Bacolod was shocked when news about a sex scandal involving local politicians disseminated in the public. The information started as “blind item” particularly here in Agila newspaper and was picked up by other media outlets such as TV and radio. The “blind item” never mentioned any name but the said blind items did mention that those allegedly involved in this sex scandal was or were councilors of the City of Bacolod. I was able to read a “blind item” of this scandal and I could affirm the fact that there was no name of any local politician, not even a clear clue as to who, except that it was pointed out that a councilor was involved.
Later, I found out in the news that even local TV personality and controversial Franklin Villanueva also mentioned in his local talk show about this sex scandal and as far as second-hand information is concerned, he did not mention any name except that he did point out that according to his sources, those councilors involved belong to the so-called Voltes V group of the city council.
The term Voltes V became popular, or should I say infamous, during the early months of Mayor Bing’s second term as Mayor. According to “popular belief”, these Voltes V councilors are hard-line supporters of Mayor Bing and were accused of being “corrupt”, receiving kickbacks or “SOP” from projects of the City. Again, among the media personnel, they would give names of these Voltes V councilors. When confronted, these so-called Voltes V councilors even denied that there was such a group and that it is nothing but just “Urban Legend”.
I was surprised therefore when the news came telling the public that a group of councilors filed a libel case against media personalities, including this paper’s EIC because of spreading “lies” about the sex scandal. I was also surprised that the alleged Voltes V councilors, who initially denied such existence of an “elite” group, were those who filed libel.
In my opinion, this is a typical case of “Bato bato sa langit, ang matama-an huwag magalit.” In the first place, no names were mentioned and no personalities were clearly referred to. By filing the libel case, these alleged Voltes V councilors confirm that they are the so-called Voltes V being referred to in media. It is just like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Filipinos have a saying for this, “Ang pikon, talo”. Unless there were other media personalities who clearly mentioned their names and pointed out unambiguously their involvement in this alleged sex scandal, these councilors are barking on the wrong tree.
The last time I heard, other councilors are moving to investigate this sex scandal with the objective of preserving the honor and dignity of the august council. I believe that is the more appropriate move. I believe our politicians must be thick-skinned when it comes to public scrutiny, especially in the arena of public gossip. Of course, when there is smoke there is flame but it is up to the truth to reveal itself in the proper time and place.
As far as I am concerned, I do hope the City Council can cleanse its dignity stained by such a scandal, whether true or not. The people of Bacolod deserve a Council made up of not necessarily saints and holy people but at least with people who have integrity and proper sense of decorum. 
target="_blank">
August 08, 2009
Sex In The City (of Bacolod?)
December 23, 2008
Sorry Cory, But I Am Not Sorry!
Former President Cory Aquino's sorry became the headlines today. According to the news,
"Aquino, who was one of the rally leaders at the height of the so-called EDSA 2 revolt, issued the apology to the ousted president during a book launching event. "Mr. Estrada ang galing mo talaga magtalumpati. Lahat tayo nagkakamali, patawarin mo na lang ako," she told the crowd during the launching of the “Global Filipino" book of former Speaker Jose de Venecia, which was an authorized biography written by US journalist Brett Decker. “I am one of those who plead guilty for the 2001 uprising. Lahat naman tayo ay nagkakamali. Patawarin mo na lang ako," Aquino said in a television footage of the event."(GMANews)
Well, I am no Time's Person of the Year awardee but let me just say that the sorry she made only tarnished her the more. Of course, her having cancer now and undergoing some form of treatment shouldn't spare this former politician from sound criticism. Indeed, what she has done has somehow insulted the thousands who marched to EDSA and elsewhere nationwide and authentically asked for the resignation of a corrupt president, who was, during his time, listed as one of the top ten most corrupt leaders worldwide of all time. The accusation of corruption found its vindication when the Sandiganbayan passed judgment over Erap Estrada. He was found without an iota of doubt GUILTY of plunder. All of a sudden, Hellen Keller looked more able than Madam Corazon Aquino.
Don't get me wrong; I am a Cory fan. I still watch the video of her speech at the U.S. Congress in my computer from time to time. But what she did the last few days can only be described as either a side effect of her treatment or signs of aging, dementia setting in. Ninoy would have been budging in his coffin now.
I am not sorry for what happened in 2001. I was there in Bacolod's public plaza, right on top of the stage, with my wife and friends, standing and linking arms with Senator Drilon, Senator Villar and Sec. Liwayway Chato. We had our fists clenched and raised in the air. Erap was guilty. He had to step down.
I wasn't rallying for the ascension of Gloria Arroyo to the Presidential throne. Gloria was nothing more than just a constitutional successor to a vacated Presidential position. The rally was never for Gloria. No. It was against Erap. Plain and simple.
If Cory Aquino would have felt betrayed, it is perhaps by her perception that the person who replaced the corrupt President Erap was in a sense also corrupt. Be that as it may, that doesn't change anything that happened in the revolution of 2001.
Cory's Sorry was really way out of line.
"The former lady President looked thin and frail but somehow lost her sense of dignity when she apologized to Erap Estrada during the book launch of former Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. today at the Podium, Ortigas. What is the apology for anyway? It just make my face look sour every time I saw these political figures suddenly becoming friends. It will really make me mad when in the next month she will say sorry to the family of Ferdinand Marcos. Former President Joseph Estrada was guilty of PLUNDER. Let's just make that clear." (Makoyskie's Blog)
"'We cannot have a double standard. We have to put closure. The question is - Was wrong done? I think it was (wrong). Was he replaced? Yes. Are we sorry? No,' (Senator Richard) Gordon said." (GMANews)
But then again, someone might say, "Well, it's Christmas. Shouldn't we forgive Erap and just get alone?" As a Christian, it is a duty to forgive but then, how can we forgive a person who until now would not even admit his mistakes? The 'mea culpa' should begin from Erap. Even in his "guilty verdict" moments, he was still adamant.
"With this kind of statement from Cory, expect Erap to feel better about himself. My fearful forecast is that Cory's apologies would make Erap decide to run for President in 2010. If that happens, all I can say is 'I heard Canada is a good place to live',"(Pinoy Potter)
target="_blank">
December 13, 2008
2008's Newsmakers of the Year
The year 2008 is about to be finished, so I have made my list and checked it twice. Below is my top ten newsmakers of the year for 2008.
Top 10. Gloria Arroyo - Philippine president. Surviving yet another impeachment process, the Philippine president remains strong and almost an insurmountable political figure in the region.
Top 9. George W. Bush - U.S. President. Battling out a year of economic meltdown, President Bush has become the center of the this economic storm, which many analysts believe, has been brough about by mismanagement of the economy by the Bush Administration itself.
Top 8. Sarah Palin - former Vice Presidentiable, Republican Party. When she was introduced as John McCain's running mate, everyone asked, "Sarah who?" A few days later, she was on every newspaper, making her a new face in American politics, a face which wasn't hard to imitate as proven by Comedian Actress Tina Fey.
Top 7. Juan Ponce Enrile - Philippine Senator. The coup in the Philippine Senate left everyone with their heads still spinning, including the then Senate President Manny Villar. After the dust settled, seasoned politician Juan Ponce Enrile emerged as the new Senate President, a crucial position for a crucial time in Philippine politics.
Top 6. Morgan Tsvangirai - leader, Opposition party, Zimbabwe. After a hard struggle against the Mugabe Administration in Zimbabwe, the two opposing parties came to an historic agreement in September. According to an agreement, Tsvangirai is going to be the next Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.
Top 5. The Chinese Nation. Hosting for the first time the Summer Games of the Olympics in 2008, the Chinese people and its government have displayed their capabilities as a nation. However, its Olympic success story has been overshadowed by scandals such as the contamination of their milk and dairy products with melamin. 
Top 4. Manny Pacquiao - Filipino boxer. His last fight against Oscar de la Hoya only made him shine even brighter as the present generation's ultimate boxer. No doubt he is the world's greatest pound-for-pound boxer today. 
Top 3. Michael Phelps - Olympian, American Swimmer. He is the world's Aquaman, having won 8 gold medals during the last 2008 Summer Games in Beijing. He broke 7 world records and has already won 16 gold medals in his career, including his 6 gold medals in Athens in 2004. Phelps has been selected as one of America’s top ten most fascinating people of 2008 for an upcoming Barbara Walters ABC special.
Top 2. John McCain - Senator and former Presidentiable, Republic Party. His political comeback is almost unexpected in the American political scene but when he won his party's nomination for President, John McCain almost gave a strong competition against his young rival Senator Barack Obama. However, McCain lost the elections and settled for a possible retirement from political life after his tenure as American Senator from Arizona.
Top 1. President-elect Barack Obama. 2008 is Obama's year and perhaps a historic year for the United States. It was in the person of Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, that the Americans voted their first ever Black President. Running on a platform of Change, this Democrat neophyte invigorated a country, broke barriers against racism and, come January 20, 2009, will be the Most Powerful Man in the world.
November 27, 2008
"X" Marks The Spot.
The events in Mumbai remind us that terrorism is still at large and these cowards are using their twisted interpretation of their religion to spread terror and death. They are indiscriminate in their choice for victims. Their belief is that they are doing their God's will. I cannot conceive a God who will command His children to kill those who are different from them with a promised reward of eternal life. Whether God is Allah, Yahweh, or Jesus Christ, no God in His right Divine Mind can bring such chaos, such suffering, such destruction and misery as what we are seeing in our Television sets. No, religion has nothing to do with this. Terrorism is all about the indelible flaws of human beings who are inherently selfish, violent and domineering. And whether these are Muslim jihadists, or Christian vigilantes or Jewish armed groups or whatever, the victims and the perpetrators are one and the same. So many blood have been shed, so many lives killed. My frustration is that I will bequeath a world to my children infiltrated with such culture of hate, intolerance, revenge and death. I empathize with the people of India, the latest victims of terrorism, and all victims of terrorism throughout our history. I live far from India and yet I feel I too am a victim of such barbaric acts. Everyone is a victim: Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu and atheist. That is why I shall place this "X" in my blog, as a sign of affiliation with the victims of terror. I am a victim. And perhaps my lack of action has made me also a perpetrator.
"X" means No. No to violence. No to hatred. No to the cycle of religious and cultural violence. No to death of innocent civilians. No to war. No to terror.
"X" means also the linking of arms, uniting under one shade of peace, of tolerance, as preached by Gandhi, by Mohammed, by Jesus, by Martin Luther King. "X" means a visible sign of strong opposition. Never again to such violence. Never again to such hatred. I am strong, only when I am with the world's citizens, marching in one cadence, shouting in one voice, that terrorism, in all forms must be opposed, with the force that has been tested throughout time, the force of Peace.
I ask my fellow bloggers to put the "X" mark on their blogs, as a sign of our indignation against this horrible crime against the peace of humanity.
"X" Marks the spot.
November 06, 2008
Americans Say No To Same Sex Marriage
If Obama supporters thought that voting for Obama would mean a vote for pro-choice and everything related to it, then they have to think again. For even in California where Obama won, a majority of Californians voted against gay marriages.
"The secretary of state said that with 95 percent of precincts reporting the proposal to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex had been approved by 52.1 percent of voters, compared with 47.9 percent who voted against. The referendum called for the California constitution to be amended by adding the phrase that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Known as "Proposition 8," the proposal was trumpeted by conservative groups as the people's way of overturning the state Supreme Court's ruling in May that legalized gay marriage. The court's ruling had overturned an earlier plebiscite in 2000 when 61 percent of voters agreed marriage should be defined as only being between a man and a woman."(Agence France-Presse, 11/06/2008)
"Arizona and Florida also passed similar referendums by large margins, stating that marriage was the legal union between a man and a woman. The largest was in Florida where 62 precent of voters approved the measure compared to 38 percent against. In Arkansas, voters approved a ban on couples, who live together without being married whether gay or straight, from adopting or fostering children." (AFP)
It was surely a win for conservative Americans. In fact, it has to win. Surely, saying a yes on same-sex marriages would imply a change in how Americans would define family structure and life.
The battle to protect the traditional and natural view of family life began much earlier, and has made great grounds. In the state of Montana in 2004, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman won the approval of Montana voters. Montana's initiative and those in other states arose after Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriages in May of 2004 after a decision by that state's high court that concluded banning such marriages violated that state's constitution. (USA Today)
While some call it discriminatory, in my opinion, it is nothing more than just protecting the things that are naturally ought to be. The definition of marriage is clear and universal. It is a union between a man and a woman. Why does it have to be between only a man and a woman? To answer this question, one has to understand the natural purpose of marriage and family life. Its primary purpose really is for pro-creation.
When two people fall in love, there exists a force which becomes so incomparable and so powerful it cannot be contained by only just two people. Love is a powerful force. And it cannot be just a selfish love. In that special moment between two lovers, when they willingly share themselves with each other because of love, the love is transformed into something more selfless and more giving. Thus, the purpose of pro-creation, to create new life, out of this love poured out and openly given. For a successful creation of new life, the necessities must be present. Thus, Man developed anatomically just as he is and Woman developed anatomically just as she is. The anatomy and physiology of Man and Woman complement each other for the sole purpose of propagating new life.
But Man and Woman are not just organic creatures whose only role is to produce more offspring. Man and Woman carry with them the responsibility to take care of their offsprings, to prepare them for the world, to take care of them and equip them with the knowledge and skills they may need in order to survive on their own. Thus, the concept of family is introduced. Within this system made up of human beings founded primarily on biological attachments, a human being is given the opportunity to grow and to learn. Societies evolved the way they are now from a single basic and fundamental unit: the family.
With this knowledge about marriage and family, one must therefore understand that before he or she decides to get married, his or her decision must be based on a purpose that is congruent to the natural purpose of family life. People marry simply because they love each other, but are in a sense unprepared to love the children they would beget out of their union. The pressures of taking care of the children wears down heavily on them. They burn out easily and eventually abandon the marriage because of the stresses of which they were actually unprepared to encounter. People marry simply because of the sexual desire to be with the other person. But when the passion starts running out, they begin to look for other sources of sexual satisfaction. Marriage breaks down and couple eventually divorces.
In other words, families and marriages break apart simply because in the final analysis, they were established simply for the wrong reason.
Allowing same sex marriages therefore is simply a slap against the natural and basic purpose of marriage and family life. The contention of pro-same sex marriage advocates is that the foundation of marriage between two individuals is not their capability to pro-create (since there are many heterosexual couples who cannot give birth) but their capacity to love the other person. Can the State or Church therefore deny two people who are greatly in love their desire to be together, regardless of their genders?
I believe this is a shallow reason. If the capacity to love is the only basis for marriage, what can prevent one father from marrying his daughter therefore? Or a mother marrying her son? Or a grandfather marrying his granddaughter or grandson?
Preventing gays and lesbians to get married is not synonymous to preventing them from loving each other. Love is beyond any institution or legality. But the actions that would manifest our love can be subject to regulation to some degree. If my way of showing love is to hurt people (sadism) or hurt myself (masochism), is my love justified?
It would seem therefore as if many liberals would try to play around with our concept of marriage. Clearly, they have forgotten that the idea of marriage is not human in origin, but rather divine. The Christian Bible tells us that it was God who ordained the union of man and woman. The New testament would portray the Love of Christ to His Church as the love of a Groom to his Bride. It cannot therefore be changed for it is not for humans to re-define it in the first place.
target="_blank">
November 03, 2008
Bacolod's Garbage: Let's Dump Them in the New Government Center
The insistence of the Bacolod City government to continue operating an open dump site in Barangay Felisa, despite the DENR closure order, is evident enough of the local government's failure to protect its people and execute the laws as demanded of them. Last October, residents of the said barangay barricaded the roads leading to the dump site, trying to prevent the garbage trucks from entering through the main barangay area. Despite standing their ground, the crowds were eventually dispersed, with the use of, at times, physical force.
What the residents of Brgy. Felisa are asking are: 1) why continue the dump site without the concurrence of the residents? 2) why continue maintaining an open dump site which is a clear violation of the law? (the law dictates a sanitary landfill). and 3) why purchase the lands in Felisa considering that there is one land in Brgy. Cabug which is far cheaper than the one offered in Felisa?
Approval of the residents
"Earlier, residents and barangay officials of Brgy. Felisa, where the property is located, expressed disappointment over the lack of respect by the city when it decided to purchase the property without consulting them. Brgy. Felisa hosts the old city dumpsite. But Punong Barangay Perigrino Aspan said that they only agreed to have the dumpsite placed in their barangay for a period of three years and that period already expired last January 19, 2008. “Sad to say, we have heard nothing from the city whether to extend or not, the use of the existing dump site. What they did was to continue dumping there," Aspan said."(The News Today, Aug. 14, 2008)
The city government would portray to the media that the residents of Brgy. Felisa were actually accepting the idea of having the dump site in their barangay.
"Majority of the barangay officials of Brgy. Felisa welcomed the waste disposal facility to be situated in their barangay and it's the sentiments of Felisa people also, they (Bacolod City Government) said. But some barangay officials led by Punong Barangay Perigno Aspan said they don't want it anymore. Three years is enough and it's high time for the city to look for other site most especially when the plan is sanitary landfill." (The News Today, Oct. 31, 2008)
As proof of this, the Barangay Council of Brgy. Felisa recently approved Resolution No. 131 Series of 2008, "Requesting the City Government of Bacolod through the City Mayor and the Sangguniang Panglungsod to immediately stop the dumping of garbage in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa and their objection to the proposed sanitary landfill in their barangay." Clearly, if the intention of the city government is to consult the people of Brgy. Felisa, in this case, they have failed to do and in fact, without considering the rights of the residents, barged their way through the area and proceeded to dump the collected garbage.
The desire to close the dumpsite is, according to City Legal Officer Allan Zamora, is politically motivated, citing that it is Congressman Monico Puentevella who is behind the moves to close down the dump site.
Such nearsightedness is definitely most hilarious. The decision to close the dump site stemmed out of the decision of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), when it released a closure order on September 17, 2008, ordering the closure of Purok Acacia Open Dumpsite. At the same time, DENR regional Director Bienvenido Lipayon also released a Cease and Desist Order for the same existing dump site. But despite this, the City Government still continued dumping garbage.
Corruption Again!?
Perhaps the reason why the City cannot close the dumpsite is because they have already purchased the said land for utilization as a dump site. The issue now is, the land owned by the Dynasty Agricultural Corporation, is alleged to be overpriced. The property acquired by the city was priced at P340 per square meter, for a total of P23.8 million. There is another offer, as mentioned previously, in Brgy. Cabug, which is two times bigger than the 70,000-square-meter property purchased by the city, and was offered to the city at half the price of the DAC property, or only P12.87 million.
This anomaly has once again urged private citizens to file another graft charge against the City Mayor.
"New graft charges have been filed against Mayor Evelio R. Leonardia and other city officials. The latest charges were in connection with the purchase of a property in Barangay Felisa that will be developed into a sanitary landfill for the city. The mayor and other city officials are also facing charges of graft in connection with the construction of the government center and the acquisition of dump trucks."(GMANews.TV, August 25, 2008)
When asked about the reason why the City did not accept the Brgy. Cabug offer which was obviously much cheaper,
"Mr. Gasataya (City Councilor)claimed that one of the complainants, Mr. Ramos merely had an ax to grind with the mayor since he was dismissed after being found guilty of an administrative offense. He said the 16-hectare Moya property has no social acceptability because of the continuing opposition of the residents. If the city had purchased the Moya property, they would have encountered road right-of-way problems and the sanitary landfill project would have been delayed." (GMANews.TV, August 25, 2008)
Mr. Gasataya must either be amnesic or one-eyed considering that he must have forgotten that there is no social acceptability also in the case of Brgy. Felisa since majority of its residents would not approve the continuation of serving as Bacolod's dump site, proof of which is the barangay resolution they have passed.
At the same time,
"Puentevella (Congressman) also questioned the city government on why they already paid P20 million for the Lopez property although the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was not yet granted. "The people of Felisa has not been consulted and the barangay council has not even issued any endorsement for the establishment of sanitary landfill," Puentevella added." (The News Today, October 28, 2008)
"Officials of the Barangay Felisa council in Bacolod City yesterday asked the city officials for a copy of the result of the feasibility study on solid waste management conducted and funded by the Spanish government.They also asked the mayor and the Bacolod Sangguniang Panlungsod for a copy of documents from concerned government agencies showing that Felisa as the best or ideal site for sanitary land fill." (Daily Star, September 25, 2008)
But until now, the city has yet to release said feasibility study.
But even if money is taken out of the picture, the agreement between the city and DAC, owner of the land in Brgy. Felisa, has clearly violated Republic Act 9003 or the Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. According to Councilor Batapa-Sigue, "Based on R.A. (Republic Act) 9003 or the Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, a 'controlled dumpsite' is no longer allowed by DENR. The law clearly provides for a sanitary landfill and therefore I objected to certain provisions in the deed of conditional sale, which does not lead to the establishment of the sanitary landfill," (Sun Star, July 3, 2008)
According to Article 6, Section 40, of Republic Act 9003, (e) "The site must be chosen with regard for the sensitivities of the community’s residents. The site must be located in an area where the landfill’s operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area." Right at the lower portion of the dumpsite are six stations of Water Pump Facilities that supply potable water to Barangay Tangub, Sum-ag, Punta Taytay, Cabut and at the outskirts of Barangay Mansilingan. Surely, in the case of Brgy. Felisa, this section of the Law alone was violated.
Action Must Be Taken
Concrete actions must be taken by all concerned citizens of Bacolod. It seems our local officials are becoming more of a foe rather than a friend and a big brother in this case. With this blatant disregard for the law and the rights of the people, it is not far from becoming a tyrant government. We must make our voices heard, and later, reflect our indignation in the upcoming local elections in 2010.
November 01, 2008
McCain and Obama: Their Truths and Lies
It is important to get to know the kind of leader one would choose to vote for. And since most of these voters do not know these candidates at a personal level, they depend so much on what the campaigns would project these candidates, from the remarks they make and even their bodily actions. Below is an outline of remarks these two Candidates made during the last few weeks of the campaign and how they are judged by experts and journalists as to whether they are fact or false based on available resources.
On McCain:
1. Accused Obama of flip-flopping on warrantless wiretapping. (Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 in a news release from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds) - This is TRUE. Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. (McCain missed the vote because he was campaigning in Ohio, but he has consistently supported the immunity plan.)
2. "Obama voted to support President Bush between 40 and 50 percent of the time over the past two years." (Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 in a campaign e-mail) - This is TRUE. In 2007, Obama found himself in Bush’s camp on immigration policy; in a series of votes, Obama backed legislation, which failed, that would have provided a temporary guest worker program and new border security measures. Obama and Bush also were allied on legislation that raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provided $8.3-billion in small-business tax incentives. In 2006, as Obama was laying the foundation for his presidential bid, he supported the president’s position on key votes dealing with immigration policy and on making permanent 14 provisions in the “Patriot Act” antiterrorism law.
All of which hardly makes Obama a full-blown Bush supporter. But his record also doesn’t put him near the Senate’s top 10 Bush foes — a list headed in 2007 by Democrats Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Barbara Boxer of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who each were opposed to Bush more than 65 percent of the time.
3. He accused Sen. Obama of enacting "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War." (Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 in Washington, D.C) - This is FALSE. The $70.2-billion increase under a President Obama is .40 percent of the projected GDP for 2012 ($17.5-trillion). That would be just the ninth-largest increase since World War II, not the largest.
4. He alleged that if a small business would not "adopt the health care plan that Senator Obama mandates, he's going to fine you." (Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 in a debate in Hempstead, N.Y.) - This is FALSE. Obama's plan says that employers who don't offer their employees insurance will be required to contribute to the national pool, what McCain calls a "fine." But Obama's plan specifically exempts small businesses from contributing to the pool.
On Obama:
1. "John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time." (Thursday, August 28th, 2008 in a speech at Democratic National Convention) - This is TRUE. The number is based on a "presidential support" score from Congressional Quarterly, which rates how often lawmakers back or oppose the president. Since 2001, McCain has, in fact, backed the president’s position an average of 90 percent of the time. By congressional standards, that’s solidly partisan, but hardly marching in lockstep.
2. "Sen. Obama has always had a 100 percent prochoice rating." (Monday, February 4th, 2008 in an e-mail message sent to voters before Super Tuesday). - This is TRUE. Obama has 100 percent congressional voting ratings from NARAL Prochoice America for his three years in the U.S. Senate. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund similarly gave Obama a perfect score on its 2006 congressional scorecard. He also earned 100 percent records for his votes in eight years as a state senator, according to Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
3. "The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down." (Saturday, August 16th, 2008 in a TV interview with megachurch pastor Rick Warren in Lake Forest, Calif.) - This is FALSE. The New York-based Guttmacher Institute reported in January 2008 that in 2005 the country's abortion rate fell to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, continuing a trend that started after the abortion rate peaked in 1981 at 29.3. The institute, a think tank on reproductive health issues, reported that the number of abortions also fell, to 1.2-million in 2005, which it said was 25 percent below the record high of 1.6-million abortions in 1990. And the federal Centers for Disease Control reported in its latest Abortion Surveillance Report that in 2004 there were 839,226 legal abortions, down 1.1 percent from 2003. The abortion ratio of 16 per 1,000 women has been the same since 2000, it added.
4. "Under John McCain's health care plan, people get a $5,000 tax credit to buy a $12,000 health care policy, and "that's a loss for you." (Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 in a debate in Hempstead, N.Y.) - This is FALSE. The McCain campaign says only workers with "gold-plated" health programs would do worse with the new credit. An independent analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute confirms that: "In general, lower-income people with health insurance would receive benefits from the credit that would be well in excess of the value that they receive from today’s tax exemption. The gains are much smaller for higher-income people." Obama's numbers are wrong. McCain's health plan does not replace a $12,000 policy with a $5,000 credit. It replaces the taxes on part of that amount with a tax credit.
Last Minute Pointers: Countdown to U.S. Elections 2008
The U.S. Election is just a few days away. For most people, they have already decided whom to vote for. For a few, they have yet to select the leader they prefer. Below are some pointers which may help those undecided (and even the decided reconsider) choose their leaders.
For Catholic Americans:
"Making a decision about a candidate can be very difficult, but a well-formed conscience aided by the virtue of prudence will guide us. As Catholics, we are not single-issue voters, but at the same time we recognize that all issues do not carry the same moral weight. Some issues involve acts that are always wrong, and we are morally obligated to oppose them. We must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate, but this would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, and not to overlook a fundamental moral evil in order to advance a narrow interest or partisan preference." (Florida Catholic Conference)
"The platform on which Obama is running is troubling enough. He advocates higher tax rates than any Democratic presidential candidate of the past 20 years has called for. He favors a health-care plan that would move millions of Americans from the private plans they prefer to a government system — and, in the long run, would reduce the quality and raise the cost of health care. He is more hostile to trade liberalization than any presidential nominee of either party within the last 70 years. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion. He seeks judges who “empathize” with liberal causes rather than feel themselves bound by the text of the Constitution. And with a stronger liberal base in Congress than any Democratic president has had in at least 40 years, he would have a good chance to get much of this domestic agenda accomplished." (National Review Online)
"It's clear that the era of hands-off government is over. Ironically (or perhaps inevitably), it is the failure of deregulation, not the expansionist ideas of an activist government, that is driving us towards ever greater government involvement in our daily lives.
Meanwhile, John McCain repeats the old mantras of deregulation, of letting the market work its magic. I'm a big believer in the market, but I also know that markets, like games, depend on clear rules of fair play.
It's not going to be easy for anyone to unwind the enormous mess that has been created as a result of the mismanagement of the economy under the current administration. It will take great insight, intelligence, and an about-face in our attitudes towards regulation." (O'reilly Radar)
target="_blank">
October 31, 2008
October 23, 2008
Artificial Contraception is Unnatural: Catholic Views regarding Contraception and Abortion
I have come across articles written by Catholic theologians, from both sides (radical, moderate and conservative).
Here's one written by Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian of Marquette University:
"Let's start with the Roman Catholic positions (note the plural) on contraception and abortion not because it is the oldest religious tradition---it is not---but because of its influence internationally on these issues. For one thing, the Catholic Church is the only world religion with a seat in the United Nations. From that seat, the Vatican has been very active in promoting the most restrictive Catholic view on family planning, although there are more liberating Catholic views that are also thoroughly and genuinely Catholic. The Vatican from its unduly privileged perch in the United Nations along with the "Catholic" nations---now newly allied with conservative Muslim nations---managed to block reference to contraception and family planning at the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This alliance also delayed proceedings at the 1994 U.N. conference in Cairo and impeded any reasonable discussion of abortion. With more than a bit of irony, the then Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway said of the Rio conference: "States that do not have any population problem--in one particular case, even no births at all [the Vatican]--are doing their best, their utmost, to prevent the world from making sensible decisions regarding family planning."
The sudden rapport between the Vatican and conservative Muslim states is interesting. For fourteen centuries the relationship was stormy to the point of war and persecution. During that time abortions were known to be happening and yet this produced no ecumenical coziness. Is the issue really fetuses, or is it that these two patriarchal bastions are bonded in the face of a neew threat...the emergence free, self-determining women? Questions like this and all of the above summon us to make Roman Catholicism the first of our visits to the world religions.
One of the tragedies of human life is the separation of power and ideas. The Catholic tradition is more filled with good sense and flexibility than one would gather from its leaders. Religious leaders are often not equipped to give voice to the best in the tradition they represent. In Catholicism, popes and bishops are usually not theologians and often they do not express the real treasures of wisdom that Catholicism has to offer to the world. That is changing as lay people enter the field of Catholic theology and bring to it their real-life experience as workers, parents, and professionals. Catholic theology is no longer a clergy club, and that is gain.
One of these lay theologians is professor Christine Gudorf. Christine is an internationally known scholar teaching at The International University in Miami. She is also a wife and a parent. Catholic theology was done in recent centuries almost exclusively by men. That changed and women began in the last half of the twentieth century to enrich the tradition with their scholarship and experience as women.
Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit scholar, said that nothing is intelligible outside its history. The point is well taken. If we lost our personal history through amnesia, we would not even know who we are. Gudorf believes along with many scholars that there is nothing that clears the mind of caricatures like a bracing walk through history.
The Catholic Story
Gudorf points out that Christianity was born in a world in which contraception and abortion were both known and practiced. The Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans used a variety of method of contraception, including coitus interruptus, pessaries, potions and condoms, and abortion appears to have been a widespread phenomenon. Knowledge of all of this was available to the Christians and although church leaders tried to suppress it they were never fully successful.
Surprisingly, abortion and contraception were not the primary means of limiting fertility in Europe even before the coming of Christianity. Infanticide was the main method as it was elsewhere in the world. Christianity reacted against infanticide, but there is evidence that it continued to be practiced. Late medieval and early modern records show a high incidence of "accidental" infant death caused by "rolling over" or smothering of infants or reporting their death as "stillborn." As Gudorf says, "the level of layings over could hardly have been fully accidental."
However, during the middle ages infanticide was much less common than abandonment. Most often infants for whom parents could not provide were left at crossroads, on the doorsteps of individuals, or in marketplaces in the hope that the child would be adopted by passersby. (More often it condemned the children to a life of slavery or an early death.) To ease this crisis, the church in the middle ages provided for "oblation." This meant that children could be offered to the church to be raised in religious monasteries. Many of them eventually became celibate nuns and monks, thus leading to further containment of fertility.
Another Catholic response to excess fertility was the foundling hospital. The foundling hospitals were equipped with a kind of "lazy Susan" wheel (ruota) where the child could be placed anonymously and then the wheel turned putting the child inside. The good intentions in this were not matched with resources and the vast majority of these infants, sometimes 90 percent of them, were dead within months. Because of the reliance on infanticide and abandonment, it is not surprising that there was not much discussion about abortion and contraception. As Gudorf says, "the primary pastoral battles in the first millennium were around infanticide, the banning of which undoubtedly raised the incidence of abandonment." Also the high mortality of children due to nutritional, hygienic, and medical debits was a common and cruel form of population control.
Catholic Teaching on Contraception and Abortion
Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion has been anything but consistent. What most people--including most Catholics- think of as "the Catholic position" on these issues actually dates from the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI. Prior to that, church teaching was a mixed and jumbled bag. The pope decided to tidy up the tradition and change it by saying that contraception and sterilization were sins against nature and abortion was a sin against life. As Gudorf says, "both contraception and abortion were generally forbidden" in previous teaching but both were often thought to be associated with sorcery and witchcraft. Pope Gregory IX in the Decretals of 1230 treated both contraception and abortion as "homicide." Some of the Christian Penitentials of the early middle ages prescribed seven years of fasting on bread and water for a layman who commits homicide, one year for performing an abortion, but seven years for sterilization. Sterilization was considered more serious than abortion because the issue was not framed as "pro-life" but rather, the driving bias was anti-sexual. The traditional Christian attitudes toward sexuality were so negative that it was only reproductivity that could justify this activity. Abortion frustrated fertility once; sterilization could frustrate it forever and therefore it was more serious. Also, since the role of the ovum was not learned until the nineteenth century, the sperm were thought to be little homunculi, miniature people, and for this reason male masturbation was sometimes called homicide. Clearly Christian historical sexual ethics is a bit of a hodge podge. To really understand it and to arrive at an informed judgment on Catholic moral options it is necessary to be instructed by a little more history.
Catholic and Pro-choice
Although it is virtually unknown in much public international discourse, the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong "pro-choice" tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other. The hierarchical attempt to portray the Catholic position as univocal, an unchanging negative wafted through twenty centuries of untroubled consensus, is untrue. By unearthing this authentic openness to choice on abortion and on contraception in the core of the tradition, the status of the anti-choice position is revealed as only one among many Catholic views.
The bible does not condemn abortion. The closest it gets to it is in Exodus 21-22 which speaks of accidental abortion. This imposes a financial penalty on a man who "in the course of a brawl" caused a woman to miscarry. The issue here is the father's right to progeny; he could fine you for the misdeed, but he could not claim "an eye for an eye" as if a person had been killed. Thus, as conservative theologian John Connery, S.J. said, "the fetus did not have the same status as the mother in Hebrew Law."
Following on the silence of scripture on abortion, the early church history treats it only incidentally and sporadically. Indeed, there is no systematic study of the question until the fifteenth century. One early church writer Tertullian discusses what we would today call a late term emergency abortion where doctors had to dismember a fetus in order to remove it, and he refers to this emergency measure as a "crudelitas necessaria," a necessary cruelty. Obviously this amounted to moral approbation of what some call today inaccurately a "partial birth abortion."
One thing that develops early on and becomes the dominant tradition in Christianity is the theory of delayed animation or ensoulment. Borrowed from the Greeks, this taught that the spiritual human soul did not arrive in the fetus until as late as three months into the pregnancy. Prior to that time, whatever life was there was not human. They opined that the conceptum was enlivened first by a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and only when formed sufficiently by a human spiritual soul. Though sexist efforts were made to say the male soul arrived sooner---maybe a month and a half into the pregnancy---the rule of thumb for when a fetus reached the status of "baby" was three months or even later. As Christine Gudorf writes, the common pastoral view was "that ensoulment occurred at quickening, when the fetus could first be felt moving in the mother's womb, usually early in the fifth month. Before ensoulment the fetus was not understood as a human person. This was the reason the Catholic church did not baptize miscarriages or stillbirths."
"Reflecting the pious belief in a resurrection of all the dead at the end of the world, Augustine pondered if early fetuses who miscarried would also rise. He said they would not. He added that neither would all the sperm of history rise again. (For that we can all be grateful.) The conclusion reached by Latin American Catholic theologians in a recent study is this: "It appears that the texts condemning abortion in the early church refer to the abortion of a fully formed fetus." The early fetus did not have the status of person nor would killing it fit the category of murder.
This idea of delayed ensoulment survived throughout the tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, the most esteemed of medieval theologians, held this view. Thus the most traditional and stubbornly held position in Catholic Christianity is that early abortions are not murder. Since the vast number of abortions done today in the United States, for example, are early abortions, they are not, according to this Catholic tradition, murder. Also, all pregnancy terminations done through the use of RU 486 would not qualify as the killing of a human person according to this Catholic tradition of "delayed ensoulment."
In the fifteenth century, the saintly archbishop of Florence, Antoninus, did extensive work on abortion. He approved of early abortions to save the life of the woman, a class with many members in the context of fifteenth century medicine. This became common teaching. For this he was not criticized by the Vatican. Indeed, he was later canonized as a saint and thus as a model for all Catholics. Many Catholics do not know that thre is a pro-choice Cathlic saint who was also an archbishop and a Dominican.
In the sixteenth century, the influential Antoninus de Corduba said that medicine that was abortifacient could be taken even later in a pregnancy if required for the health of the mother. The mother, he insisted, had a jus prius, a prior right. Some of the maladies he discussed do not seem to have been a matter of life and death for the women and yet he allows that abortifacient medicine even in these cases is morally permissible. Jesuit theologian Thomas Sanchez who died in the early seventeenth century said that all of his contemporary Catholic theologians approved of early abortion to save the life of the woman. None of these theologians or bishops were censured for these views. Note again that one of them, St. Antoninus, was canonized as a saint. Their limited "pro-choice" position was considered thoroughly orthodox and can be so considered today. In the nineteenth century, the Vatican was invited to enter a debate on a very late term abortion, requiring dismemberment of a formed fetus in order to save the woman's life. On September 2, 1869 the Vatican refused to decide the case. It referred the questioner to the teaching of theologians on the issue. It was, in other words, the business of the theologians to discuss it freely and arrive at a conclusion. It was not for the Vatican to decide. This appropriate modesty and disinclination to intervene is an older and wiser Catholic model.
What this brief tour of history shows is that a "pro-choice" position coexists alongside a "no-choice" position in Catholic history and neither position can claim to be more Catholic or more authentic than the other. Catholics are free to make their own conscientious decisions in the light of this history. Not even the popes claim that the position that forbids all abortion and contraception is infallible. The teaching on abortion is not only not infallible, it is, as Gudorf says "undeveloped." Abortion was not the "birth limitation of choice because it was, until well into the twentieth century, so extremely dangerous to the mother." There was no coherently worked out Catholic teaching on the subject, as our short history tour illustrates and there still is not. Some Catholic scholars today say all direct abortions are wrong, some say there are exceptions for cases such as the danger to the mother, conception through rape, detected genetic deformity, or other reasons. Gudorf's sensible conclusion: "The best evidence is that the Catholic position is not set in stone and is rather in development."
Sex, Women, and the Sensus Fidelium
As we will see, debates about sexuality and reproduction are always influenced mightily by certain cultural assumptions. These usually involve attitudes toward women and sex. A culture that looks on women as sources of evil like Pandora and Eve is going to have trouble justifying having sex with them and may conclude that only reproduction could justify sexual collusion with women. That is exactly what happened in Christianity. Augustine said that if it were not for reproduction there would be no use for women at all. In his words, "in any other task a man would be better helped by another man." Early attitudes toward women were poisonous. The Mosaic law assumed male ownership of women. Early church writers said women lack reason and only possess the image of God through connection to men. Luther saw women as being like nails in a wall, prohibited by their nature from moving outside their domestic situation. And St. Thomas Aquinas said females are produced from male embryos that were damaged through some accident in the womb, turned into females. As Professor Gudorf says in her refreshingly sensible book Body, Sex and Pleasure, the church has rejected all of that nonsense but "continues to teach most of the sexual moral code which was founded upon such thinking."
Small wonder there is new thinking on sexual and reproductive ethics now. As Gudorf says: "The Roman Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) has in the last century drastically rethought the meaning of marriage, the dignity and worth of women, the relationship between the body and the soul, and the role of bodily pleasure in Christian life, all of which together have revolutionary implications for church teaching on sexuality and reproduction. In effect, the foundations of the old bans have been razed and their replacements will not support the walls of the traditional ban."
Gudorf and other Catholic theologians do not stand alone in the church on this dramatic and important change in Catholic teaching. Pope Pius XII in 1954 laid the groundwork for a change in Catholic teaching when he permitted the rhythm method. Though he quibbled about what means could be used he did bless contraceptive intent and contraceptive results. He even said there could be multiple reasons to avoid having any children at all in a marriage. In 1968 when Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the view that all mechanical or chemical contraception was sinful, the Catholic bishops of fourteen different countries respectfully disagreed and told the faithful that they were not sinners if they could not accept this papal teaching.
Most of the laity, of course, had already made up their minds. The birth rates in so-called "Catholic" nations in Europe and in Latin America are close to or below replacement levels and, as Gudorf wryly puts it, "it is difficult to believe that fertility was cut in half through voluntary abstinence from sex." Such dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching. The sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful is one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. This means that the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult.
Catholicism in its best historical realizations is not as hidebound and authoritarian as many bishops, popes, and fearful conservatives would make it seem. There is, as Catholic theologian Charles Curran says, dissent from hierarchical teaching that is "in and for the church." Through much of Catholic history the hierarchy taught that all interest-taking on loans was a sin of usury--even the smallest amount. The laity saw that this was an error and decided that too much interest was sinful and that a reasonable amount was not. A century or two later, the hierarchy agreed...especially after the Vatican opened a bank and learned some of the facts of financial life. The laity are again, along with the theologians, leading the church on the moral freedom to practice contraception and to use abortion when necessary as a backup. Perhaps if the hierarchy were married with families, they could follow the wisdom of the laity in this at a faster pace. It would be a shame if it took a century or two for them to respect the conscience of the laity, graced and grounded as that conscience is in the lived experience of marriage and children.
Professor Christine Gudorf is hopeful in this regard. She believes that within a generation or two Catholic hierarchical teaching "will change to encourage contraception in marriage and to allow early abortion under some circumstances." She continues: "This change will occur because as the Catholic Church confronts the reality of a biosphere gasping for survival around its teeming human inhabitants it will discern the will of God and the presence of the Spirit in the choices of those who choose to share responsibility for the lives and health and prosperity of future generations without reproducing themselves, even if that choice involves artificial contraception and early abortion."
Here's another one written by Anne Westerman.
"Over 46 million abortions are performed worldwide each year. Today, 11,000 frozen human embryos are stored in Australia alone. Human embryos are being killed in experiments and tossed out into the trash like moldy food in your refrigerator. Euthanasia has become legal and practiced in many countries, as well as the death penalty where there have even been cases of innocent people put to death. Taking birth control pills is becoming as common as popping in some Tylenol for a headache and handing out condoms in school is like handing out candy. One out of every ten U.S. teenaged girls becomes pregnant every year and fourteen thousand of those girls are under the age of fourteen (National Research Council, Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy and Childbearing, p. 507). Divorce, aggression, abuse and unhappiness are on the rise. We are turning our society into a culture of death, where human life is being disregarded and disrespected. The superior natural right that each human being possesses, the right to life, is so often being violated. How do we keep ourselves from falling totally down the slope of death and destruction? How far will we go before we speak out to put an end to it? Will we go as far as human cloning as a normal practice, because the path we are heading on now is definitely leaning in that direction? This is an intricate and complicated problem that we find ourselves in, but I think, as for every problem, we need to seek its roots in order to fix it. I believe that one of the roots of this culture of death is the common use and acceptance of artificial contraception. I would not only like to argue its immorality from a religious standpoint but also from a purely ethical view as well, and I believe each case on its own is enough to prove the immorality of using artificial contraception.
THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT
Often times we hear various teachings of the Catholic Church on controversial issues such as premarital sex, abortion, and contraceptives, but fail to get a good explanation of why such views are taught. In today’s culture many non-Catholics and Catholics alike are misinformed about the reasoning for the Catholic Church’s teaching that artificial contraceptives are wrong and instead, view the use of contraceptives as a liberty of personal conscience. The first step to understanding the Catholic Church’s viewpoint is to understand what artificial contraceptives are. Once we understand what they are, how they function, and the effects artificial contraceptives have on the body, we can start to discuss the biblical, moral, and ethical issues that set the framework for the Catholic Church’s teachings as well as the alternative means of birth control through the practice of Natural Family Planning (NFP).
According to Webster’s Dictionary, “Contraceptives are any device or substance that inhibits conception.” The common artificial contraceptives on the market today include birth control pills, the morning after pill, and condoms, each with a different way of working yet the same goal: to inhibit conception. Chemical contraceptives are abortive, which means they destroy a fertilized egg, and most attack a woman’s health in many ways due to the overload of hormones, leading to severe side effects such as cyst, migraines, and strokes, as well as common side effects such as irritability, increased propensity to depression, weight gain, and reduced sexual desire. The pill works by deceiving the woman’s body into thinking that she is pregnant and therefore she won’t ovulate. Because the early pill, invented in the 60’s by Carl Djerassi, caused many deaths and serious problems due to the abundance of hormones, the modern birth control pill has a lower dosage of hormones. As a result of this lower dosage, the modern pill is not as effective at suppressing ovulation as the early pill and therefore needs several “back up” chemical substances to ensure results. In case the modern pill is not successful in suppressing ovulation these chemical substances thicken the cervical mucus, making it difficult for the sperm to get through, and in case an egg is fertilized, the modern pill hardens the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg can not implant and start to develop in the womb, causing it to die—an early abortion. According to experts, John Peel and Malcolm Potts, authors of Textbook of Contraceptive Practice, “These early abortions happen in 2 to 10 percent of menstrual cycles for a woman on the pill.”
The Church is against the use of artificial contraceptives not only because of the abortions that take place but for other reasons as well. The Church believes that sex is the sacred act that God uses to perform his favorite act—bringing about new life, created in his image and likeness. With this in mind, the act of marital intercourse is highly valued within the Catholic Church and is burdened with two meanings: love and life, intimacy and procreation.
Each marital act should bond the couple closer together and closer to God; this is the act where love between the couple is communicated. The couple is saying to one another, “I give myself totally and completely to you and accept you as you are.” When you use any form of artificial contraception, this language of love becomes a lie because you are now communicating, “I accept most of you but your fertility is not acceptable to me and will have to go before I fully accept you.” Al Kresta, author of Why do Catholics Genuflect? And Answers to Other Puzzling Questions about the Catholic Church, explains that “We have the ‘barrier’ methods, which metaphorically communicate that ‘I need to put something between you and me before we make love.’ [But] the language of ‘barriers,’ ‘barricades,’ and ‘shields,’ is about war and self-protection rather than love and self-giving.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” Hence, the Church believes that any use of artificial contraception is inhibiting the second meaning of sex, openness to life, and as a result, pushing God out of this very sacred act of love.
The Church bases many of its teachings of moral issues from the Sacred Scriptures. Although Sacred Scripture does not explicitly address the issue of artificial contraception, it does challenge the negative attitude that our modern culture seems to have towards children. Opposed to the modern culture’s terminology normally associated with artificial contraceptives such as “failure rate” and “pill”, the Catholic Church views children as a blessing, not as some sort of failure or disease to cure. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.” Throughout the Scriptures, couples refer to their children as “blessings from God”. In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, another teaching of the Catholic Church is made clear through a statement made by Eve, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.” (Gn. 4:1). This statement reflects the traditional Catholic belief that there are three beings involved in creating new life: man, woman, and God, and that the marital act is not fully fulfilled unless each of these beings takes part. The Church believes that by using artificial contraceptives, God is taken out of this marital act and therefore the fullness of the act cannot be obtained, which in the eyes of the Church, is a sin.
Another important story from scripture that supports the Catholic standpoint on contraception is from the Book of Genesis. Onan, a character from the Bible, was commanded to have sexual intercourse with his dead brother’s widow in order to raise up children in his brother’s name. This was a common cultural practice in the ancient Middle East and a legal obligation in ancient Israel. Onan engaged in sexual intercourse but withdrew at the point of ejaculation and spilled his seed on the ground because he knew that the offspring would not be considered his own because he would be legally obligated to raise these children in his brother’s name instead of his own. This act of spilling his seed on the ground was displeasing to the Lord and so the Lord took his life as punishment for the sin. This story has been interpreted in many ways by different religions; however, the Catholic Church believes that Onan displeased the Lord through his disordered form of sexual intercourse, by not following through with the natural ejaculation. Although Onan’s action of withdrawing and spilling his seed was no form of artificial contraception, it did disrupt the order of nature. The Church believes that artificial contraception, in the same way, disrupts the order of nature for procreation, created by God, and therefore is a sin.
The Catholic Church teaches that there is a natural and moral form of contraception, without “blocking God out” by the use of artificial contraceptives, called Natural Family Planning (NFP). God created women to be fertile during only a few days out of each month and NFP takes advantage of this natural cycle, given by God, to control pregnancies. According to scientists, a woman’s body gives clear signs when she is fertile—her body temperature rises, and the quality and quantity of her cervical mucus changes. By learning about a female body, a couple is able to distinguish times of fertility from times of infertility and plan accordingly. Mary Beth Bonacci, holds a Master’s degree in Theology of Marriage and Family from John Paul II Institute and is an author, speaker, consultant, and founder of Real Love Inc. She says “NFP is great because it completely respects each partner. It says, ‘I love you and accept you totally as you are. If you are fertile and a pregnancy would not be good for you right now, I will find another way to show my love for you.’”
Catholic tradition has always advocated a love of nature and protecting what is natural, and therefore it speaks out against artificial contraception. The Catholic Church believes that sex is a sacred act that not only should express a total self-giving love, but should also always be open to the transmission of life. Even though Sacred Scripture does not explicitly address the issue of artificial contraception, it does challenge the negative attitude that our modern culture seems to have towards children. If for some reason the couple is not ready for another child, the Catholic Church teaches that Natural Family Planning, a natural method of birth control, is morally acceptable because it is cooperating with God’s creation. However, the Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraceptives attempt to pull apart the two meanings of intercourse that have been woven together: love and life, and therefore the Church upholds its constant teaching that artificial contraception is intrinsically and morally wrong.
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT
I believe that apart from religious belief, artificial contraceptives are still morally wrong because they are unnatural and therefore intrinsically wrong. I tend to take on the views of the Theory of Natural Law which states that the whole of creation has a direction and each thing has a purpose. Things that are considered natural are good because they act in conformity of nature. “The world is a rational order with values and purposes built into its very nature” (Rachels). I believe the concept that each thing on this earth has its own specific purpose and is considered good when it carries out this purpose or defective when it’s unable to carry out its purpose. However, I feel that some things may have multiple purposes. For instance, animals are here for the purpose of mankind but not just in order to feed us, but also to help cloth us, provide us with tools, and help with the labor. In that same respect, I think that sex has two purposes, not only to produce offspring but to bind a couple closer together expressing their love and concern for one another. Sex is not just something you do with your body while leaving your brain at the door. Sexual activity has profound emotional consequences. It is both physical and emotional. During sexual activity the bonding hormone, oxytocin, is produced which is the same hormone produced during breastfeeding that helps to produce the mother/child bond. It is a bond that is hard to break and something that you cannot consciously control in any way. So, in regard to sex and the Theory of Natural Law, I believe that sex has a twofold purpose: procreation and intimacy.
This is where the use of artificial contraceptives becomes a moral issue, because it does not allow sex to carry out its natural purpose. The first purpose of sex, procreation, is inhibited and even the second purpose, expression of love, is hindered. To love is to be self-giving, to sacrifice, to be accepting and concerned with the well being of the beloved. However, the use of artificial contraceptives is contradictory to this, because it is not accepting of the total person, fertility and all. Instead it is self-defense rather than self-giving, partial acceptance rather than total acceptance, and in some cases, such as birth control pills, it can even be harmful to the woman instead of showing true concern for her well being.
In regard to chemical contraceptives I would make the following argument: 1) It is wrong to kill an innocent human; it’s murder. 2) Chemical contraceptives kill a fertilized egg, which is the earliest stage of an innocent human being. Conclusion: It is wrong to use chemical contraceptives because it’s murder. But also, pertaining to all artificial contraceptives I would pose the following argument: 1) Things that are considered natural are good because they act in conformity of nature; likewise they are bad or defective if they do not carry out their natural purpose. 2) The use of artificial contraceptives does not allow sex to fully carry out either of its natural purposes. Conclusion: The use of artificial contraceptives is morally wrong.
Aside from just being morally wrong, contraceptives have made a huge negative impact on our society. Contraceptives have made it easier for married couples to have affairs because they do not need to worry about the consequence of a child, therefore more marital problems have sprung up leading to unhappiness as well as divorce. The young people have been able to engage in sex before marriage without a concern about the risk of becoming pregnant. The bottom line is that contraceptives have allowed people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Also, it has been argued that by using contraceptives and informing students about the various types available, abortion would decrease. However, this has not been the case at all. Around 1.5 million abortions occur per year in a society where contraceptives are widely available and used and sex education classes spare no detail in describing different methods of contraception and how they are available and how even young women can get birth control devices without parents’ consent or even knowledge. Contrast to forty years ago, before the sexual revolution, when contraceptives were not reliable and accessible to teenagers, and sex-education classes were few. There was less of a problem of teen pregnancies and virtually no abortions. The difference is obvious; the teens were abstaining from sex. We do not need contraceptives to decrease teen pregnancies. We have contraceptives and they do not seem to be doing the job.
Both the religious and ethical arguments against the use of artificial contraceptives I feel are convincing enough to condemn artificial contraception as morally and intrinsically wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that because it is abortive in some cases, unnatural, and takes God out of the act of love, it is a sin. From an ethical standpoint, because it goes against nature and disrupts the two purposes of sex, intimacy and procreation, artificial contraception is morally wrong. To view artificial contraception this way would be a huge step in respecting human life and above all, the right to life of all human beings no matter what stage in development that human being might be in. Let us put an end to murdering our future generation and start taking responsibility for our actions."
target="_blank">
October 22, 2008
Keeping Up With The Score: McCain vs Obama
Based on the latest polls, Obama is leading McCain (273 vs 163 electoral votes). U.S. elections will be on November 4. The following are the latest states "garnered" by each candidate based on polls conducted on these states:
McCain (163 electoral votes): Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia.
Obama (273 electoral votes): California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Hawaii
States still up for grabs: Nevada (5 electoral votes), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (27).
If this will push through until the day of elections, even if McCain will get the remaining states, he may not be able to get the needed 270 electoral votes. McCain must carry Colorado (which voted for Bush in 2004) plus all the remaining states still up for grabs. The latest polls indicate that in the state of Colorado, Obama leads McCain 5.4 points. Unfortunately, Democrats are gaining grounds in Colorado, with more Democrat voters registered than Republicans.
Grab your popcorns everyone!
target="_blank">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
