Rev. Fr. Francis D. Alvarez, SJ's Valedictory Speech
Commencement Exercises
Loyola School of Theology, AdMU
March 18, 2009
......
I am thrilled just knowing the many more homilies, retreats and reflections Francis will be giving as a priest. LST, the Society, and the Church in general, are "not any less blessed".
Congrats batch 2009!
Thanks to Weng Bava, SJ, for posting on LST's facebook group.
......
The fear of rigor, the fear of ugliness, the fear of change: At the beginning of the school year, during the Mass of the Holy Spirit, our then newly-installed Vice-Chancellor, Fr. Jojo Magadia, warned us of these three fears. At the end of the school year, as I graduate from Loyola School of Theology, I fear I have to add to his list of three.
What will happen when I am neck-deep in ministry? When my arms are weary as I try to juggle parish financial statements? When my chest is heavy as I listen to the pastoral council bicker yet again? When my legs buckle as I run from baptism to wedding to funeral, from labor meeting to sick call to children’s catechism, from evaluation seminar to beauty pageant to charity event? When, where once I tread with bright-eyed expectation, I find myself trudge with broken-hearted frustration, where will I be? What if I start cutting corners? We have been trained how to browse through the books in the library to nuance a complex article of the faith. This we need to do in order to come up with what Dr. Yap has always insisted on—accountable speech—even for just a Sunday homily. But what if instead of doing this, I just type words into Google? And what if Google fails me? What if I fall back on my class notes from my days in LST and realize that I had not paid enough attention in class? What if I misinterpret a precept of canon law and give the wrong advice? What if I blurt out the wrong thing while giving penance and a penitent who has not gone to confession for five years decides this is why he will not go again for five more?
As these fears ran amok in my head, what mercifully calmed them down was when I remembered how we prepared for the ad audiendas, that “board exam” future priests have to pass to receive faculties for confession. I remembered how at first we forgot to address serious sins. We forgot to give penance. We even forgot the formula of absolution. But slowly we learned. And soon, we were not just doing confession-by-the-numbers. Soon, we were giving sound pastoral advice, untangling the most convoluted cases Frs. Richie Genilo, Cel Reyes, and Rex Mananzan tried to ensnare us in. Many times, I found myself nodding—not off to sleep—but in agreement and in wonder. And I dreamt about the kind of wise, gentle, and understanding priests you, my batchmates, will surely be.
You, my co-learners, have taught me a lot. In the comprehensive exams, I had the opportunity to show what I learned from our professors. This morning, as we say goodbye to each other and to LST, I hope you allow me to share what I learned from you, my co-seminarians and co-religious here in LST.
In a famous homily, I never actually heard—only heard about (that’s how good it was)—Bro. Irvin Morastil, OMI supposedly struck a refrain that resonated not only with Fr. Manny Flores but with the rest of the Advanced Pastoral Methods class: “God is NOT good. He is very good.”
I spent the better part of the last Christmas vacation working on our graduation pictures for our yearbook. I was digitally reducing eye bags while also trying to recover from the sleep deprivation of Simbang Gabi. With Adobe Photoshop, I magically erased acne scars, deleted visible strands of nasal hair, and gave free electronic face lifts Vicky Belo would charge thousands for. I fiddled with hues, saturation, and luminosity to give each portrait a soft tone of angelic purity. Needless to say, I was proud of my handiwork, and as I showed you your pictures, I could tell that you all were impressed—except for Bro. Jonald Panganiban, OCD.
I handed him the hard copy of his grad. pic., and he asked, “Phinotoshop mo? (Did you Photoshop this?)” I puffed up my chest and declared, “Yes.” He scratched his head and suggested, “Baka pwede mong bawasan. (Maybe you can lessen what you did?)” I was aghast! Why? Who would want their pockmarks and their pimples and their warts seen?
But later that night, I realized that the blemishes and flaws I hid under pixels were so much a part of us, as much us as our dimples and clefts and other outstanding characteristics. Who would want to see these pockmarks, pimples, and warts? Well, God. The God who called us in spite of, maybe even because of, our imperfections. The God who has made use of and will continue to make use of our shortcomings and weaknesses for his greater glory. The God whom Bro. Irvin described so eloquently: The God who is not just good, but very good.
I remember serving at the diaconate ordination of Bros. Chris, Stanley, Rey, and Mark, CP. The joke, during our practice for the rite, was: With Stanley’s big tummy, would he be able to lie face-down during the litany? Would we have to alter the rubrics and allow him to lie on his side so that he will also be allowed to breathe?
During the ordination, I caught myself sneaking a peek at Stanley, and there he was, big tummy and all, yes—back slightly hunched, but head on folded arms, lying prostrate on the ground, asking God for mercy. And my thoughts went back to my own ordination. My stomach might not have been as big as Stanley’s, but my head was perhaps bigger. But overstuffed ego and all, I, too, was able to lie prostrate on the ground and beg God to accept my humble offering. Why? Because God is not good. He is very good.
I attended the diaconate ordination of Bros. Francis Ledesma and Topher Tejido. But before they even lay prostrate before God, Bishop Soc Villegas reminded us: We may wax lyrical about this great sacrifice that we make, but before God, we really have nothing to give. Yet when he accepts what we have to offer, we will have nothing more to ask. Why? We go back to the wise words of Bro. Irvin: Because God is not just good. He is very good.
Let me tell you about one other diaconate ordination. The first in our batch, actually: Seminarian Jayvee Zuñiga’s. On the day when Jayvee was entrusted with the Book of the Gospels, we were all excited, but I could not really decide whether “Congratulations!” was the appropriate greeting. Many of us knew why Jayvee was getting ordained ahead of schedule, earlier than the rest. His mother was dying of cancer. As Jayvee took his place behind the altar, I wanted to jump up and down, but I couldn’t. A few steps away in front of the same altar was his mother. And in a few days, she would be gone.
Rev. Jayvee’s thanksgiving speech then was all about the mercy of God. But what kind of mercy was this, I asked, when on a day meant for rejoicing, the air was heavy with foreboding farewell. On a day your spirit magnified the Lord, your heart was also troubled. “Our hearts are troubled.” And these very words were the ones Jayvee used when he later preached at his mother’s funeral. Bittersweet—as descriptive as that word is, it still does not capture what we experienced on the day of Jayvee’s diaconate ordination, when the alleluias and hosannas struggled to float but were drowned in the somber melody of “Inay.”
Later that night, I sought consolation in prayer. And I realized that many times in our ministry, this is how things will be. As we live out our ministry, we will find joy. We will find fulfillment. But we will not really be able to jump up and down because many times, our ministry will simply be to journey with people in their pain—an awesome privilege, an awful responsibility. In this, we will be confirmed in our vocations; in this we will find our purpose. Amidst pain. Bittersweet? As descriptive as that word is, it will not capture the experience.
But Jayvee’s story does not end there… because today is Jayvee’s mother’s birthday. And today, the son she dreamed so ardently to see ordained graduates summa cum laude. Watch that in a Hollywood movie, and you would say it’s too contrived. Read that in romance novel, and you would say it’s corny. But witness it happen in real life, and you can only say, it’s grace. It’s God.
This is not just Jayvee’s story. When Elmer gets ordained a priest tomorrow and begins his ministry, when our OCD brothers profess their final vows and live out their Carmelite vocations, when Irvin and Randy are sent to Basilan, Jolo, or Tawi-Tawi with or without military escorts, when Thomas goes back to China, Tran to Vietnam, and David, William, and Salai to Myanmar—places where the Church thrives in circumstances less friendly but not any less blessed, when the fears grip us and shake us and pound us prostrate to the ground bitter, there will be sweetness. There will be an amazing turn of events we could have never predicted, a summa cum laude ending that will tell us that God was in charge all along. “All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.”
It will be as Fr. Manoling Francisco taught us in Eschatology: We don’t know what will happen. But we are sure that it will be good. Because, as Bro. Irvin has been teaching us all morning, God is not just good. God is very, very good.
Two weeks ago, I was in front of the computer, dialing down Photoshop settings, as Bro. Jonald requested, on our graduation pictures. They will never see print, because LST Batch 2009 will not have a yearbook. Because of the financial crisis, it seems too much of a luxury. Instead, we will have a cheap CD-ROM alternative at one-tenth of the cost. Why? Because the rest of the allocated budget, LST Batch 2009 has decided to give to scholarships. I will never forget the text messages I received when this idea was floated around. Messages which basically said: “Of course, I want a yearbook I can hold and flip through. But I have grown much from the formation I received here in LST. I want others to experience the same blessings. What is memory when you can leave a legacy?” Until the very end, you, my batchmates, are still teaching me.
As I undid the digital retouching on our photographs, and the flaws and imperfections of each face started asserting themselves again, I couldn’t help but remember the words of Gerard Manley Hopkins:
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same…
Selves—goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying What I do is me: for that I came.
[But] I say more…
Looking at your faces, relishing what you have taught me, I knew why Hopkins could say more. And I say more with him:
…the just man justices;
Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is—
Christ. For Christ plays in ten thousand places
(I know of at least forty-two.)
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces.
Men’s faces: Be they wounded, be they scarred, be they imperfect, God can still work perfectly through them. Through us. Because… from Hopkins we return to Bro. Irvin’s words one last time: God is not just good. He is very, very, very good.
Amen.
12 April 2009
06 April 2009
Remembering Tom Green
(March 19, 1932 - March 13, 2009)
From Fr. Danny Huang's Facebook:
When I woke up this morning, I was shocked to discover—from Facebook updates, of all things—that Fr. Tom Green had passed away. I had known, of course, that he was sick; but the suddenness of his passing away still came as a sad surprise.
Soon after I had texted my condolences, the present Rector of San Jose Seminary, Vic de Jesus, kindly called me up long distance to inform me of the details of Tom’s passing: how Tom had come home from the hospital last night; how one of the seminarians had peeked into his room this morning and found him sitting in his chair, with his pipe on his chest. He went very quickly, which is a real mercy.
I first met Tom Green thirty years ago. In my senior year at the Ateneo, school year 1979-80, I was in Fr. Green’s philosophy of language class. It was a wonderful course, and thirty years later, the fact that I can still remember so much—of the logical positivists, of Wittgenstein, that language is inescapably metaphorical, that some concepts are essentially contested—is surely testimony to the outstanding clarity and excellence of Fr. Green’s teaching.
My second encounter with Fr. Green was through his books. Opening to God, which I read twice—once as a college student, and more seriously, as a novice in the Society—was a deeply influential book in my life. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that it taught me how to pray. I read all his other books too, but my personal favorite, the book which I think is his best and wisest, is When the Wells Run Dry.
Two key insights from that book have remained with me through the decades. The first insight: that darkness happens, not just in prayer, but in life, to move us, in his words, from “loving to truly loving.” I still recall, more or less accurately, a sentence from the book, in which he reflects on a married couple’s promise to love each other “for better or worse”: “The better, the good times are there to teach us the joy of loving; the worse happens to teach us to love truly.”
The second insight: at the end of the book, Fr. Green uses the image of floating (as contrasted with swimming) as a metaphor for the mature life of faith. You give up control over your life (“swimming”); you remain active (otherwise you would sink), but you allow yourself to be led; you let go and entrust yourself to the unpredictable flow of the sea of love that surrounds you, and you let it take you where it wills.
My third and most lasting encounter with Tom Green happened in the eight years, from 1996 to 2004, when we lived together in the same community and worked on the same formation team in San Jose Seminary. At that time, we were also co-faculty members of Loyola School of Theology. From 2000 to 2004, the years I served as Rector of San Jose, Fr. Green was my Vice-Rector. He had the room right above mine in those years.
For eight years, we shared meals and attended many staff meetings together. With the rest of the Jesuit team, we processed hundreds of applications to the Seminary; sat through hours of semestral and yearly evaluations of seminarians; discussed and occasionally argued over Seminary policies. Almost every Monday evening, for eight years, we had common prayer together in the BVM chapel on the third floor of San Jose, and after prayer, shared a special meal in the Jesuit community recreation room.
When you live that long with another Jesuit, you get to know him quite well. I got to know about Tom Green’s legendary regularity of life. He followed the same schedule or cycles almost every day, every week, every year. If it was 130 PM, he could invariably be found in his rocking chair on the fifth floor reading the papers. If it was the third (I forget which, actually) Sunday of the month, he would have Mass in Balara or for the L’Arche community. If it was summer vacation, then he would be giving a retreat somewhere in the United States. And woe to you, if you moved that rocking chair, as one unwitting minister did!
I remember pleasant and witty Jesuit banter from those rec-room meals involving Tom Green. Once, Roque Ferriols was talking about Jesuit Bishop Honesto “Onie” Pacana, but kept on referring to him as “Honey Pacana.” The rest of us—Art Borja was there, I remember—corrected Fr. Roque and told him that the bishop’s nickname was pronounced “Onie” not “Honey.” When Roque said that he had always thought the bishop’s nickname was “Honey,” Tom Green quipped in a deadpan way: “Oh, I thought you were just close.” That brought the house down.
Tom was not perfect, I discovered. (His devoted lay friends, “the Golden Girls,” who took such good care of him, also knew that.) He tended to want things his way. He got cross and cranky when things did not go the way he wanted them to. He could express his opinions a bit too dogmatically. He did not admit his mistakes easily.
And yet, I appreciated his presence in the community and on the Seminary formation team. He was a very generous (he had so many directees!) and wise spiritual director. He was a man of very good and balanced judgment where persons were concerned, and I always valued his perceptions of applicants or seminarians. When I consulted him as Vice-Rector on issues of the Seminary, I usually received very sensible counsel.
By the time I got to San Jose, Tom was a grandfather figure to the seminarians, and his cheerful and easy manner of dealing with them, and the personal witness he gave of a man who had grown old—and happily so—in the priesthood was something, I think, of inestimable value for San Jose. Having been part of San Jose for over three decades, he had become for generations of Josefinos, an icon, a living link between the past and the present, a symbol of their happy years in the Seminary. With Tom’s passing away, an era in the history of San Jose comes to an end, a presence that cannot be replaced has been lost forever...
In all my years as Rector and as Provincial, Tom always told me that he hoped he could die in San Jose. He got his wish. I am glad for him. Now, I trust that he is in the presence of the One whom he wrote about, spoke about and served so faithfully and generously for so many years. Now, I trust the darkness has become light for him, and, with a joy no words can describe, he can let go and, at last, float.
....
http://www.jesuits.ph/articles/tomgreenremembered
FR. THOMAS H. GREEN, S. J. died on Friday morning, March 13, at San Jose Seminary. Fr. Tom would have been 77 on Thursday. He entered the Society on 7 September 1949 and was ordained a priest on 19 June 1963. Requiescat in pace.
Wake:
San Jose Seminary Chapel
Ateneo de Manila University
Loyola Heights, Q.C.
Daily wake Masses will be celebrated at 8:00 p.m.
Funeral Mass:
Thursday, 19 March at 8:00 a.m.
University Church of the Gesù, Ateneo de Manila University
Interment:
Sacred Heart Novitiate Cemetery
Novaliches, Quezon City
immediately after the Funeral Mass
09 March 2009
Opposition to US-RP Balikatan exercise snowballs
Not that I am nitpicking, but three things are inaccurate with this article:
1. My family name is misspelled. The post below already has the correction.
2. I didn't celebrate Mass during the rally. I don't even think a Mass was held there that time.
3. I am not the official spokesman of the diocese. I just, once in a while, repeat what my bishop says.
The views and opinions are just about right.
My take on a later blog.
.......
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/7625
LEGAZPI CITY, February 27, 2009– Calls to consolidate efforts by multi-sectoral groups against the planned US-RP Balikatan military exercises this April, has snowballed following a three-day rally held here.
Diocese of Legazpi spokesman, Rev. Fr. Rex Paul Arjona said parishes will continue to document people’s reactions to Balikatan exercises and the possible human violations that go with it.
Arjona celebrated the Mass during a multi-sectoral rally that include militants and support groups called Oragon-Bikol; Kabataan Makabayan Laban sa Balikatan and Ban Balikatan organizations.
The protesters, who marched from Daet, Camarines Norte and Matnog, Sorsogon converged in Legazpi City’s historical land mark, The Battle of Legazpi.
Partylist Representative and Lower House Assistant Minority Leader, Liza Largoza Maza has expressed gratitude to Bishop Administrator Lucilo B. Quiambao for showing concerns about possible increase of prostitution of women as Balikatan Exercises is nearing.
Maza has earlier denounced the intensive military operations and grenade firing by the 901st Brigade of the Philippine Army in Barangay Balanac, Ligao City.
The Feb. 18 incident razed houses that left one-year and four-month old girl, Rafaela Polborido, and six other children, including three mothers injured.
Aside from Maza, militant representatives Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna, Rafael and Mariano of Anak Pawis, have also talked to Bishop Quiambao after joining the rally and pushed for the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement. (Elmer James Bandol)
27 February 2009
On being Pro-life and a Personal Sharing
by JC de los Reyes
Pro-life Convention
Quezon City
20 February 2009, Mon 10:32am
JC de los Reyes is a Councilor of Olongapo City, and member of Ang Kapatiran Party.
Good morning. Allow me to greet all those who work in the vineyard of the Lord. The pro-life / pro-choice controversy is jam-packed with issues but since I was tasked to speak on the issues confronting the pro-life movement I will begin with a background and history of the Philippine Population issue vis-à-vis my own experience which are drawn from these perspectives;
1. As a son of Sonny de los Reyes, former Executive Director of the Commission on Population.
2. As a graduate of theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville
3. As a member of the Ang Kapatiran National Political Party which has an explicit party platform to defend and uphold a consistent ethic of life I was in my pre teens when my father was appointed Executive Director of POPCOM in November of 1981. I remember how the family threw a party to celebrate his appointment. I remember the new car, his big office in Mandaluyong, his friends in government. Little did I know then that his stint at POPCOM would change our lives forever.
As a backgrounder, it was pursuant to the 1973 Constitution that depopulation policies started to gain momentum in our country. No less than the preamble of the 1973 constitution provided the fundamental principle which was "to manage population levels and growth rates" in our country. It was when Marcos signed Presidential Decree #79 that the Population Commission was created. It would be government's lead agency to spearhead an aggressive national population control program.
It is interesting that in the early days of POPCOM, even the Catholic Church was represented on its Board, until the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines decided to distance itself from the Government's gradual involvement in population control by withdrawing representation on the Board of Trustees.
POPCOM was to be the office for the flow of funds from three principal funding agencies: the World Bank, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United States Agency for International Development. The Asian Development Bank subsequently became a significant player.
All these funding was pursuant to the infamous National Security Study Memorandum No. 200 by Henry Kissinger who authored it in 1965 – by now a classic in geopolitical engineering—mandatin g the creation and funding of massive population control programs in 13 countries identified as having high population levels and growth rates. The Philippines was one of these 13 countries.
A National Family Planning Office was created in the Department of Health. Two major private institutions were also created to support the government program: the University Of The Philippines ' Population Institute and the Population Center Foundation, which augmented the program with research utilization capability. As the program moved along, bilateral funding from Japan, Australia, Canada and a few European countries, and project funding from private agencies supplemented the population war chest.
POPCOM evolved to be a powerful mini-Cabinet formed among Trustees representing major government players in population control, namely, Health, Labor, Local Governments, Finance, Social Welfare and Economic Development.
What was its objective? To reduce the growth rate and level of population to what it believed to be manageable, conducive to "sustainable development. " This level and rate were determined by external agencies like the Population Council based in New York..
This is a prelude to set the stage for the present population controversy the personalities of which will be the Filipino people as a church and the government backed up by International Development/ Funding Agencies. With this stand off, there was no other way to achieve this in a country whose population was significantly Roman Catholic except to aggressively promote modern family planning methods.
On the promotion of modern family planning methods, there is a crescendoing debate probably now on its peak on whether or not such is safe to the health and wellbeing of the Filipino people.
Many of those who are critical of our advocacy would almost always automatically try to destroy our argument by stating the fact that the principle of no abortion is constitutionally guaranteed. This is one of two principles they argue to purposefully kill the debate, the other is the principle of no-coercion.
Simply put - information and availability of Modern Artificial Contraception is what they want and that an individual should rise above his or her religious convictions to be able to make an informed choice which is the rationale of no-coercion. These are the 2 cornerstone principles pro choice advocates argue to get their message across.
To elaborate, while the Philippine Constitution has never legalized the termination of the life of a living infant, a serious debate has centered on the question: At what moment does the fertilized egg become a viable fetus? When does contraception degenerate to abortion? This issue is a critical one which for a pro-choice advocate would be critical to answer because most family planning methods have been identified as abortifacient.
The principle of no-coercion is made the basis for the definition of reproductive rights and reproductive health care. This could be explained better in the context of a typical barangay health center where they offer the entire range of contraceptive methods and devices to the potential "acceptor," cafeteria approach. With ample information on the pros and cons of each family planning method, the
objective is to elicit an informed choice.
The Problem is field realities like unmotivated bureaucrats in the barangay health centers, the lack of resources to effectively reach the people as the Philippine Health system does not reach more than 40% of the total population, limitations on public utilities and infrastructure, unavailability of trained medical personnel, and often sheer incompetence, all are factors to conclude that this principle
does not work.
For practical reasons, contraceptive pills and intra-uterine devices are most frequently endorsed despite the fact that most contraceptive pills have abortifacient side effects, and that the IUD is a proven abortifacient.
Male vasectomy and female tubal ligation in the Philippine population program has capitalized on the vulnerability of people in poverty-stricken barangays. Declared legal by the Supreme Court during the martial law regime, sterilization has become a major program strategy for population control. It is `encouraged' by the RH Code.
It is culturally shocking that this permanent and irreversible surgical procedure was hardly resisted by Filipinos, considering that it was a major form of genocide in Europe and the Middle East, and the major cause of riots in India as a violation of their religious beliefs. The VSS is considered to be the most cost-effective method but the dangers, such as peritonitis and psychological depression, were hardly mentioned, and usually ignored when they arose.
We must be aghast that this is promoted as a minor and painless surgery when the ideal administration of surgical sterilization is of course, as in any surgery, in a well-equipped hospital with sanitized facilities.
What is more alarming is the manner in which the surgery is conducted. As many as 100together in any nearby clinic they would queue for their turn on makeshift surgical beds lined up side by side 10 to 15. Indonesians called this a "safari." A doctor and nurse would then conduct the mass surgery and finish them in a weekend. But besides the doctor's fees of about Php 500 per patient subsidized by the program, what they pay the patient as incentives are really bribes to undergo the procedure. The sterilization patients were granted an average of 5-days of no-work compensation (even if they were unemployed), free antibiotics for the convalescing period, and transportation allowances.
Finally, the "cafeteria approach" does not include all the methods of fertility regulation. It was only in (1995) when the population control program included a specific natural family planning process (NFP), as it tried to appease the Catholic Church - the Billings Ovulation, which is taught within the context of a matrimonial relationship and not merely as training on physiological manipulation.
These are the realities that expose the dirty tactics of the population control program. The thrust of these policies has expanded to address issues such as AIDS Education, Adolescent Fertility, Sex Education, Reproductive Health—all in the agenda proposed by the 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo and the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing. Population control propaganda is directed at surrounding the acceptor with messages and institutions that reshape their values, limit their freedom of choice and lead their preferences toward the more effective methods, particularly abortion.
Terminologies and statements contained in the two U.N. World Conferences have then been incorporated into new and recurrent legislation, RH Code, CSR Ordinance, GADA, Women's Code all these invoke words contained in the World Conference Statements, so that definitions and interpretations of these statements will be forced upon our interpretations of the law.
The object is to slowly desensitize by starting at it softly like the legalization of abortion for specific causes, the advocacy of divorce and same sex marriage. These moves in legislation are supported by Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD).
In regard to sex education, the Adolescent Health and Youth Development Programme adopted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports seeks to develop a new breed of youth. The program was launched in 1995, and integrates a value-free approach to sex education in schools. Subtly it is to desensitize the youth to the intimacy and sacredness of sex. The program tends to reduce the youth's appreciation of sex: from an expression of love within the context of marriage, to merely a practical understanding of it as a function of the body that can be manipulated and used to achieve pleasure and to forego inner discipline.
With the election of President Obama, expect that the population control program will grow more visible and vocal in media, e.g., advertising of condoms, third sex celebrities, sexually explicit bill boards, available pornography – and it will still get worse.
The materialist and individualistic world view today which stems from human arrogance and materialistic greed will continue to negate and marginalize marriage and family where society sees pregnancy as a disease, childbirth as an aberration, and children as parasites. It is a pedophobia of the intense kind or a fear for children the world has never seen. The young men and women of today are being taught to be selfish hedonists rather than to be men and women for others. They are brainwashed to own and manipulate their world rather than steward it and share it such that all God's children especially His poor beloved could have the fullness of life, here and now.
On a more personal note, my father once had that world view; in fact he was once, one of those who zealously propagated it once upon a time. He was enslaved and blind to the ways of such deadly antinatalist ideology.
As I mentioned in the beginning of my talk, his short stint at POPCOM changed our life. I could vividly remember how the guest rooms in our house at Makati would serve as warehouses for Tahiti Brand condoms, thousands of them, as well as contraceptive pills which looked like m&m candies. I, my brother and sisters would casually play with these as if there was nothing wrong with them. Perhaps, in our innocence, they were simply toys and we would fill the condoms with water and throw it at each other.
Hindsight makes me tremble at the thought that papa opened the doors of our house to these inventions of man to engineer and manipulate life at any cost. He allowed his own children exposed to things that symbolized man's desire to disobey God and to choose modern day idols that debased the sacredness of the sexual act. No doubt it invoked some destructive force as it was the culture of death that my father was promoting.
In March of 1982, under severe pressure from international funding agencies, he led POPCOM to issue the call to "Stop at 3." This was cheered by the more than 50,000 full-time population workers and volunteers deployed in over 70 Philippine provinces and funded by USAID.
My father, in his later public confession had a sense of discomfort... He was leading a government program chanting Stop at 3! Stop at 3! But we were…4. How could he ask the nation's families to call for a family size of 3 when he were 4.
The terrible answer came swiftly; a month later, April of 1982, as she was visiting my mother-in-law for summer, my 10-year old sister Maricris was murdered. A man high on drugs had broken into our lola's house in Olongapo to rape Maricris' yaya who slept with her. My sister woke up; and to silence her, the man hit her on the head with a lead pipe.
During later years, my father reflecting on Maricris' death confessed publicly that just as Christ died for us in the cross for sins he did not commit, Maricris or Christine, her real name was his `little Christ,' the one who bore his sins, who suffered the pain that he deserved because of his hardheartedness. It was the spiritual force of his sins that got her killed.
His quest for worldly glory and his intellectual arrogance failed him in seeing simple truths…that human life transcends statistics or economics, human life cannot stagnate at the material level, it transcends this too. He saw that it was only when you grasp to some extent the nature of the giver of life that you will gain a human
appreciation of life….And he is God, the instrumental and mediative cause of creation …he is the author and usher of all life…life which is the first and fundamental good, without which no other good is possible.
My father's life and conversion from population czar to pro-life champion is itself a victory of life. Grace always overcomes sin and like the conversion of Saul, my father metamorphosed into one of the most aggressive defenders of life in the country. For even in the most violent poverty of spirit or of situation, it is not beyond the hope of being transformed, where there is life, it is always said…there is hope. Conversely, where there is no life, there is no hope. These are to me the firmest foundation of all that we do for pro-life.
Yes, there is hope that this movement will prevail…that this country will prevail. As long as there are willing vessels, saying yes to the Lord, there will be defenders of life in congress, in local governments, in our schools, in our parishes….in our nation. The garden of vocations still for pro-life work is a pro-life family as the garden of vocations for future political leaders who will work for
pro-life is a pro life political party.
To end let me declare that life is purposeful and let me quote God in Genesis 9:5 `From man, in regard to his fellow man, I will demand an accounting for human life.'
Pro-life Convention
Quezon City
20 February 2009, Mon 10:32am
JC de los Reyes is a Councilor of Olongapo City, and member of Ang Kapatiran Party.
Good morning. Allow me to greet all those who work in the vineyard of the Lord. The pro-life / pro-choice controversy is jam-packed with issues but since I was tasked to speak on the issues confronting the pro-life movement I will begin with a background and history of the Philippine Population issue vis-à-vis my own experience which are drawn from these perspectives;
1. As a son of Sonny de los Reyes, former Executive Director of the Commission on Population.
2. As a graduate of theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville
3. As a member of the Ang Kapatiran National Political Party which has an explicit party platform to defend and uphold a consistent ethic of life I was in my pre teens when my father was appointed Executive Director of POPCOM in November of 1981. I remember how the family threw a party to celebrate his appointment. I remember the new car, his big office in Mandaluyong, his friends in government. Little did I know then that his stint at POPCOM would change our lives forever.
As a backgrounder, it was pursuant to the 1973 Constitution that depopulation policies started to gain momentum in our country. No less than the preamble of the 1973 constitution provided the fundamental principle which was "to manage population levels and growth rates" in our country. It was when Marcos signed Presidential Decree #79 that the Population Commission was created. It would be government's lead agency to spearhead an aggressive national population control program.
It is interesting that in the early days of POPCOM, even the Catholic Church was represented on its Board, until the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines decided to distance itself from the Government's gradual involvement in population control by withdrawing representation on the Board of Trustees.
POPCOM was to be the office for the flow of funds from three principal funding agencies: the World Bank, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United States Agency for International Development. The Asian Development Bank subsequently became a significant player.
All these funding was pursuant to the infamous National Security Study Memorandum No. 200 by Henry Kissinger who authored it in 1965 – by now a classic in geopolitical engineering—mandatin g the creation and funding of massive population control programs in 13 countries identified as having high population levels and growth rates. The Philippines was one of these 13 countries.
A National Family Planning Office was created in the Department of Health. Two major private institutions were also created to support the government program: the University Of The Philippines ' Population Institute and the Population Center Foundation, which augmented the program with research utilization capability. As the program moved along, bilateral funding from Japan, Australia, Canada and a few European countries, and project funding from private agencies supplemented the population war chest.
POPCOM evolved to be a powerful mini-Cabinet formed among Trustees representing major government players in population control, namely, Health, Labor, Local Governments, Finance, Social Welfare and Economic Development.
What was its objective? To reduce the growth rate and level of population to what it believed to be manageable, conducive to "sustainable development. " This level and rate were determined by external agencies like the Population Council based in New York..
This is a prelude to set the stage for the present population controversy the personalities of which will be the Filipino people as a church and the government backed up by International Development/ Funding Agencies. With this stand off, there was no other way to achieve this in a country whose population was significantly Roman Catholic except to aggressively promote modern family planning methods.
On the promotion of modern family planning methods, there is a crescendoing debate probably now on its peak on whether or not such is safe to the health and wellbeing of the Filipino people.
Many of those who are critical of our advocacy would almost always automatically try to destroy our argument by stating the fact that the principle of no abortion is constitutionally guaranteed. This is one of two principles they argue to purposefully kill the debate, the other is the principle of no-coercion.
Simply put - information and availability of Modern Artificial Contraception is what they want and that an individual should rise above his or her religious convictions to be able to make an informed choice which is the rationale of no-coercion. These are the 2 cornerstone principles pro choice advocates argue to get their message across.
To elaborate, while the Philippine Constitution has never legalized the termination of the life of a living infant, a serious debate has centered on the question: At what moment does the fertilized egg become a viable fetus? When does contraception degenerate to abortion? This issue is a critical one which for a pro-choice advocate would be critical to answer because most family planning methods have been identified as abortifacient.
The principle of no-coercion is made the basis for the definition of reproductive rights and reproductive health care. This could be explained better in the context of a typical barangay health center where they offer the entire range of contraceptive methods and devices to the potential "acceptor," cafeteria approach. With ample information on the pros and cons of each family planning method, the
objective is to elicit an informed choice.
The Problem is field realities like unmotivated bureaucrats in the barangay health centers, the lack of resources to effectively reach the people as the Philippine Health system does not reach more than 40% of the total population, limitations on public utilities and infrastructure, unavailability of trained medical personnel, and often sheer incompetence, all are factors to conclude that this principle
does not work.
For practical reasons, contraceptive pills and intra-uterine devices are most frequently endorsed despite the fact that most contraceptive pills have abortifacient side effects, and that the IUD is a proven abortifacient.
Male vasectomy and female tubal ligation in the Philippine population program has capitalized on the vulnerability of people in poverty-stricken barangays. Declared legal by the Supreme Court during the martial law regime, sterilization has become a major program strategy for population control. It is `encouraged' by the RH Code.
It is culturally shocking that this permanent and irreversible surgical procedure was hardly resisted by Filipinos, considering that it was a major form of genocide in Europe and the Middle East, and the major cause of riots in India as a violation of their religious beliefs. The VSS is considered to be the most cost-effective method but the dangers, such as peritonitis and psychological depression, were hardly mentioned, and usually ignored when they arose.
We must be aghast that this is promoted as a minor and painless surgery when the ideal administration of surgical sterilization is of course, as in any surgery, in a well-equipped hospital with sanitized facilities.
What is more alarming is the manner in which the surgery is conducted. As many as 100together in any nearby clinic they would queue for their turn on makeshift surgical beds lined up side by side 10 to 15. Indonesians called this a "safari." A doctor and nurse would then conduct the mass surgery and finish them in a weekend. But besides the doctor's fees of about Php 500 per patient subsidized by the program, what they pay the patient as incentives are really bribes to undergo the procedure. The sterilization patients were granted an average of 5-days of no-work compensation (even if they were unemployed), free antibiotics for the convalescing period, and transportation allowances.
Finally, the "cafeteria approach" does not include all the methods of fertility regulation. It was only in (1995) when the population control program included a specific natural family planning process (NFP), as it tried to appease the Catholic Church - the Billings Ovulation, which is taught within the context of a matrimonial relationship and not merely as training on physiological manipulation.
These are the realities that expose the dirty tactics of the population control program. The thrust of these policies has expanded to address issues such as AIDS Education, Adolescent Fertility, Sex Education, Reproductive Health—all in the agenda proposed by the 1994 World Population Conference in Cairo and the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing. Population control propaganda is directed at surrounding the acceptor with messages and institutions that reshape their values, limit their freedom of choice and lead their preferences toward the more effective methods, particularly abortion.
Terminologies and statements contained in the two U.N. World Conferences have then been incorporated into new and recurrent legislation, RH Code, CSR Ordinance, GADA, Women's Code all these invoke words contained in the World Conference Statements, so that definitions and interpretations of these statements will be forced upon our interpretations of the law.
The object is to slowly desensitize by starting at it softly like the legalization of abortion for specific causes, the advocacy of divorce and same sex marriage. These moves in legislation are supported by Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD).
In regard to sex education, the Adolescent Health and Youth Development Programme adopted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports seeks to develop a new breed of youth. The program was launched in 1995, and integrates a value-free approach to sex education in schools. Subtly it is to desensitize the youth to the intimacy and sacredness of sex. The program tends to reduce the youth's appreciation of sex: from an expression of love within the context of marriage, to merely a practical understanding of it as a function of the body that can be manipulated and used to achieve pleasure and to forego inner discipline.
With the election of President Obama, expect that the population control program will grow more visible and vocal in media, e.g., advertising of condoms, third sex celebrities, sexually explicit bill boards, available pornography – and it will still get worse.
The materialist and individualistic world view today which stems from human arrogance and materialistic greed will continue to negate and marginalize marriage and family where society sees pregnancy as a disease, childbirth as an aberration, and children as parasites. It is a pedophobia of the intense kind or a fear for children the world has never seen. The young men and women of today are being taught to be selfish hedonists rather than to be men and women for others. They are brainwashed to own and manipulate their world rather than steward it and share it such that all God's children especially His poor beloved could have the fullness of life, here and now.
On a more personal note, my father once had that world view; in fact he was once, one of those who zealously propagated it once upon a time. He was enslaved and blind to the ways of such deadly antinatalist ideology.
As I mentioned in the beginning of my talk, his short stint at POPCOM changed our life. I could vividly remember how the guest rooms in our house at Makati would serve as warehouses for Tahiti Brand condoms, thousands of them, as well as contraceptive pills which looked like m&m candies. I, my brother and sisters would casually play with these as if there was nothing wrong with them. Perhaps, in our innocence, they were simply toys and we would fill the condoms with water and throw it at each other.
Hindsight makes me tremble at the thought that papa opened the doors of our house to these inventions of man to engineer and manipulate life at any cost. He allowed his own children exposed to things that symbolized man's desire to disobey God and to choose modern day idols that debased the sacredness of the sexual act. No doubt it invoked some destructive force as it was the culture of death that my father was promoting.
In March of 1982, under severe pressure from international funding agencies, he led POPCOM to issue the call to "Stop at 3." This was cheered by the more than 50,000 full-time population workers and volunteers deployed in over 70 Philippine provinces and funded by USAID.
My father, in his later public confession had a sense of discomfort... He was leading a government program chanting Stop at 3! Stop at 3! But we were…4. How could he ask the nation's families to call for a family size of 3 when he were 4.
The terrible answer came swiftly; a month later, April of 1982, as she was visiting my mother-in-law for summer, my 10-year old sister Maricris was murdered. A man high on drugs had broken into our lola's house in Olongapo to rape Maricris' yaya who slept with her. My sister woke up; and to silence her, the man hit her on the head with a lead pipe.
During later years, my father reflecting on Maricris' death confessed publicly that just as Christ died for us in the cross for sins he did not commit, Maricris or Christine, her real name was his `little Christ,' the one who bore his sins, who suffered the pain that he deserved because of his hardheartedness. It was the spiritual force of his sins that got her killed.
His quest for worldly glory and his intellectual arrogance failed him in seeing simple truths…that human life transcends statistics or economics, human life cannot stagnate at the material level, it transcends this too. He saw that it was only when you grasp to some extent the nature of the giver of life that you will gain a human
appreciation of life….And he is God, the instrumental and mediative cause of creation …he is the author and usher of all life…life which is the first and fundamental good, without which no other good is possible.
My father's life and conversion from population czar to pro-life champion is itself a victory of life. Grace always overcomes sin and like the conversion of Saul, my father metamorphosed into one of the most aggressive defenders of life in the country. For even in the most violent poverty of spirit or of situation, it is not beyond the hope of being transformed, where there is life, it is always said…there is hope. Conversely, where there is no life, there is no hope. These are to me the firmest foundation of all that we do for pro-life.
Yes, there is hope that this movement will prevail…that this country will prevail. As long as there are willing vessels, saying yes to the Lord, there will be defenders of life in congress, in local governments, in our schools, in our parishes….in our nation. The garden of vocations still for pro-life work is a pro-life family as the garden of vocations for future political leaders who will work for
pro-life is a pro life political party.
To end let me declare that life is purposeful and let me quote God in Genesis 9:5 `From man, in regard to his fellow man, I will demand an accounting for human life.'
22 February 2009
Cebu archdiocese to implement new accounting system
something to think about for the diocese of legazpi...
.......
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/7510/185787#comment-185787
CEBU CITY, February 21, 2009—Archbishop Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal said a new accounting system for parishes will be implemented soon.
In his message to the local clergy during the monthly recollection February 17, the prelate called on his priests to respond positively and generously to this new system as it will ensure transparency and better accounting of the income and expenditures of the parishes.
But more than a matter of fiscal responsibility, he reminded his priests to embrace this reform as something that will promote a healthy lifestyle of the clergy.
“A strong structure of accountability will result in a healthy lifestyle among my priests,” Cardinal Vidal stressed.
For the past few years, Cebu has instituted reforms in the remittance system of parishes to the archdiocese through the Office of the Economic Affairs, and the implementation of a new accounting system is its latest feature added.
Last January a series of seminars was conducted by the economic affairs office to parish priests, parish secretaries and bookkeepers to introduce the new system, wherein a detailed recording of income and expenses, among other things, was given stress.
This new accounting system complements the earlier reform instituted by the archdiocese wherein each parish is to remit 20% of its gross income to the archdiocese as a form of a solidarity fund, in lieu of the fixed quota per parish that was the norm for a long time.
The increased remittance called Priests’ Solidarity Fund (PSF), which was started in 2006, was intended not just to shore up the resources of the archdiocese, but to upgrade the social services to its clergy like the hospitalization program and subsidies to poor parishes.
The PSF also shoulders a big chunk of the budget for the ongoing formation of priests, like monthly recollections, annual retreats and ongoing formation of the young clergy.
All these fiscal reforms instituted by the archdiocese are concretization of the long-sought implementation of the norms of the Fourth Diocesan Synod of Cebu in 1986, and the resolutions of the Cebu Congress of the Clergy on this concern last 2001. (Fr. Marnell S. Mejia)
.......
http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/7510/185787#comment-185787
CEBU CITY, February 21, 2009—Archbishop Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal said a new accounting system for parishes will be implemented soon.
In his message to the local clergy during the monthly recollection February 17, the prelate called on his priests to respond positively and generously to this new system as it will ensure transparency and better accounting of the income and expenditures of the parishes.
But more than a matter of fiscal responsibility, he reminded his priests to embrace this reform as something that will promote a healthy lifestyle of the clergy.
“A strong structure of accountability will result in a healthy lifestyle among my priests,” Cardinal Vidal stressed.
For the past few years, Cebu has instituted reforms in the remittance system of parishes to the archdiocese through the Office of the Economic Affairs, and the implementation of a new accounting system is its latest feature added.
Last January a series of seminars was conducted by the economic affairs office to parish priests, parish secretaries and bookkeepers to introduce the new system, wherein a detailed recording of income and expenses, among other things, was given stress.
This new accounting system complements the earlier reform instituted by the archdiocese wherein each parish is to remit 20% of its gross income to the archdiocese as a form of a solidarity fund, in lieu of the fixed quota per parish that was the norm for a long time.
The increased remittance called Priests’ Solidarity Fund (PSF), which was started in 2006, was intended not just to shore up the resources of the archdiocese, but to upgrade the social services to its clergy like the hospitalization program and subsidies to poor parishes.
The PSF also shoulders a big chunk of the budget for the ongoing formation of priests, like monthly recollections, annual retreats and ongoing formation of the young clergy.
All these fiscal reforms instituted by the archdiocese are concretization of the long-sought implementation of the norms of the Fourth Diocesan Synod of Cebu in 1986, and the resolutions of the Cebu Congress of the Clergy on this concern last 2001. (Fr. Marnell S. Mejia)
The Story behind CBCP's Senate Walk-out
Today's PDI headline: Bishops quit RH bill talks. The Inquirer made a banner story of the walk-out of three CBCP representatives (there was no bishop among them, by the way) from the technical working group hearing of the senate's committee on health. The reporter/s took pains to repeatedly insinuate it was because of the Church's stand against artificial contraception.
The fact is many times more enlightening than the spin. The discussions have yet to reach the issue of artificial contraception. What the CBCP reps were trying to inject was a more nuanced and clarified stand of the senate bill on two basic matters: following the constitution and the anti-abortion provision of the bill, something which the bill's proponents have repeatedly used to claim pro-life groups got them wrong. But this never merited even a passing mention in the news report. The CBCP reps complained of not being heard, the report says. But what was it that the TWG refused to hear from them? The reason for the walk-out was lost in the reporting.
To add a semblance of fairness, Sen. Biazon extended an almost hollow offer of continuous invitation to the next hearings. At least, Cong. Lagman was consistent in his Church-bashing: "The Catholic Church will be isolated, sooner or later." On the matter of defending the constitution and upholding RH bill's much-publicized anti-abortion stand? Come on!
The email below is most likely from Atty. Jo Imbong, CBCP's Legal Counsel. I got it from the ECFL Luzon egroup.
.......
[ECFL_LUZON] Thoughts before the walk-out (Senate Hearing)
Fr. Ric Eguia
- On Fri, 2/20/09, fides vera wrote:
From: fides vera
Subject: [buhayatpamilya] Thoughts before the walk-out
To: buhayatpamilya@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:43 PM
Hi everyone,
The Senate Subcommittee on Population invited the CBCP to a Technical Working Group to do a line-by-line study of the RH substitute bill last February 19. CBCP had registered three representatives: Fr. Melvin Castro, Exec. Sec. of ECFL, Atty. Jo Imbong of the Legal Office, and Dr. Zenaida Rotea, Exec. Sec. of the Office on Women. Ms. Marita Wasan of Prolife Philippines, and Atty. Dindo Garciano, President of ALFI and former Mayor, were both there, having also received an invitation.
Arrayed against us were at least ten (10) pro-RH advocates, the likes of which we have confronted during the hearings on 4110, 3773, 17, and 5043. That count includes about 3 from government line agencies.
And so CBCP pushed for amendments based on purely legal grounds.
I invite each of you to ponder how it went:
#1. To Section 2 (b) which speaks of "protection of women's human rights", CBCP proposed modifying the phrase by inserting , "in acordance with Philippine law" so that any such rights of women will not be against our Constitution. Can anything be more reasonable than that? If adopted, the entire sentence would then read as follows:
The advancement and protection of women's human rights in accordance with Philippine law shall be central to the efforts of the State to address reproductive health care.
After all, the Philippines is a sovereign nation. And the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and this highest law protects life, parenting, family, children. Right?
Wrong! They objected to that phrase. They said that the Philippines is bound to obey the terms of CEDAW in everything, including the funny definition of "reproductive health" that we have repeatedly challenged.
Question: Isn't national sovereignty the paramount consideration in our foreign policy decisions? Isn't national interest another paramount consideration? (See Article II, Section 7, Constitution) .
What is it then in the pro-RH agenda that disowns these constitutional principles; what lurking RH agenda would be endangered if the phrase is inserted in Section 2? What women's 'right' would be hindered by our Constitution? That should be easy to figure out, friends.
#2. Since Section 2 already speaks of reproductive health care, CBCP proposed that the group tackle Section 4 on the definition of reproductive health. From hereon, the discussions became contentious. The RH agenda was adamant in insisting on the present definition, which is lifted from ICPD.
CBCP maintained that health as written in the Constitution by those who drafted it in 1986 simply meant, well . . . health! And reproductive health was not among their noble intentions at all Hence, RH as it is defined in ICPD is alien to our legal system. I don't seriously think that ICPD amended our Constitution
But the RH proponents stuck to their position that since the Philippines is a signatory to ICPD, any reference to the Constitution will be powerless to overturn the ICPD "commitment" . Really now. Any student of public governance knows otherwise.
The group took a brief lunchbreak, a 'timely' excuse welcomed by everyone, more to defuse the tension that was slowly building up.
But as the working committee resumed, CBCP figured out that majority of the participants of the TWG were bent on finishing their task that afternoon along the language of the substitute bill.
At this point, CBCP asked to read its Statement, placing on record its refusal to have any further part in the deliberations and disclaiming any hand on the part of CBCP in the group's final output which would contain provisions that assault inherent and inviolable human rights—of the unborn, of parents and of families. Then we walked out.
#3 Even as we did, Jo had made sure earlier that another amendment be introduced by an ally who remained at the meeting. . What was that amendment?
Remember that phrase in the House version to the effect that "nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion" ? You will recall, this sentence is their shield against a charge that the bill prepares the way for abortion.
The proposed amendment is a test of the sincerity of that disclaimer. It goes this way:
"Nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion. Abortifacient devices and substances shall not be a part of reproductive health services."
Anyone will see that the above amendment naturally flows and follows from the disclaimer on abortion and that therefore it is a logical consequence of it.
The amendment was outvoted. The defeat of that proposal affirms our long held suspicions. Go figure the implications.
Finally, #4. Hear this, good Fr. Joe- According to a witness, as the discussion approached the part on "Prohibited Acts", a proposal was heard to penalize any priest or religious who speaks against everything on reproductive health in the bill. The crime of "malicious disinformation" punished in the House version does not appear in the Senate version.
Luckily, another lawyer ally in the meeting mercifully reminded the proponent that there is still such a thing as freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of religious belief in this country.
Folks, as of this writing, we are awaiting a copy of the final output of the February 19 TWG meeting. I have the feeling you will not surprised when you read it.
By the way, before our group left earlier, the Chair of the meeting asked CBCP to submit its point-by-point position on the substitute bill. I said we will.
Allow me to acknowledge all your prayerful intentions and vigils. We all must continue because to tell you the truth . . . it all works!
Have faith,
- JO
The fact is many times more enlightening than the spin. The discussions have yet to reach the issue of artificial contraception. What the CBCP reps were trying to inject was a more nuanced and clarified stand of the senate bill on two basic matters: following the constitution and the anti-abortion provision of the bill, something which the bill's proponents have repeatedly used to claim pro-life groups got them wrong. But this never merited even a passing mention in the news report. The CBCP reps complained of not being heard, the report says. But what was it that the TWG refused to hear from them? The reason for the walk-out was lost in the reporting.
To add a semblance of fairness, Sen. Biazon extended an almost hollow offer of continuous invitation to the next hearings. At least, Cong. Lagman was consistent in his Church-bashing: "The Catholic Church will be isolated, sooner or later." On the matter of defending the constitution and upholding RH bill's much-publicized anti-abortion stand? Come on!
The email below is most likely from Atty. Jo Imbong, CBCP's Legal Counsel. I got it from the ECFL Luzon egroup.
.......
[ECFL_LUZON] Thoughts before the walk-out (Senate Hearing)
Fr. Ric Eguia
- On Fri, 2/20/09, fides vera
From: fides vera
Subject: [buhayatpamilya] Thoughts before the walk-out
To: buhayatpamilya@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:43 PM
Hi everyone,
The Senate Subcommittee on Population invited the CBCP to a Technical Working Group to do a line-by-line study of the RH substitute bill last February 19. CBCP had registered three representatives: Fr. Melvin Castro, Exec. Sec. of ECFL, Atty. Jo Imbong of the Legal Office, and Dr. Zenaida Rotea, Exec. Sec. of the Office on Women. Ms. Marita Wasan of Prolife Philippines, and Atty. Dindo Garciano, President of ALFI and former Mayor, were both there, having also received an invitation.
Arrayed against us were at least ten (10) pro-RH advocates, the likes of which we have confronted during the hearings on 4110, 3773, 17, and 5043. That count includes about 3 from government line agencies.
And so CBCP pushed for amendments based on purely legal grounds.
I invite each of you to ponder how it went:
#1. To Section 2 (b) which speaks of "protection of women's human rights", CBCP proposed modifying the phrase by inserting , "in acordance with Philippine law" so that any such rights of women will not be against our Constitution. Can anything be more reasonable than that? If adopted, the entire sentence would then read as follows:
The advancement and protection of women's human rights in accordance with Philippine law shall be central to the efforts of the State to address reproductive health care.
After all, the Philippines is a sovereign nation. And the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and this highest law protects life, parenting, family, children. Right?
Wrong! They objected to that phrase. They said that the Philippines is bound to obey the terms of CEDAW in everything, including the funny definition of "reproductive health" that we have repeatedly challenged.
Question: Isn't national sovereignty the paramount consideration in our foreign policy decisions? Isn't national interest another paramount consideration? (See Article II, Section 7, Constitution) .
What is it then in the pro-RH agenda that disowns these constitutional principles; what lurking RH agenda would be endangered if the phrase is inserted in Section 2? What women's 'right' would be hindered by our Constitution? That should be easy to figure out, friends.
#2. Since Section 2 already speaks of reproductive health care, CBCP proposed that the group tackle Section 4 on the definition of reproductive health. From hereon, the discussions became contentious. The RH agenda was adamant in insisting on the present definition, which is lifted from ICPD.
CBCP maintained that health as written in the Constitution by those who drafted it in 1986 simply meant, well . . . health! And reproductive health was not among their noble intentions at all Hence, RH as it is defined in ICPD is alien to our legal system. I don't seriously think that ICPD amended our Constitution
But the RH proponents stuck to their position that since the Philippines is a signatory to ICPD, any reference to the Constitution will be powerless to overturn the ICPD "commitment" . Really now. Any student of public governance knows otherwise.
The group took a brief lunchbreak, a 'timely' excuse welcomed by everyone, more to defuse the tension that was slowly building up.
But as the working committee resumed, CBCP figured out that majority of the participants of the TWG were bent on finishing their task that afternoon along the language of the substitute bill.
At this point, CBCP asked to read its Statement, placing on record its refusal to have any further part in the deliberations and disclaiming any hand on the part of CBCP in the group's final output which would contain provisions that assault inherent and inviolable human rights—of the unborn, of parents and of families. Then we walked out.
#3 Even as we did, Jo had made sure earlier that another amendment be introduced by an ally who remained at the meeting. . What was that amendment?
Remember that phrase in the House version to the effect that "nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion" ? You will recall, this sentence is their shield against a charge that the bill prepares the way for abortion.
The proposed amendment is a test of the sincerity of that disclaimer. It goes this way:
"Nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion. Abortifacient devices and substances shall not be a part of reproductive health services."
Anyone will see that the above amendment naturally flows and follows from the disclaimer on abortion and that therefore it is a logical consequence of it.
The amendment was outvoted. The defeat of that proposal affirms our long held suspicions. Go figure the implications.
Finally, #4. Hear this, good Fr. Joe- According to a witness, as the discussion approached the part on "Prohibited Acts", a proposal was heard to penalize any priest or religious who speaks against everything on reproductive health in the bill. The crime of "malicious disinformation" punished in the House version does not appear in the Senate version.
Luckily, another lawyer ally in the meeting mercifully reminded the proponent that there is still such a thing as freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of religious belief in this country.
Folks, as of this writing, we are awaiting a copy of the final output of the February 19 TWG meeting. I have the feeling you will not surprised when you read it.
By the way, before our group left earlier, the Chair of the meeting asked CBCP to submit its point-by-point position on the substitute bill. I said we will.
Allow me to acknowledge all your prayerful intentions and vigils. We all must continue because to tell you the truth . . . it all works!
Have faith,
- JO
19 February 2009
Why we love
this article was solicited by Fr. Ipe Sinco (Diocese of Jaro) for his parish paper. and i thought i was done with Valentines the moment the day passed...
.......
It is February, which many people now calls the “love month”. This sociological itch to extend the celebration of certain events that people can’t get enough of – February 14 in this case – makes for an interesting study.
This heightened interest also provides an opportunity to reflect on the theme of love – beyond the mushiness, hopefully.
First, let's cover the basics.
Wikipedia, the iconic resource of knowledge of almost everything in the information age (which made our search for answers democratic, pluralistic, and, more than one cares to admit, oftentimes reliable) defines love as “any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction.”
St. Thomas Aquinas describes love as a “concupiscible passion”, i.e., a feeling evoked by being drawn to a beloved, which does not only mean a romantic interest, but also extends to things, ideals and, of course, God.
Pope Benedict XVI’s first papal encyclical is an extended discourse on the centrality of love in Christianity, Deus caritas est, “God is love”. He sought to clarify and reconcile two Greek words and ideas on love: eros, which has a possessive nature expressed in the desire of the lover to possess the beloved, and agape, self-sacrificing love, in which the lover offers himself for the good of the beloved.
For Pope Benedict, genuine Christian love does not seek to eliminate eros, which is good in itself, but to complement and complete it with agape. The best model for agape is God Himself in Jesus Christ, who lay down His life on the cross to save humanity. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (John 3,16).
Elizabeth Barrett-Browning asked in her classic love poem, “How do I love thee?” Now, let us count some of the ways by which we love.
Love of God. The two great truths shared by Christianity, Judaism and Islam are (1) that we have only God, and (2) this God loves us. And so the most apt response for us humans is to love God back. Thus, to the question “What is the greatest commandment?”, Jesus replied, quoting the Jewish prayer Shema: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mt. 22,37).
Let me share with you what I consider the most stirring words ever written on the theme of loving God, words popularly attributed to have been written by the saintly Fr. Pedro Arrupe, SJ:
“Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is, than falling in a love in a quite absolute, final way. What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the mornings, what you will do with your evenings, how you spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything.”
Love of Neighbor. The greatest commandment is not complete without the next verse: “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22,38).
Apart from self-love, love of neighbor is peculiarly informed by yet another virtue: justice. The compassion of love is thus extended especially to the weak and disadvantaged, and to the assurance that fairness and equality should be given to everyone. Love of neighbor is also extended to the larger community, to nations and to the rest of creation.
Among the most sublime lines written on the love of neighbor via the aspirations for national unity and freedom is Andres Bonifacio’s exuberant nationalistic paean Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa:
“Áling pag-ibig pa ang hihigit kaya,
sa pagkadalisay at pagkadakila,
gaya ng pag-ibig sa tinubuang lupa?
Aling pag-ibig pa? Wala na nga, wala.”
Love of Family, Friends, Romantic Interest. There is a need to distinguish between the more universal love of neighbor and the love that governs special relationships. There are degrees to our relationship with people; some we love more than others. This is not being unfair. This reality actually refers to the very nature and logic of our being relational beings. Even God, in order to bring about universal salvation, elects first His “Chosen People”.
The virtue that informs this expression of love is fidelity. The virtue ethicist, Fr. James Keenan, SJ, describes fidelity as “the virtue that nurtures and sustains the bonds of those special relationships that we enjoy whether by blood, marriage, love, or sacrament. Fidelity requires that we treat with special care those who are closer to us.”
The drama and finality of fidelity is most profoundly expressed in the Christian marriage rite:
“I take you, for my wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
Love of Self or self-care is different from being selfish or self-centered. It is more than just possessing self-esteem or self-respect. Self-care is rooted in our genetic and natural predisposition for self-preservation and survival. Jesus Himself recognizes its importance when he taught about the second greatest commandment as based on one’s love for oneself. Indeed, a healthy love of self is the basis for all our loving relationships.
One of the most celebrated case of child abuse and survival is that of David James Pelzer. His story is chronicled in the three books he wrote: A Child Called It, The Lost Boy, and A Man Named Dave. As a child, Dave was abused by his mother, who thought of it as a game. Among other things, he was starved, forced to drink ammonia, and was once stabbed in the chest. His teachers finally stepped in when he was 12, and he was placed in foster care. Dave Pelzer narrates in his books his struggle to trust people and engage in loving relationships, seeing himself as broken and lacking in initial experience of loving affirming relationships.
The point is without a healthy sense of self-love, it is difficult to love others in a healthy affirming way as well. I remember a saying I learned in a high school Latin class: nemo dat quod non habet, “one cannot give what one doesn’t have”.
Why we love. So why do we love? Why do we embrace this complex beguiling and consuming emotion, sometimes with all the human energy that we can muster?
As the song says, “We are made for lovin'.” If God is love, and the Trinity is a communion of love, and if we are created in the image and likeness of God, then the way towards self-fulfillment and self-actualization, indeed, towards our destiny, is to love.
.......
It is February, which many people now calls the “love month”. This sociological itch to extend the celebration of certain events that people can’t get enough of – February 14 in this case – makes for an interesting study.
This heightened interest also provides an opportunity to reflect on the theme of love – beyond the mushiness, hopefully.
First, let's cover the basics.
Wikipedia, the iconic resource of knowledge of almost everything in the information age (which made our search for answers democratic, pluralistic, and, more than one cares to admit, oftentimes reliable) defines love as “any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction.”
St. Thomas Aquinas describes love as a “concupiscible passion”, i.e., a feeling evoked by being drawn to a beloved, which does not only mean a romantic interest, but also extends to things, ideals and, of course, God.
Pope Benedict XVI’s first papal encyclical is an extended discourse on the centrality of love in Christianity, Deus caritas est, “God is love”. He sought to clarify and reconcile two Greek words and ideas on love: eros, which has a possessive nature expressed in the desire of the lover to possess the beloved, and agape, self-sacrificing love, in which the lover offers himself for the good of the beloved.
For Pope Benedict, genuine Christian love does not seek to eliminate eros, which is good in itself, but to complement and complete it with agape. The best model for agape is God Himself in Jesus Christ, who lay down His life on the cross to save humanity. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (John 3,16).
Elizabeth Barrett-Browning asked in her classic love poem, “How do I love thee?” Now, let us count some of the ways by which we love.
Love of God. The two great truths shared by Christianity, Judaism and Islam are (1) that we have only God, and (2) this God loves us. And so the most apt response for us humans is to love God back. Thus, to the question “What is the greatest commandment?”, Jesus replied, quoting the Jewish prayer Shema: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mt. 22,37).
Let me share with you what I consider the most stirring words ever written on the theme of loving God, words popularly attributed to have been written by the saintly Fr. Pedro Arrupe, SJ:
“Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is, than falling in a love in a quite absolute, final way. What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the mornings, what you will do with your evenings, how you spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything.”
Love of Neighbor. The greatest commandment is not complete without the next verse: “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22,38).
Apart from self-love, love of neighbor is peculiarly informed by yet another virtue: justice. The compassion of love is thus extended especially to the weak and disadvantaged, and to the assurance that fairness and equality should be given to everyone. Love of neighbor is also extended to the larger community, to nations and to the rest of creation.
Among the most sublime lines written on the love of neighbor via the aspirations for national unity and freedom is Andres Bonifacio’s exuberant nationalistic paean Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa:
“Áling pag-ibig pa ang hihigit kaya,
sa pagkadalisay at pagkadakila,
gaya ng pag-ibig sa tinubuang lupa?
Aling pag-ibig pa? Wala na nga, wala.”
Love of Family, Friends, Romantic Interest. There is a need to distinguish between the more universal love of neighbor and the love that governs special relationships. There are degrees to our relationship with people; some we love more than others. This is not being unfair. This reality actually refers to the very nature and logic of our being relational beings. Even God, in order to bring about universal salvation, elects first His “Chosen People”.
The virtue that informs this expression of love is fidelity. The virtue ethicist, Fr. James Keenan, SJ, describes fidelity as “the virtue that nurtures and sustains the bonds of those special relationships that we enjoy whether by blood, marriage, love, or sacrament. Fidelity requires that we treat with special care those who are closer to us.”
The drama and finality of fidelity is most profoundly expressed in the Christian marriage rite:
“I take you, for my wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
Love of Self or self-care is different from being selfish or self-centered. It is more than just possessing self-esteem or self-respect. Self-care is rooted in our genetic and natural predisposition for self-preservation and survival. Jesus Himself recognizes its importance when he taught about the second greatest commandment as based on one’s love for oneself. Indeed, a healthy love of self is the basis for all our loving relationships.
One of the most celebrated case of child abuse and survival is that of David James Pelzer. His story is chronicled in the three books he wrote: A Child Called It, The Lost Boy, and A Man Named Dave. As a child, Dave was abused by his mother, who thought of it as a game. Among other things, he was starved, forced to drink ammonia, and was once stabbed in the chest. His teachers finally stepped in when he was 12, and he was placed in foster care. Dave Pelzer narrates in his books his struggle to trust people and engage in loving relationships, seeing himself as broken and lacking in initial experience of loving affirming relationships.
The point is without a healthy sense of self-love, it is difficult to love others in a healthy affirming way as well. I remember a saying I learned in a high school Latin class: nemo dat quod non habet, “one cannot give what one doesn’t have”.
Why we love. So why do we love? Why do we embrace this complex beguiling and consuming emotion, sometimes with all the human energy that we can muster?
As the song says, “We are made for lovin'.” If God is love, and the Trinity is a communion of love, and if we are created in the image and likeness of God, then the way towards self-fulfillment and self-actualization, indeed, towards our destiny, is to love.
18 February 2009
Proposed Program for On-Going Formation for Young Clergy (1-5 years in the Priesthood) in the Diocese of Legazpi
Goals:
1. To provide the young clergy with an integral introduction to the values and practical realities of the life and ministry of ordained ministers
2. To prepare the young clergy for greater positions of responsibility in the Church
Objectives:
1. To create and implement an On-Going Formation Program for young clergy, that is
a. sustainable;
b. effective and efficient; and
c. fitted to the needs, gifts and schedules of young clergy
I. HUMAN FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in skills in
1. building intimate and affirming relationships with brother-priests and lay people;
2. living a healthy lifestyle; and
3. facing the joys and challenges of priestly celibacy.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Organize the young clergy and elect and/or appoint a Coordinator for Young Clergy from among them.
2. Institutionalize the forming of support groups, by seminary/ordination batch, and whenever applicable, according to common interests such as sports, passion, etc.
3. Arrange talks and seminar-workshops on healthy living, celibacy, relationships, etc.
4. Encourage more informal gatherings among the clergy.
5. Give special attention to those who don’t regularly attend clergy gatherings.
II. INTELLECTUAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in aptitude through
1. theological, liturgical and canonical updating;
2. training in pastoral skills for a more effective ministry; and
3. sufficient preparation for assuming greater responsibilities in the future
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Develop, in partnership with Aquinas University of Legazpi, an MBA in Pastoral Management, especially designed for clergy, religious and lay Church leaders.
2. Develop a Preparatory Course for Pastors, defined as an informal series of seminar-workshops to be provided for those preparing to become pastors and parish administrators, and those already holding the office, but cannot take the formal MBA Course. Hopefully, after undergoing these basic module, participants may be drawn towards taking the more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these disciplines in the MBA Course. The following are suggested modules of seminar-workshops comprising the course:
a. Pastoral Leadership
b. Strategic Planning for Parishes and Organizations
c. Financial Management & Fund Sourcing
d. Human Resource Management
e. Canonical & Diocesan Statutes and Policies
f. Homiletics
g. Theological Updating (may also cover Socio-Political and Economic issues)
III. SPIRITUAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in
1. their relationship with God;
2. fidelity to the Liturgy of the Hours; and
3. apostolic spirituality, expressed in the desire for regular renewal to better serve God’s People.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Schedule an annual retreat for the entire presbyterium of the diocese; and another retreat within the year, exclusively for young clergy.
2. Institutionalize giving some days off for priests to go into personal retreat.
3. Require every young priest to engage in spiritual direction regularly.
4. Encourage common morning prayer among the clergy in their places of assignment.
IV. PASTORAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in skills in
1. becoming more effective ordained ministers;
2. relating with the People of God and pastoral sensitivity; and
3. getting the most out of the lessons and experiences gained in their pastoral assignments.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Institutionalize a “mentoring relationship” between young clergy and the pastor/senior clergy in their places of assignment.
2. Recommend to the Bishop and the Vicar for the Clergy to each conduct a colloquium with every priest, at least once a year. Prior to the colloquium, each priest may be asked to submit a short reflection paper expressing his experiences, hopes and views on his personal life, ministry and the Church.
3. Implement a systematic formation program, incorporating the pastoral assignments of young clergy. Below is a suggested Formation Schedule for Young Clergy.
1st-2nd year: Introduction to the Priestly Ministry. This period entails regular meetings by ordination batch, for processing and discussion, to be facilitated by a Mentor, an older priest. They will have one-year term assignments to two parishes. There will be no seminary or curia assignments at this time for clergy in this age group.
3rd-4th year: MBA Executive Clergy Track or Preparatory Course for Pastors. All young clergy will be asked to undergo either one of these courses. At this time, they will also have their third pastoral assignment, with a term of two years.
5th year: All young clergy will be encouraged to take further studies or specializations, taking into consideration their talents and interests, and the needs of the diocese. They will also have their fourth pastoral assignment.
1. To provide the young clergy with an integral introduction to the values and practical realities of the life and ministry of ordained ministers
2. To prepare the young clergy for greater positions of responsibility in the Church
Objectives:
1. To create and implement an On-Going Formation Program for young clergy, that is
a. sustainable;
b. effective and efficient; and
c. fitted to the needs, gifts and schedules of young clergy
I. HUMAN FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in skills in
1. building intimate and affirming relationships with brother-priests and lay people;
2. living a healthy lifestyle; and
3. facing the joys and challenges of priestly celibacy.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Organize the young clergy and elect and/or appoint a Coordinator for Young Clergy from among them.
2. Institutionalize the forming of support groups, by seminary/ordination batch, and whenever applicable, according to common interests such as sports, passion, etc.
3. Arrange talks and seminar-workshops on healthy living, celibacy, relationships, etc.
4. Encourage more informal gatherings among the clergy.
5. Give special attention to those who don’t regularly attend clergy gatherings.
II. INTELLECTUAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in aptitude through
1. theological, liturgical and canonical updating;
2. training in pastoral skills for a more effective ministry; and
3. sufficient preparation for assuming greater responsibilities in the future
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Develop, in partnership with Aquinas University of Legazpi, an MBA in Pastoral Management, especially designed for clergy, religious and lay Church leaders.
2. Develop a Preparatory Course for Pastors, defined as an informal series of seminar-workshops to be provided for those preparing to become pastors and parish administrators, and those already holding the office, but cannot take the formal MBA Course. Hopefully, after undergoing these basic module, participants may be drawn towards taking the more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these disciplines in the MBA Course. The following are suggested modules of seminar-workshops comprising the course:
a. Pastoral Leadership
b. Strategic Planning for Parishes and Organizations
c. Financial Management & Fund Sourcing
d. Human Resource Management
e. Canonical & Diocesan Statutes and Policies
f. Homiletics
g. Theological Updating (may also cover Socio-Political and Economic issues)
III. SPIRITUAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in
1. their relationship with God;
2. fidelity to the Liturgy of the Hours; and
3. apostolic spirituality, expressed in the desire for regular renewal to better serve God’s People.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Schedule an annual retreat for the entire presbyterium of the diocese; and another retreat within the year, exclusively for young clergy.
2. Institutionalize giving some days off for priests to go into personal retreat.
3. Require every young priest to engage in spiritual direction regularly.
4. Encourage common morning prayer among the clergy in their places of assignment.
IV. PASTORAL FORMATION
The young clergy of the diocese values and wants to grow in skills in
1. becoming more effective ordained ministers;
2. relating with the People of God and pastoral sensitivity; and
3. getting the most out of the lessons and experiences gained in their pastoral assignments.
To respond to these needs the following policies are proposed:
1. Institutionalize a “mentoring relationship” between young clergy and the pastor/senior clergy in their places of assignment.
2. Recommend to the Bishop and the Vicar for the Clergy to each conduct a colloquium with every priest, at least once a year. Prior to the colloquium, each priest may be asked to submit a short reflection paper expressing his experiences, hopes and views on his personal life, ministry and the Church.
3. Implement a systematic formation program, incorporating the pastoral assignments of young clergy. Below is a suggested Formation Schedule for Young Clergy.
1st-2nd year: Introduction to the Priestly Ministry. This period entails regular meetings by ordination batch, for processing and discussion, to be facilitated by a Mentor, an older priest. They will have one-year term assignments to two parishes. There will be no seminary or curia assignments at this time for clergy in this age group.
3rd-4th year: MBA Executive Clergy Track or Preparatory Course for Pastors. All young clergy will be asked to undergo either one of these courses. At this time, they will also have their third pastoral assignment, with a term of two years.
5th year: All young clergy will be encouraged to take further studies or specializations, taking into consideration their talents and interests, and the needs of the diocese. They will also have their fourth pastoral assignment.
06 February 2009
Obama as Pro-Life poster boy
Unfortunately this was rejected by NBC for its Super Bowl broadcast. An NBC exec explained it was because they "didn't want to run political or advocacy ads".
Here's the text of the spot. The visual backdrop is of an unborn child in his mother's womb. With violins playing in the background, the following text appears on the screen:
"The child's future is a broken home.
"He will be abandoned by his father.
"His single mother will struggle to raise him.
"Despite the hardships he will endure,
"This child will become
"The first African American President."
The tag line is, "Life: Imagine the Potential."
Fortunately, the logic of the people Obama hangs with and supports six days a week and twice on Sunday, was not applied to him.
To read more on this commentary, click here.
27 January 2009
Billy Collins - "Litany"
why Billy Collins should have been the poet invited to read during US Pres. Obama's inauguration
Morality of Means
by Bishop Teodoro Bacani Jr.
Manila Standard Today
Saturday-Sunday, September 27-28, 2008
Many of our people, I believe, labor from many misconceptions about the Church’s stand regarding numerous matters connected with the population question. For example, there are those who believe that the Church does not acknowledge the existence of a population problem. The fact is that the Church has often acknowledged the existence and the complexity of the population problem, not only in some parts of the world, but specifically in the Philippines. I have documented this in my book, “The Church and Birth Control.”
Related to this, there are also those who think that the Church is against any effort of government to slow down our population growth rate. But the truth is that the Church acknowledges the right of the state to orient the demography of the population. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par.2372). The decision to accelerate, maintain or decelerate the population growth rate must be based on economic and social realities. All three options (acceleration, maintenance, deceleration) are all possible moral options according to circumstances.
The Church is not against the control of the population growth rate. It accepts population management through self-control. Further, the Church holds that the decision regarding the number of a couple’s children belongs only to the couple concerned and not to the government, the Church or any other entity. In any effort to decelerate or maintain the population growth rate, the Church is also against any coercion (like dictating the number of children a couple can have, and coercing people to be sterilized), while it bats for the necessity of providing full information to couples regarding the means used.
Another misconception is that the Church is against responsible parenthood and family planning, and wants people to multiply without any restraint. The truth is, the Church advocates responsible parenthood. The Church also advocates family planning as an exercise of responsible parenthood. The Church indeed teaches that parents should strive to generously bring children into the world, but also that they should strive to bring into the world only those children whom they can raise up in a human way. According to the Church’s view, it would be irresponsible for couples to beget children without any thought on whether they can educate them.
Again, many people think that the Church is against sex education. In reality, the Church wants sex education for her children. But the Church wants sex education to be given in an appropriate way, reserving to parents the first right to give sex education to their children. The Church also wants sex education to be given according to the appropriate age of the children and with a corresponding education in values.
One thing many people find hard to understand is the Church’s insistence that couples should use only natural family planning. The Church’s stand is based on two convictions: 1) that in the matter of birth control, what is important is not only the purpose but the means used to attain the purpose. There must be not only a morality of purpose but of means; 2) natural family planning, is the only moral means of birth control.
I will discuss in another essay the justification for the Church’s insistence that only the natural method is the only morally allowable method of birth control. What I will explain here is the necessity to consider not only the efficiency but the morality of the means used for birth control. I will try to answer the objection of some people that the other modern means must be allowed because they are easier to use and are more effective and efficient.
In the matter of birth control, the issue of morality is even more important than efficiency. If efficiency is what matters most, then why not use outright abortion or infanticide? Or, better still, why not line up against the wall those who say that we should not be concerned about the morality of means, and then shoot them all to death? That would be a quick way of diminishing the population growth rate. But I am sure that all of the advocates of efficiency of means only would object and would say that that would be immoral. In saying that, however, they would be admitting that it is important to consider the morality of means and not only their efficiency.
Thus, the Catholic bishops are obliged to militate against the provision of House Bill 5043 that “the full range of family planning methods, both natural and modern shall be promoted” (sec. 11), such modern methods being understood to include “hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products” (sec. 10). We know that IUDs, pills, the morning after pill, Norplant and Depo-Provera are not only contraceptives but also abortifacients, since they not only prevent fertilization but the implantation of the fertilized ovum. The prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum is already a form of abortion, according to prevailing Catholic teaching.
The insistence of the bishops and of the Catholic Church on the morality of means is only an insistence that we safeguard our humanity in what we do, and especially in the matter of family planning. It will not matter much that we become more economically prosperous if in the process we devalue ourselves as human beings.
For us, pagpapakatao (growth in humanity) should come first, and should not be sacrificed especially in the matter of pagdadalang-tao (bearing children).
Manila Standard Today
Saturday-Sunday, September 27-28, 2008
Many of our people, I believe, labor from many misconceptions about the Church’s stand regarding numerous matters connected with the population question. For example, there are those who believe that the Church does not acknowledge the existence of a population problem. The fact is that the Church has often acknowledged the existence and the complexity of the population problem, not only in some parts of the world, but specifically in the Philippines. I have documented this in my book, “The Church and Birth Control.”
Related to this, there are also those who think that the Church is against any effort of government to slow down our population growth rate. But the truth is that the Church acknowledges the right of the state to orient the demography of the population. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par.2372). The decision to accelerate, maintain or decelerate the population growth rate must be based on economic and social realities. All three options (acceleration, maintenance, deceleration) are all possible moral options according to circumstances.
The Church is not against the control of the population growth rate. It accepts population management through self-control. Further, the Church holds that the decision regarding the number of a couple’s children belongs only to the couple concerned and not to the government, the Church or any other entity. In any effort to decelerate or maintain the population growth rate, the Church is also against any coercion (like dictating the number of children a couple can have, and coercing people to be sterilized), while it bats for the necessity of providing full information to couples regarding the means used.
Another misconception is that the Church is against responsible parenthood and family planning, and wants people to multiply without any restraint. The truth is, the Church advocates responsible parenthood. The Church also advocates family planning as an exercise of responsible parenthood. The Church indeed teaches that parents should strive to generously bring children into the world, but also that they should strive to bring into the world only those children whom they can raise up in a human way. According to the Church’s view, it would be irresponsible for couples to beget children without any thought on whether they can educate them.
Again, many people think that the Church is against sex education. In reality, the Church wants sex education for her children. But the Church wants sex education to be given in an appropriate way, reserving to parents the first right to give sex education to their children. The Church also wants sex education to be given according to the appropriate age of the children and with a corresponding education in values.
One thing many people find hard to understand is the Church’s insistence that couples should use only natural family planning. The Church’s stand is based on two convictions: 1) that in the matter of birth control, what is important is not only the purpose but the means used to attain the purpose. There must be not only a morality of purpose but of means; 2) natural family planning, is the only moral means of birth control.
I will discuss in another essay the justification for the Church’s insistence that only the natural method is the only morally allowable method of birth control. What I will explain here is the necessity to consider not only the efficiency but the morality of the means used for birth control. I will try to answer the objection of some people that the other modern means must be allowed because they are easier to use and are more effective and efficient.
In the matter of birth control, the issue of morality is even more important than efficiency. If efficiency is what matters most, then why not use outright abortion or infanticide? Or, better still, why not line up against the wall those who say that we should not be concerned about the morality of means, and then shoot them all to death? That would be a quick way of diminishing the population growth rate. But I am sure that all of the advocates of efficiency of means only would object and would say that that would be immoral. In saying that, however, they would be admitting that it is important to consider the morality of means and not only their efficiency.
Thus, the Catholic bishops are obliged to militate against the provision of House Bill 5043 that “the full range of family planning methods, both natural and modern shall be promoted” (sec. 11), such modern methods being understood to include “hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products” (sec. 10). We know that IUDs, pills, the morning after pill, Norplant and Depo-Provera are not only contraceptives but also abortifacients, since they not only prevent fertilization but the implantation of the fertilized ovum. The prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum is already a form of abortion, according to prevailing Catholic teaching.
The insistence of the bishops and of the Catholic Church on the morality of means is only an insistence that we safeguard our humanity in what we do, and especially in the matter of family planning. It will not matter much that we become more economically prosperous if in the process we devalue ourselves as human beings.
For us, pagpapakatao (growth in humanity) should come first, and should not be sacrificed especially in the matter of pagdadalang-tao (bearing children).
Facts and fallacies in the population debate
Perhaps former senator Francisco Tatad should check his facts before rushing into print. In an article criticizing a paper signed by 26 economists of the University of the Philippines (UP) in support of the Reproductive Health Bill, President Ferdinand Marcos’ former minister of public information wrote: “… [T]he economists reportedly claim that 57 percent of Filipino families have nine children or more. The statistic reads like one of those manufactured electoral counts in one of our notoriously crooked elections. It smells.”
The UP paper actually claims no such thing, only that poverty incidence “rises steadily with the number of children to 57 percent for a family of nine children or more.”
Such loose argumentation does not advance the cause of truth, the good of the Filipino people, or the credibility of the Church for which the author seems to be speaking. It may be useful therefore to list down some facts which I believe to be well established and which tend to be obscured in the dust of the ideological battle surrounding the Reproductive Health Bill.
• The Philippine population is hardly “booming” or “runaway.” The birth rate and the natural increase rate (birth rate-death rate) have both been coming down, though not as rapidly as some economists and others would like. The surge in population, which multiplied 10 times over in the 20th century, was not due to a significant increase in the birth rate but to a drop in the death rate made possible by public health measures such as malaria control, clean drinking water and immunization of children.
• Rapid population growth can be either good or bad for an economy. In the United States of the 19th century, a vast continent of immense natural resources benefited immensely from the immigration of Irish and German immigrants who built the railroads, dug the canals and mined the coal to fuel rapid economic development. In the Philippines, on the other hand, and despite what textbooks may say of “vast natural resources,” the forests are gone, the coral reefs are in bad shape, the rivers are dead or dying and millions of tons of precious topsoil have been washed into the sea. To make matters worse, our human resources are underdeveloped due to a disastrously poor public school system. In these circumstances, rapid population growth imposes an additional burden on the economy.
• Rapid population growth alone cannot explain poverty; the latter has many other causes including corruption, oligarchic control of the economy, concentration of income and poor economic policy. But large families among the poor make it more difficult for them to rise out of poverty since expenditures per child on health and education drop radically and systematically as the number of children in a family increases.
• A lower population growth rate would not be a quick fix, however, for the economy. If all Filipinos were to stop having children today, the impact on the school system would not be felt for another seven years or so—when the children not born today would not be starting to go to school!—and the impact on the job market for 15 or 20 years.
• The current decline in the birth rate should not be a reason for complacency among those who oppose contraception, since much of the decline is due precisely to contraception. It might better be seen as a challenge to provide a genuine option especially to the poor, in the form of natural family planning.
• Nor does it mean that the “population problem” will soon be a thing of the past. Even though the average number of children born per woman is decreasing, the large percentage of women in their childbearing years will ensure population growth for generations to come.
• Contraception and abortion: Is there a link and if so what is it? On the one hand, one would intuitively expect that easy availability of contraception especially among the poor would provide an alternative to abortion. On the other hand, there are cases such as the United States in which the use of contraceptives and the rate of abortions have increased together. Here the pro-life people have their hands on an important point: It is a question of values and priorities, of another child or another car, of respect for life and the whole sacred process by which a man and a woman cooperate with the Creator in bringing a new life, a new human person, into being.
• Hence the importance of value formation such as that which is ideally given in courses on natural family planning (NFP). Without that, even NFP can become simply another technique, less expensive than contraception, with no side effects, and effective if used properly.
• Effective usage of NFP is not as simple as popping a pill or having oneself ligated. The “user failure rate” can be high, depending mainly on the motivation of the couple to be faithful to the method. Yet the user failure rate of various contraceptives, including pills, can also be high. And even with a relatively high user failure rate, if the 50 percent of Philippine couples not practicing any form of family planning were to turn to NFP, it would impact significantly on the birth rate. Moreover, NFP has its intrinsic rewards in terms of woman’s empowerment, discipline and family solidarity.
Which reminds us that, behind all of the statistics and arguments, what we are talking about here is, ultimately, life and love.
22 July 2008
A Call for Common Ground and Moderate Voices in the Population Debate
Defining Population Growth. In the heat of the population debate, credible facts are a much needed commodity. Sadly, it is not uncommon that hard line representatives from both sides tend not to mention data deemed unfavorable for their positions.
Below are some relatively reliable data from Index Mundi that may help:
While the general population of the Philippines may have surged from 81.16 million in 2000 to 92.68 million in 2008, certain other data need to be considered:
1. The country's population growth rate is in steady decline, from 2.07 in 2000 to 1.728 in 2008.
2. The birth rate, too, has lowered from 27.85/1000 population in 2000 to 24.07/1000 in 2008.
3. The infant mortality rate, a key issue in the reproductive health debate, has also lowered from as high as 29.52/1000 live births in 2000 to 21.45/1000 live births in 2008.
4. Life expectancy has improved from age 67.48 in 2000 to age 70.8 in 2008.
5. Now here's the clincher, the total fertility rate (TFR) is also in steady decline, from 3.48 in 2000 to around 3.0 in 2008.
The site gives a helpful definition of TFR: "This entry gives a figure for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman. This indicator shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years."
6. On the matter of HIV-AIDS cases, the adult (age 15-49) prevalence rate of .07% of the general population in 2001 has surged and then plateaued at .1% since 2003 till the present. The number of people living with HIV-AIDS has significantly decreased from around 28,000 in 2001 to around 9,000 in 2004 till the present. The number of deaths due to AIDS has also significantly lowered, from 1,200 in 2001 to 500 in 2004 till the present.
A caveat: The Index Mundi data is based from the CIA World Factbook. In a 2005 committee hearing on the reproductive health bills, Rep. Lagman and other proponents insisted on the "accuracy" of the "official" NSO data of 2.36% population growth rate, as opposed to the 1.61% growth rate of the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, which the CBCP quoted.
Defining Abortion. The Church and pro-life groups have consistently accused the consolidated bill of promoting abortifacients, while its supporters have vigorously denied the claim. The key to understanding the polemic lies on which definition of abortion you are holding.
During the 2005 congressional hearings, supporters of the reproductive health bills seemed to favor the definitions provided by Dr. Marita Reyes, Chancellor of UP Manila, who in turn quoted two "official" medical definitions.
1. For the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetrics (FIGO), abortion is defined as “the termination of pregnancy after implantation and before the conception has become independently viable.”
2. The Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society, Inc. (POGS) defines abortion as "the expulsion of a non-viable fetus or product of conception on or before the 20th week of gestation."
These definitions, of course, were strongly contested by the Church, which solidly teaches that life begins at conception, and, therefore, any act that causes the termination of unborn life after conception is considered abortion. In the battle of quotable quotes, pro-life groups are also not wanting of formidable experts:
1. Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”
The bill admittedly does promote contraceptives that prevent implantation of fertilized egg or zygote after conception. Thus, such contraceptives are branded by pro-life groups as abortifacients. Pro-"quality of life" supporters, on the other hand, stand by the standard FIGO and POGS definitions of abortion which enable them to argue that such contraceptives are not, in fact, abortifacients.
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Quality of Life?
"It's lunchtime in Vitas, the sprawling slum built on the City of Manila's garbage dump. Flies swarm as Bing, a 34-year-old mother of five, prepares a meal of salted rice for her children. While she feeds them, her husband sifts through the mounds of grease-stained cardboard boxes, plastic bags, and broken glass that crowd their home. He'll sell his rotten harvest for about $3.50. For their family of seven, that’s 50 cents per person, per day. The arithmetic is simple, Bing says. 'With every child I have, there is less rice each. I can’t give them all a good life.'"
This is the opening paragraph of the Time article "The Philippines' Birth Control Battle" by Emily Rauhala.
to be continued...
More stats and ruminations...
Kids in the wings
In today’s shrill population debate, has the “youth bulge” vanished like the “eerie missing voice of poor Filipino women”? “Youth bulge” is scientists’ shorthand for large clusters of potential parents: those between 15 and 30 years of age.
“Their hormones will soon be in overdrive,” the Sun Star noted. Children from their albeit delayed marriages could form a “boomlet.” But like women driven to abortion by lack of family planning options, these children in the wings are “invisible” in current exchanges.
Archbishop Jesus Dosado of Ozamiz casts into “exterior darkness” reproductive health bill backers. They’ll be denied Communion in his archdiocese. “Who is without sin” should be first to deny the Eucharist to others, snapped columnist Orlando Carvajal.
The bills “don’t legalize abortion,” scoffed Albay province’s Rep. Edcel Lagman. True. But Lagman and Co. copied from foreign laws abortion-on-demand provisions for their first draft. Alarm bells were clanging when they spiked offending paragraphs.
“A conspiracy of silence” shrouds women who, denied family planning services, induce abortion, Professor Mary Racelis of Ateneo de Manila University and University of the Philippines wrote in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last July 18. About 473,400 women had abortions in 2000.
Does that even out at 1,265 aborted babies daily? Hard to tell. Abortionists slink in illegality’s murky world. Reports by 1,658 hospitals, in contrast, provide hard data on abortion’s consequences.
Over 105,000 women were hospitalized due to complications, mainly hemorrhaging and infections, Racelis noted. “And 12 percent, or 12,600, died. How many more never made it to a hospital… or suffer lifelong disabilities is anyone’s guess.”
The UN Human Development Report reveals that 170 mothers die out of every 100,000 deliveries. The “preventable major causes” are: abortion, hemorrhage and hypertension. At this rate, maternal death rates will dip to 140, come 2015. This will sharply cut the 209 fatalities recorded in the 1990s. But we will flunk the Millennium Development Goal for trimming deaths to 52.
Abortions, meanwhile, have ratcheted higher, new partial data indicate. Do they now crest at 1,930 daily? Who knows? “Sino ba ang babaeng magpapalista na nagpa-aborsyon siya?” Racelis quoted a Catholic Bishops’ National Rural Congress participant. What woman, in her right mind, would admit she had an abortion?
This is glossed over slaughter of innocents. “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation,” Matthew wrote. “Rachel weeping for her children … because they were no more.”
“The Philippines is in the midst of a ‘youth bulge,’” note Filipino demographers Corazon Raymundo of University of the Philippines (UP) and Socorro Gultiano of San Carlos University. Age distribution tables, from the 2007 census, haven’t been released. But projections based on the previous census say these youngsters may top 18 million.
“Teenage pregnancies have been rising,” the savvy UP demographer Mercedes Concepcion says. “If the proportion of those bearing children at ages 15-19 escalate, we may see a minor baby boom—unless these teenage mothers resort to abortions. Some of their elders did. No one wants that.”
Even a “boomlet” would further burden 79 provinces that haven’t started, in earnest, its “demographic transition” to lower birth rates.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, meanwhile, called for a new dialogue. “But did this dialogue ever leave square one?” the Bohol Chronicle asked.
“For more than 30 years now, the ‘population debate’ divided segments of society,” sociologist John Carroll, SJ writes. It has been marred “by mutual suspicions, one-sided arguments and caricatures of opposing positions. The outcome has been two groups, each dominated by more ‘hard-line’ spokespersons… They talk past each other without taking time to listen. (Ex-secretary of health Alberto Romualdez, for example, would gag citizens from commenting on population, if they are priests or religious, and constitutional right to free speech be damned.) “We must move past the deadlocked debate into an area of respectful discussion…”
How? Use undisputed facts.
There are four of us today where in 1948, there was one. Daily, about 5,800 babies are born. They’re equal to three villages. No crystal bowl is needed to tally how much more food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. an additional 1,098 villages will need in a year.
Poor families that haven’t spaced children find it tougher to break out of penury. Two out of every 10 married women want no more children for now, surveys show. Many cannot access family planning services.
Keeping in mind the common good, couples determine their family size, says the Vatican II Council document, “The Church in the Modern World.”
“Procreation and parenthood do not entail a right to have as many children as one desires,” writes theologian Fr. Aloysius Cartagenas. “The former need not take moral precedence over the later all the time.”
Informed discussion will enable “families to choose their preferred family planning methods, consistent with the Second Vatican Council’s teaching: the final arbiter of one’s decision is informed and responsible conscience,” 17 UP economists said earlier.
The Catholic Church supports family planning but bucks contraception. The Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay prelature and Cagayan de Oro archdiocese implement an All- Natural Family Planning program. Do other dioceses have comparable programs? Or do they stop at “anathemas”?
There’s far more common ground than the hard-liners indicate. And the consequences of failing to find areas of agreement will be dire.
21 July 2008
Responsible mining drives growth?
A Response to "Responsible mining drives growth - Jose Leviste Jr."
Trust a miner to talk about the hopes and dreams of a better Philippines pinned upon a measly 2% excise tax on mining, and then to belittle the Catholic Church's and "international welfare agencies"' anti-mining polemics as nothing but appeals to romantic ideals of national patrimony, and then conveniently lump them with certain seedy local powers-that-be who just want the money for themselves.
The issue for Mr. Leviste is money. What about sustainable development? And are we forgetting something else, like the environment? By the way Mr. Leviste analyzed things, it seemed like the environment was never an issue. The word was mentioned not even once in his article. Okay, the article was just an excerpt, so there just might be some other things left out. And he did use "responsible mining", the one motherhood statement pro-miners rally about.
Could mining be ever responsible in a corruption-mired industry, with a corrupt and inept State monitoring and regulatory system? Could mining be ever responsible when indigenous peoples and local communities are, at turns, deceived, threatened and their rights violated? Could mining be ever responsible in such ecologically fragile islands as Rapu-Rapu, Sibuyan and Palawan?
But for Mr. Leviste, the main issue is money. Let's talk about money then. In most countries around the world, where there is mining, there exist the State's pre-tax share of the cash flow generated by a mining project, representing the national patrimony, which averages a hefty 38% (Chile 15.00%, Bolivia 27.06%, Venezuela 32.82%, Peru 36.52%, United States 36.61%, Mexico 37.21%, Botswana 40.10%, Brazil 40.85%, Argentina 46.13%, Canada 46.71%, Guyana 48.16%, Australia 50.60%)! In thePhilippines
If this government is giddy about the financial benefits of mining, and mining companies are harping about following international standards, then why is nobody from both sides talking about a 38% pre-tax share from mining? Of course, the issue is money, more money for themselves. Obviously, mining companies and certain seedy national government powers-that-be want the rest of us to believe a 2% excise tax is the best deal we could ever have.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church and Mr. Leviste's "international welfare agencies" don't think so. Unfortunately though, no matter how they whine about the bad rep they're getting, mining companies and corrupt government officials are already getting the money, while the rest of the Filipinos are left with an environment irreparably damaged and patrimony irreversibly wasted.
Trust a miner to talk about the hopes and dreams of a better Philippines pinned upon a measly 2% excise tax on mining, and then to belittle the Catholic Church's and "international welfare agencies"' anti-mining polemics as nothing but appeals to romantic ideals of national patrimony, and then conveniently lump them with certain seedy local powers-that-be who just want the money for themselves.
The issue for Mr. Leviste is money. What about sustainable development? And are we forgetting something else, like the environment? By the way Mr. Leviste analyzed things, it seemed like the environment was never an issue. The word was mentioned not even once in his article. Okay, the article was just an excerpt, so there just might be some other things left out. And he did use "responsible mining", the one motherhood statement pro-miners rally about.
Could mining be ever responsible in a corruption-mired industry, with a corrupt and inept State monitoring and regulatory system? Could mining be ever responsible when indigenous peoples and local communities are, at turns, deceived, threatened and their rights violated? Could mining be ever responsible in such ecologically fragile islands as Rapu-Rapu, Sibuyan and Palawan?
But for Mr. Leviste, the main issue is money. Let's talk about money then. In most countries around the world, where there is mining, there exist the State's pre-tax share of the cash flow generated by a mining project, representing the national patrimony, which averages a hefty 38% (Chile 15.00%, Bolivia 27.06%, Venezuela 32.82%, Peru 36.52%, United States 36.61%, Mexico 37.21%, Botswana 40.10%, Brazil 40.85%, Argentina 46.13%, Canada 46.71%, Guyana 48.16%, Australia 50.60%)! In the
If this government is giddy about the financial benefits of mining, and mining companies are harping about following international standards, then why is nobody from both sides talking about a 38% pre-tax share from mining? Of course, the issue is money, more money for themselves. Obviously, mining companies and certain seedy national government powers-that-be want the rest of us to believe a 2% excise tax is the best deal we could ever have.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church and Mr. Leviste's "international welfare agencies" don't think so. Unfortunately though, no matter how they whine about the bad rep they're getting, mining companies and corrupt government officials are already getting the money, while the rest of the Filipinos are left with an environment irreparably damaged and patrimony irreversibly wasted.
Responsible mining drives growth - Jose Leviste Jr. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=123095
The report of the Fraser Institute of Canada shows that the
I have some difficulty with that position and I will tell you why. First, if the
companies that have projects in the Philippines are much sought after.
The fact is that despite the noise, quite a deal is happening in the
Only around 30 percent of the
If “exploited” in the proper way, with an excise tax of 2 percent being paid to government, that is $16.8 billion in royalty payments alone, of which $6.7 billion would be paid to local government units; plus a further one percent in royalties to indigenous communities—$8.4 billion.
Those numbers would start to make a real difference, especially if they provided the catalyst for further downstream investment. Mining, responsible mining that is, is an important driver of future growth of the
Bad news
You hear much about the bad news on mining in the
What is the true story of what is happening with mining in the
The fact is that there continues to be a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of the Philippines over the efficacy of the 1995 Mining Act which back in late 2004 was declared to be constitutional ‘with finality’ by the Supreme Court and which allows foreign companies to enter into agreements with the government of the Philippines to explore and develop local mineral deposits on behalf of the people of the Philippines.
At root, and in the context of responsible mining, it is all about money. This is not an issue that is unique to the
To exploit known mineral reserves in a manner consistent with international best practice requires both money and technology that is not available locally. International best practice is locked in battle right now (in some places) with vested local interests who wish to exploit these resources for themselves. Their argument is couched in terms of “national patrimony” and “Filipino first.” These are terms that appeal to certain elements of the Catholic Church and to international welfare agencies who echo the refrain—but the truth of the matter is somewhat different.
What these people really mean by the terms they use is that they do not wish to share local wealth but keep it for themselves. Remember that small-scale miners (ostensibly pick-and-shovel stuff but in fact many so-called small-scale miners are anything but small-scale) do not report their income to the national government, do not pay excise taxes and often pay their “taxes” not by cheque but in cash—without the corresponding receipts.
So the real battle is between a system whereby earnings from mining will be returned to the national and local governments as well as the people of the Philippines through defined revenue sharing formula and in a manner that will redistribute wealth throughout the Philippines versus a system which enriches a few local oligarchs and the politicians that support them while keeping the mass of the people impoverished.
Pockets of resistance
Among the various “stakeholders,” some of the opposition to national mining policy is brought about through ignorance while other opposition is ideological in nature—vested interests are under threat.
At the national level, the fight has already been won. The national government is firmly behind the minerals industry as a future driver of our growth. What you are seeing now are the mopping up operations of that fight—pockets of resistance that are holding out and fighting ferociously in the process. And yes, sadly, there are delays and occasional road blocks in some prospective mining areas of the country.
But these delays and occasional road blocks, as unfortunate as they are, should not discourage us but should steel us in our resolve to win the fight on behalf of the legitimate industry.
Indeed, the situation is changing for the better and the legitimate industry is slowly again gaining the upper hand. We say “again” because it was a battle already won back in 2005 but which was set back immeasurably by the incidents at the Rapu Rapu mine in Albay province. The response to those incidents and the manner in which they were handled by the previous management at the time damaged not only the company but set back the entire industry. It was caught flat-footed.
Rapu Rapu got new Filipino management, was rehabilitated and is now under new Korean and Malaysian ownership and management and it remains to be seen how the new owners handle things from this point.
Certainly the industry cannot afford another setback of this nature.
Revenues for local government
Evidently, “enough is enough” and mining companies, traditionally wanting to keep a low profile and needing to refer any public comment back to their corporate headquarters, are now starting to realize that profiles can sometimes be too low.
The key issue of course again comes back to money and the need to ensure that revenues from mining activities flow back to local government in a transparent and timely fashion. There is some validity to the complaint of many local officials that they have yet to see any benefit from allowing foreign mining companies to undertake activities in their areas. That has to change and is changing.
So while the
But in the
These are excerpts from the speech of the author in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)