congressman del Mar revealed departures from the established procedure in the handling of HB 5043. There were actually four reproductive health bills referred to two House committees. A first hearing on three bills took place on April 29 this year. By the second hearing on May 21, however, the committee chairman announced they would now consider “the substitute bill” (replacing all four bills) and, in the blink of an eye, the committees approved it. Usually a technical working group is convened to painstakingly put together the substitute bill. The question is, where did the substitute bill come from?

Former Senator Francisco S. Tatad, an incisive commentator, sources HB 5043 to the Philippine Legislative Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) — an NGO with offices in the same building as the House of Representatives. Although purporting to be an NGO counting many Philippine lawmakers among its membership, PLCPD is essentially a foreign body. A popular columnist, Jose Sison, reports that PLCPD’s 2008 lobbying fund of two billion pesos comes from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, IPPF and UNFPA the latter two both well known for their global agenda to legalize abortion. PLCPD’s website shows the many programs it has implemented over the years in the name of alleviating poverty – sweet deals awarded to legislators who are PLCPD members? The world over is dotted with similar NGOs initiated by UNFPA to pursue its agenda to legalize abortion. Many who are in the know resent the role of PLCPD and are angry over this violation of their national sovereignty.

All over the Philippines local governments are passing their own versions of the Reproductive Health Bill: Quezon City, Aurora Province, Olongapo City, Sorsogon, Antipolo City… To no-one’s surprise, it appears that HB 5043 and these local ordinances are using one single template and in some parts are word for word the same. It leaves one without any doubt that the long arm of PLCPD reaches throughout the country.

Victory is not assured

Co-sponsored by 113 of the 238 members of the House of Representatives, the bill was only eight votes shy of making it past its second reading when urgent Budget hearings forced that debate to be postponed. No less than three billion pesos (US$62.2 million) has been appropriated for reproductive health programs in the government’s 2009 Budget.

However, victory is by no means guaranteed when Congress reconvenes on November 10. The 22 congressmen who have signalled their desire to intervene during the debate cut across partisan groupings; del Mar, the first of them, belongs to the same party as the bill’s principal author, Edsel Lagman. At last count the 238 congressmen appeared evenly spread between the pro, con and neutral positions, making the situation very fluid. The latest impeachment proceedings filed against President Arroyo will very likely cause further delay, and perhaps further dilution of support.

President Arroyo, by the way, has affirmed support for natural family planning methods. However, seven members of cabinet and heads of other government agencies have expressed their full support for this bill. When church leaders conferred with her on the bill she airily responded that the matter is now up to the debate in Congress. Last month she addressed the UN General Assembly meeting on the Millenium Development Goals, a UN program that considers lower population growth as an important development goal.

A culture war, in Asia

Article II, Section 12 of the 1986 Philippine Constitution states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Under this article, and in spite of 80 per cent of the population being Catholic, a pluralism of family plannning practice has prevailed. Although the church continuously condemns artificial contraception and sterilization as evil, it has never coerced anyone into obeying these moral norms nor has it called for the closure of family planning clinics or the banning of modern contraceptives. In fact, everyone feels entitled to criticize the church for its alleged antedeluvian views on contraception. This freedom is also evident in the fact that around half of married women use some form of birth control, with 35 per cent using “modern methods” (the pill, IUD, condom, sterilisation…) and 14 per cent natural family planning and other “traditional” methods.

Congressman del Mar concludes that the real agenda of the Reproductive Health Bill is to push the contraceptive program as a direct attack against a predominantly Catholic nation and, in particular, the Catholic Church’s absolute rejection of abortion. The church is well aware that in UN language the term “reproductive health” includes abortion and lays the ground for its legalization.

In spite of the fact that population growth is now down to 1.81 per cent and fertility is down to 2.8 children per woman, the educated middle class strongly supports the bill on the false premise that Philippine population growth needs to slow further in order to solve the poverty problem. These promises were made forty years ago to a host of countries — India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines included. Today, even the much-touted economic miracle in many Asian countries is unable to hide the fact that poverty remains a huge problem.

House Bill 5043 also proclaims that it is championing the cause of women a claim that is discordant for many grassroots women who have been victimized by the bad side effects of modern contraceptives. Behind this lofty proclamation is actually the imposition of the feminist ideology that surfaced during the UN Population Conference in Cairo and later in the International Women’s Conference in Beijing a sexual “freedom” that places women on the same footing as men in sexual matters. However, recent history has shown us how this brand of “gender equality” has played a key role in the secularization of many societies in the West.

Can there be any doubt that there is a culture war waged against the church and that the Philippines is one of the battlefields?

Rosa Linda Valenzona is currently General Manager of the Ayala Multi-purpose Cooperative in Manila. She is a former lecturer in economics at the University of the Philippines and a former Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Social Welfare and Development. She is also a consultant to Pontifical Council on the Family.

Original Source: Mercator.net Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Foremost of these issues is the bill’s promotion of the use of artificial contraceptives. Scientific tests and actual experience in countries allowing their use have shown that some of these contraceptives (IUD, Depo Provera, Norplant, RHU 486, emergency morning after pills) directly cause abortion or the expulsion and killing of the foetus. Although the bill states that “abortion continues to be a crime” the bill does not however specifically and expressly ban this abortion causing artificial contraceptives. On the contrary, it even penalizes with fine or imprisonment, health care providers who do not administer or promote their use by women with two or more children.

In answer to this scientific fact about artificial contraceptives, the proponents could only cite the U.S. theory that the crime of abortion occurs only from the time of implantation of the ovum in the uterus because that is the only time when life allegedly begins. This theory however even directly contravenes the constitutional provision protecting the life of the unborn from the moment of conception, which takes place before the implantation (usually six days according to international medical experts). Adopting this theory, even shows that the real intent of the RH bill is to legalize abortion as in the U.S.

The use of artificial contraceptives is further justified by diverting our attention to, and pointing out the ineffectiveness of the natural family planning methods to control our growing population since it is allegedly “too difficult, cumbersome and needs much discipline and spirituality” especially for “so many poor and uneducated couples”. According to this argument, since these poor are “already
deprived of so many things” we should not “make their lives even more miserable” by depriving them of “love-making when they spontaneously feel like doing so”. Hence they should be allowed to use artificial contraceptives in lieu of the difficult and cumbersome natural methods.

The trouble with this argument is that: (1) it uses poverty as a justification to commit abortion with the use of these abortion-causing artificial contraceptives; (2) it assumes that these artificial contraceptives are fail safe when the truth is that in countries where they are used, so many unwanted pregnancies nevertheless occur; (3) due to these unwanted pregnancies the poor couples may even resort to clandestine and unsafe abortion thus it even causes the rise in abortion cases that are already so numerous; (4) it exposes the poor couple to serious and more expensive health problems as it has already been proven that these contraceptives result in other more harmful sickness and physical defects of the women and children; and (5) it may unfortunately lead the poor and uneducated couples to believe that few moments of pleasure will make their lives less miserable.

Indeed poverty has been used as an excuse for so many wrongs committed in our society. Now the RH bill proponents are using alleviation of poverty which is allegedly due to overpopulation as the reason for passing the bill that promotes abortion. This argument is misleading because: (1) our population may admittedly be growing since we are inhabited by men and women of reproductive
age. But it is not growing unabated since our population growth rate has slowed down and is steadily decelerating as statistics show; (2) poverty is not caused by our growing population but by a combination of many factors particularly greed, government corruption and inefficiency, uneven distribution or misuse of resources, lack of technology, waste and even natural disasters or wars.

The use of these abortion causing artificial contraceptives is also being justified on the ground that it is supposedly based on an informed choice made by women who are merely afforded their freedom to pick out from among a wide range of natural and artificial methods of birth control. It is argued that as long as there is adequate information on reproductive health and services, women should be left alone to choose their own methods based on their well informed and responsible consciences.

The fallacies of this argument are that: (1) conscience guided by information is not a safe guide since the information given may be wrong as what is happening now in some false ads on TV and radio. Indeed “a conscience is a safe guide only when God is the guide of the conscience”; (2) the element of coercion in the bill in the form of penalty on health care providers who refuse to administer or
promote artificial contraceptives on women with two or more children already, actually negates this alleged free choice; and (3) opposing a woman’s freedom to choose these abortion-causing artificial contraceptives is not opposing a right but opposing a wrong. Indeed any civilized society should restrict the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm or kill another innocent and helpless human being as in abortion.

Finally, it has been correctly pointed out that 3/4 of Filipino taxpayers are Catholics. So it is thus unfair for the RH bill to appropriate and use their money to purchase and coercively promote and administer these artificial contraceptives which is against their conscience.

Hence if this RH bill is really for the reproductive health of women and their children, it should ban this abortion causing artificial contraceptives. I doubt however if the authors will do that.

Originally from: Justifying a wrong end
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison
Monday, October 6, 2008
http://www.philstar.com/archives.php?aid=20081005115&type=2

http://www.bworldonline.com/BW100308/content.php?id=141

Even before its passage, the bill is already mired in highly contentious debates. And this is simply because the statements and declarations of its authors and supporters do not seem to reconcile with its contents and real intent.

Actually the true intent of the bill can be found in the very words of its various provisions. Sometimes however some words are vague and variedly interpreted or do not really reflect what
their authors have in mind or what they are telling us. Under these circumstances, the bill’s true intent can be determined by finding out its chief architect and principal designer.

So far, it has not been denied nor refuted that the RH Bill’s chief designer which is aggressively pushing for its passage is the Philippine Legislative Committee for Population and Development (PLCPD) a foreign funded NGO that has its offices right at the very place where our laws are made—in the Batasan. It is likewise undisputed that the main financier of PLCPD are certain Foundations which are recognized as staunch supporters of abortion rights in the U.S. and elsewhere more specifically the International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) that initiated the UN Population Fund (UNPFA), as well as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

For the information of the members of the Lower House and the public in general especially those who are misinformed about the purpose of this Bill, “reproductive health” is a euphemism for abortion. The Foundations backing PLCPD by their very own words explicitly say that”: “The long term goal of Domestic Reproductive Rights sub-program is to protect and promote rights of individuals to make informed choices about their reproductive lives. This includes access to reproductive health information and reproductive health care services particularly safe and legal abortion. We fund efforts to defeat onerous restrictions on abortion access and to inform policies upholding comprehensive access, to build an influential and active base of supporters willing to educate policy makers, community leaders and other decision makers about the importance of reproductive health and rights and access to abortion”.

This intent is confirmed by the provisions of the RH Bill itself that, as repeatedly pointed out and so far not denied nor refuted, promote and subsidize the use of: (1) contraceptive pills directly causing or indirectly leading to abortion or have side effects like cancer, premature hypertension, heart disease etc; (2) intra uterine devices (IUDs) that cause abortion or result in intrauterine trauma, pelvic infections and ectopic pregnancy; (3) condoms allegedly for “safe sex” but have high failure rate even against pregnancy and thus do not protect against AIDS and other STDs; and (4) tubal ligation and vasectomy especially targeting the poor leaving them without the chance to have more children in case of improved economic situation or death of their present children, and no support in their olds age.

It is argued that the bill gives women the right to make an informed choice between natural family planning and artificial contraception. Considering however that the natural methods do not entail any cost to couples and individuals but only a lot of self sacrifice and abstinence, it is quite obvious that the main bulk of the P33 billion budget will be used to subsidize the purchase and use of these contraceptives to be given free. Thus the bill in effect supports the use of these artificial contraceptive as against natural family planning. It is clearly detrimental not only to the physical but also the spiritual health of couples and individuals as they are taught the quick fix and easy way rather than the hard and enduring way.

Aside from contraception, the bill also requires value free sex education to school children. Undoubtedly, this weakens parental authority and incites adolescents to early sexual activity. Countries that have such sex education such as UK and USA show that it has only resulted in increased sexual activity among the teenagers that led to increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion.

The bill also limits family size and set the stage for a two-child policy that has now been the bane of countries which adopted it where, in a complete reversal, couples are now being encouraged to have more babies because of graying and dying population. At the same time it imposes stiff penalties of 6 months imprisonment on conscientious objectors or those who do not comply with the proposed reproductive health program. This clear transgression of individual freedoms is further aggravated by the application of the stiff penalty to any person who “maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provision of this Act”.

All these harmful and unconstitutional provisions are being justified allegedly to alleviate poverty. But it has already been proven time and again that there is really no overpopulation in this country but only over concentration of population in some areas and that this population density cannot really be used as the scapegoat for poverty but rather the defective resource allocation and unequal wealth distribution as well as graft and corruption in the government.

Our Congressmen and women should seriously consider the position paper of a group of students from UP, Ateneo and UST who came up with the conclusion that: (1) the RH Bill is not the solution to poverty; (2) there is no overpopulation in the country; (3) there is no causal link between poverty and population increase but rather between poverty and corruption; (4) contraceptives are not only harmful, they could lead to deaths; and (5) sex education does not reduce teenage pregnancies and prevent spread of STDs.

Instead our lawmakers should heed their recommendations to redirect the P33 billion budget to strengthening the existing Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act (yes, there is already an existing law on poverty alleviation) as well as the institutions and NGOs now actively involved in poverty alleviation, like the Community Education Programs, Groups and initiatives on Microfinance (RA 8425) and the Gawad Kalinga housing projects.

Our legislators should not allow this country to suffer the same fate of countries that adopted this deceiving and enticing reproductive health program but are now regretting it.

Original source: Harmful and illegal bill
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison
Monday, September 29, 2008
Philippine Star