New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    29,320
    #1
    When is family planning anti-life?
    By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    Monday, September 26th, 2011

    I use the phrase family planning because it is a phrase that covers a broad spectrum of ways of limiting the number of children. It can include abstention from ***ual congress intended to beget children. It can include what are called natural methods of preventing conception. It can include artificial means of preventing conception. It also includes abortion. All these contribute to the reduction and regulation of the number of children that are brought into this world.

    In the current debate brought about by the introduction of the Reproductive Health bill, the question of what is anti-life comes up. It is therefore important to be able to clarify what precisely is meant by being anti-life. In the current debate, the term anti-life is often used in the most pejorative way. It is used in the sense of being against existing life. Murder, in other words.

    But it can also be understood to mean not being willing or not desiring to add more human life to the already crowded population. This would be the stance of a married couple who decide to abstain from the acts that bring about life. To a certain extent this is also the stance of a young man who chooses a celibate life not because he hates children, but out of a conviction that he can accomplish better what he feels he is called to do without the burden of raising children. Definitely I would not categorize such a person as being anti-life. People like him love life so much that they take it upon themselves to contribute in some or other ways to the improvement of the quality of life of those who are already born....

    click on the link to continue with the article: "When is family planning anti-life?"
    LINK: "When is family planning anti-life?"

  2. Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,931
    #2
    Iba ang prinsipyo ng paring maraming pinagaralan, sa mga paring, pagka pari lang ang alam

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    38,424
    #3
    di ko gets paano naging anti-life ang contraception

    paano maging anti-life pag hindi nag meet ang sperm and egg?

    wala pa nga life eh!

    alam ko na -- kasi may mga souls... sa eternity... waiting to be born

    naghihintay ang mga soul maging tao

    kaya pag nag contraception, pinipigil mo maging tao ang mga soul

    kaya anti-life


  4. Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,821
    #4
    Proof that Jesuits tend to make more sense than the other orders.

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    22,983
    #5
    Fr. Bernas is pro-RH.

    My stand on the RH Bill | Inquirer Opinion

    My stand on the RH Bill
    By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
    Philippine Daily Inquirer


    I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, I am considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings.

    First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!

    Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”

    Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

    Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

    Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory ***ual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12)

    Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge.

    Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.

    Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the ***ual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision.

    Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved.

    Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.

    Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.

    Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics.

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #6
    The point is... the Philippines is not a Catholic Church. He does state that the RH bill is against his beliefs, but he can't force non-Catholics to adhere to his beliefs.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,349
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wh1stl3r View Post
    Proof that Jesuits tend to make more sense than the other orders.
    Right on! hehehe

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    17,335
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Wh1stl3r View Post
    Proof that Jesuits tend to make more sense than the other orders.
    Thats probably one reason why they were also suppressed by the Catholic church at one point in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Right on! hehehe
    LOL, biased! hehe

    But yes, I agree with what Niky says, the country is not the Roman Catholic Church... so be it.

    So bawal na si Fr. Bernas sa AAV?

  9. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,349
    #9
    Haha, guilty as charged pero Jesuits are just reasonable kasi, not blinded by something else. It shows naman.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    17,335
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Haha, guilty as charged pero Jesuits are just reasonable kasi, not blinded by something else. It shows naman.
    I got a fine example of this before. By chance, I went to an Opus Dei priest for confession and not long afterwards, i consulted a Jesuit priest. The issues discussed were more or less the same but the outcome was quite different. I'm sure you can guess who was the more practical and down to earth one in terms of advice given, and who was the one short of making me read the whole bible and hold mass every day in my room. :D

    But if you want business advice, go to the La Salle brothers.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
NEWS: "When is family planning anti-life?"