Why is it that Catholic is againts of the RH BILL.. ??

Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values. Now that the period for amendments is about to begin, I enjoin all in the Ateneo community to continue in-depth study of the present bill, and to support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective. In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good. As there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done. Should the bill with whatever amendments be passed, we should neither hesitate to bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation. If there is no easy answer to the concerns that the proposed bill raises or no facile unanimity among divergent views, this only proves the complexity, depth, and sensitivity of these concerns. Nevertheless, Catholic tradition has always taught that reason and faith are not enemies but allies in the service of God’s truth. From this tradition, we can draw strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people. Jose Ramon T Villarin SJ President





This blog is thankful that Fr. Villarin declares that the Ateneo De Manila University "does not support the passage of House Bill 4244." This blog also thanks the Ateneo De Manila University for coming out with this public adhesion to the Catholic stand versus the RH bill, something that too many Catholic colleges and universities have not (yet) done in their own name. Nevertheless, there are also some things in Fr. Villarin's memo that need to be discussed and brought under scrutiny; on these we cannot be silent. The first thing (or rather, the first absence of a thing) that seizes our attention is the lack of any reference to fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and the absence of any allusion to doctrinal investigations, as demanded over this past weekend by Msgr. Leonardo Medroso, Bishop of Tagbilaran. Those who signed the pro-RH declaration are even praised for their "social compassion and intellectual efforts". (May we remind everyone that this is an acknowledgment of intelligence and good intentions that the pro-RH side, for all its self-proclaimed tolerance, has scarcely reciprocated towards the opponents of the RH bill?) While the memo goes on to urge the signatories to "continue in their discernment of the common good", this can mean almost anything; it does not necessarily point to the need to think with the Church. However, the call to think with the Church is precisely what needs to be explicitly heard from the Jesuit Fathers right now. Ateneo, after all, continues to call itself a Catholic university.

Some might object that at this stage, the dialogue between the leaders of the Church and of the Ateneo and the proRH section of its faculty has to be of a purely positive and persuasive nature, without any threats or commands to mar it; the shepherds must not shake their rods at the sheep, but only call to them with soothing words. Perhaps it can be argued that things have gone down so far in the Ateneo de Manila that the most that the voice of Catholic

orthodoxy should hope for is to be allowed to have a say -- as but one among many voices -- within its walls. However, this is not a situation that is worthy of any Catholic university worthy of the name, even if it might be the reality in not a few Catholic institutions of higher education worldwide. As for the idea that heterodoxy must be fought with the rod, it is an unpopular and rarely-heard notion even within the Church, but it remains part of the Church's own thinking. As Pope Benedict XVI declared to the priests of the world on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 2010, " The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented. As if it were no longer God’s gift, the precious pearl which we cannot let be taken from us." To ask the Church to cease to exercise any discipline is to tell the Church that it should not protect its own identity. Second, the memo's language is insufficient regarding the true nature of the Catholic Church's opposition to the RH bill. While the memo rightly states that the leaders of the Catholic Church do not support the passage of House Bill 4244, and that this bill "contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values", it also calls upon Ateneo faculty to "support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective". Here we come upon a briar patch: naturally, an RH law with amendments that will prevent it from impeding the freedom of the Church and the conscience of Filipinos is better than an RH law without such amendments. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that any support for such amendments are of a purely pragmatic character; the stand of the Church continues to be that the RH bill, as it now stands and even with all the amendments currently proposed, remains too poisonous to the Filipino nation to be passed. As for the "positive elements" of the RH bill, these should be enacted into law separately, or be supported through the enforcement of already existing laws. Last but not the least, the memo pleads that "all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done." We confess to being skeptical about the efficacy of this plea. The memo also claims that the Catholic position on the RH bill is being properly taught in Ateneo, but if this true, the overall silence of both Ateneo students and faculty in the struggle against the RH bill (with a very few honorable exceptions) belies it. On the contrary, some of the worst, most anti-clerical, and most insulting language and rhetoric against the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church in this whole debate has come from Ateneo's faculty and students, not to speak of alumni. It is a scandal not only to those who come from other Catholic schools, but also to those pro-lifers who come from secular schools such as the University of the Philippines (which, despite its secularist and anti-religious reputation and its own very large contingent of RH supporters, is also the alma mater and academic home of a disproportionate number of anti-RH and pro-life teachers, speakers, writers and activists, and the home to what is currently the largest student group devoted to fighting the RH bill). What have the Jesuits done about this? Perhaps they have done something about this privately, but given the nature of things they need to be heard publicly about this.

If the situation in Ateneo is such that Fr. Villarin cannot call upon its pro-RH contingent to reverse its support for the bill, could he not at least publicly and openly rebuke the shameful anti-Catholic rhetoric that is coming from some of them? If even this cannot be done, then how could the Ateneo "bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have" about the RH bill, and "be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation"? I have no doubt that there are Ateneans who love the Church, who are faithful to the Magisterium, who will stand by the Church even as it is publicly mocked. Dear Ateneans, please, speak out! We need to hear your voices!

Why is catholic church is againts of rh bill..??
Many so-called reproductive health bills contain provisions for abortion. The Catholic Church believes that abortion is a serious offense against the sanctity of all human life, that the infant in the womb deserves the same rights and protections that we all enjoy, and therefore opposes legislative or administrative measures that promote this procedure. The Catholic Church is not in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill because artificial contraceptives could possibly lead to promiscuity and the failure of implantation of a newly conceived baby if fertilization would happen to take place despite their use. These acts would be against Natural Moral Law.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church is not in favor of "natalism" at all costs, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic Christian life. Instead the Church is for responsible parenthood, meaning openness to life within marriage, and spacing of birth, only when needed for reasons of serious medical condition or grave poverty, using natural family planning methods. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_Catholic_Church_against_the_Reproductive_Health_Bil l#ixzz24WV37Uz4

The Moral Argument Against R.H Bill

The Moral Argument Although the moral argument is dismissed by secularist community as irrelevant, but they can never negate that fact of its relevance and binding force to the way how we live in the society. Nevertheless, it is one of the most irrefutable contentions of pro-life advocates; the reason why atheist and secularist simply ignored this argument is because they cannot find any

plausible and logical argument against it. Hence, their only defense against this argument is to brand it as irrelevant because not all supporters of the reproductive health bill are theist. A good society is a society that makes it easy for you to be good; correlatively a free society is a society that makes it easy for you to be free. To be free and to live freely is to live spiritually, because only spirit is free and matter is not. And to live spiritually is to live morality and that is to choose good from bad. The Catholic Church is under attack from all levels of the society because of its opposition to the reproductive health bill pending in congress. To straighten things out the Church is not oppose to the entire bill, the Church is not against the promotion of breast feeding and the promotion of pre-natal care. What the Church is opposed to are the provisions that are anti-life and the ones that undermines the conscience of the people such as utilizing artificial contraception and its promotion by health professionals. Morality is not subjective which means to say that the morality or immorality of an act does not depend on our own personal perception. Morality is objective which means that there are standard moral norms that are binding to all people regardless of race, culture and religion. Dr. Peschke commenting on moral objectivism said, The existence of a moral law is a universal experience of men. Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey . . . This law is a natural endowment of man. It tells him of certain moral principles which he is bound to obey, independently of his individual will.[1] What Dr. Peschke contends is that moral principles or moral laws are independent from our individual will therefore we are bound to obey it. If moral laws are dependent on our personal perception of what is moral and immoral then we are not obliged to follow our fallible perception. But that is not the case there exists a universal moral principles that transcends culture, religion and race, these principles did not originate from man but from the transcendental being which we call God. The existence of a standard moral norm that is binding to all people is reflected by the laws that governs our society, for instance in the Philippines we have Constitutional law, Civil law and Criminal law these laws are binding to all people within the territory of the Philippines. These laws are our legal norms which tell us what acts are legal and illegal; our acts must be in accordance to the laws of the land to make it legal. Henceforth, the legality of an act does not depend on our own personal perception of what is legal and illegal. In like manner the morality of an act is not left on our own discretion it is governed by moral principles. The act of deliberately preventing the transmission of life through the employment of artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. When we say intrinsically evil it means that the act itself of preventing the transmission of life is immoral because it is contrary to

natural law. The morality of an act or its immorality is determined not by its outcome but by the nature of the act itself. Since the act of preventing the transmission of life is intrinsically evil it leads to grave consequences, in the prime pontificate of Pope Paul VI he said, It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.[2] Considerably, 23% of Filipino youths are engage into pre-marital sex[3] and 51% of married couples are using contraception[4]. The common denominator among the married and unmarried sector engaging into contraceptive use and pre-marital sex is that they both do not want to produce an offspring. What they are after in sex is the pleasure it gives not its reproductive purpose, this reduced the man or the woman into an object of pleasure which rightly described by Pope Paul VI. Another grave consequence arising from the promotion of various artificial contraception is perversion and promiscuity, according to an eminent psychologist Sigmund Freud; It is a characteristic common to all the perversions, that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual act is perverse if it departs from reproduction in its aim and pursues that attainment of gratification independently.[5] How do we know if a sexual act is perverse or not? According to Freud if the aim of the sexual act is not reproduction it is perverse, and this is the criterion that they used in order to determine of the sexual act is perverse or not. Various artificial contraception removes the reproductive part of the sexual act hence promoting promiscuity and perversion.


The advantage of Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines is that hopes to provide midwives for skilled attendance to childbirth and emergency obstetric care, even in geographically isolated and depressed areas. Thus, the one of the causes of maternal mortality, that arising from unattended births, will be addressed. The disadvantage of the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines is the undue focus being given to reproductive health and population and development, when many more urgent and important health problems need to be addressed in the country, those that cause a significant number of deaths across the country such as cardiovascular diseases and infections. Financial resources allotted by foreign donors to assist the Philippine government programs could actually be better spent towards pursuing health programs targeting communicable diseases than purchasing artificial contraceptives. The Reproductive Health Bill is controversial, as it is being opposed by concerned citizens, especially the pro-life, pro-family and pro-God groups, regardless of creed or religion. The Roman Catholic Church expresses its opposition against the bill on many counts, most especially the procurement and distribution of family planning supplies for the whole country, when the available evidence from peer reviewed medical journals supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking oral contraceptives (OCs) or using intrauterine devices (IUD), post-fertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Hormonal contraceptives and/or IUDs directly affect the endometrium. These effects have been presumed to render the endometrium relatively inhospitable to implantation or to the maintenance of the preembryo or embryo prior to clinically recognized pregnancy. These make pills and IUDS abortifacient. Pro-life groups, and many professionals in the medical and nursing fields, believe that physicians and policy makers should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Patients should be made fully aware of this information so that they can consent to or refuse the use of artificial contraceptives. However, the position of the Catholic Church and the pro-life groups does not mean that they espouse the attitude of "natalism" at all costs, as if the "number" of children, in itself, were the unmistakable sign of authentic christian matrimonial life. The sexual act, properly exercised within marriage only, is ordained primarily to the propagation of life. If there are reasonable motives for spacing births, such as serious medical conditions in the mother, or extreme poverty, then the Catholic Church teaches that married couples may take advantage of the natural cycles of the reproductive system and use their marriage precisely those times that are infertile (natural family planning). Other aspects of the bill being contested by concerned citizens include the classification of family planning supplies as essential medicines when their safety/toxicity profile and legal permissibility are questionable. Very pertinent to the debate about reproduction rights is the right to life. The Philippine Constitution says that the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the

unborn from conception. If artificial contraceptives are medically proven to induce abortion as one of their mechanisms of action, then procurement and distribution of such family planning supplies are unconstitutional and illegal. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_advantage_and_disadvantage_of_reproductive_health_b ill_in_the_Philippines#ixzz24WWDIfmy

If there is a strong argument on the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, it is the ever-growing population of the Philippines. According to the latest statistics on the country’s demographical data, there are now 96 million Filipinos, a considerable increase in the last 10 years or so, or a growth rate of at least four to six percent every year. Translated to more significant data, five to six babies are born in the country every minute, a staggering information considering that the Philippines is, until today, still referred to by its neighboring countries as a developing economy. Thus, the latest proposed legislation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives has left the Filipino people extremely polarized. A lot of considerations have emerged in several discussions essentially because the staunchest opposition to the passage of the RH Bill comes from the Catholic Church. This is understandable because the Philippines remains to be the only Christian nation in the Far East and with the colonization of Spain for almost four centuries, Catholicism is widespread and prevalent. Some sectors contend that the RH Bill boils down to the freedom of choice among couples and those who are sexually active. Others reason out that procreation is God’s legacy to His people. On the other hand, women – who bear the brunt of childbirth and its perils – say that they have the right to choose what is best for them, meaning, if their bodies could not withstand the rigors of childbirth, then they have all the right to take care of their own bodies. Examining closely the advantages and disadvantages of the RH Bill, the former far outweighs the latter, that is, there are more benefits that the majority of Filipinos can get compared to not having such a bill passed for legislation in the country. What is needed in the RH Bill is widespread information and dissemination of the various family planning methods and contraceptives that are available for couples. While the rich, educated couples understand the choices that they have, the poor folk – who comprise the majority – hardly have any knowledge on their options because they lack education. But, the lack of education is going to be another story or, on the contrary, the lack of education may be related to the passage of the RH Bill. The poor comprise the majority of Filipinos. Because they are poor, they necessarily lack education or have no education at all. Who, then, will teach and guide these people about their choices, especially in the number of children that they can have or are able to support? Again, because of a dearth of knowledge, these people simply just leave it to fate if it happens that the wife gets pregnant almost

every year. The issue is not abortion at all. It is a totally different aspect of the entire discussion. The issue is giving the people a choice of whether they will adapt the family planning methods that have been suggested for them. It is for them to take it or leave it. If the people so desire that they would choose from among the artificial family planning methods available, then it is their choice. The bottomline is that these information should be made available for everyone and explained to them, most especially those who have no capacity to learn and understand. These people are the ones most vulnerable. It is about time that family planning be included as part of the curriculum in schools and universities. The inclusion of sex education has been practiced in the past, but was phased out because of some opposition. Let this be revived today because of the need of the youth to be informed about their rights as a human being. Parents should also help the schools in making their children understand the pitfalls of early marriage or teen pregnancy. If the people are properly informed, then they would be able to make intelligent choices for their own betterment. In the process, they would be empowered. It is interesting to note the latest statistics coming from the Social Weather Station under the supervision of Mr. Mahar Mangahas, which revealed that in the June 2011 survey, only 30 percent agreed and 51 percent disagreed that the use of condoms constitutes abortion. Furthermore, only 29 percent agreed and 51 percent disagreed that the use of IUDs constitutes abortion. Also, only 29 percent agreed and 52 disagreed that the use of birth control pills constitutes abortion. The results of the survey likewise revealed that the balances from 100 percent, roughly 2 out of every 10 adult Filipinos, were unable to take a stand. Let us take a more discerning look at the RH Bill. There may be more than meets the eye with the passage of this controversial legislation.


what is rh bill?
the Reproductive Health Bill, popularly known as the RH Bill, are Philippine bills aiming to guarantee universal access to methods and information on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care[1]. The bills have become the center of a contentious national debate. There are presently two bills with the same goals: House Bill No. 4244 or An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and For Other Purposes introduced by Albay 1st district Representative Edcel Lagman, and Senate Bill No. 2378 or An Act Providing For a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its key proposal that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills (BCPs) and IUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their use through all health care centers. The bill is highly divisive, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major political figures supporting and opposing it, often criticizing the government and each other in the process. Debates and rallies for and against the bill, with tens of thousands participating particularly those held by the opposition, have been happening all over the country.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful