Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Another Inquirer columnist attacks the Church!

You really get that stinking feeling that the lobbyist of contraceptive companies, the UN and EU are out to really push the contraceptive agenda into the country equating over population to poverty.  Oh in China?  Neeeh!  China has a HUGE workforce they are now an economic superpower!

Read this rant from the agents of death at the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


“IT” is here again; what else but the Reproductive Health bill (RH): the revival by Rep. Edcel Lagman and another version by Rep. Janette Garin. (“RH bill rises from the dead,” Inquirer, 7/7/10) No need for a clairvoyant to see that RH, like the “Noli” and “Fili” decades ago, will rise again and again.

Statements like “there are no changes in the stand of the Church,” or “we invite, but they don’t turn up” kill dialogue and belie lofty claims to the contrary. The stand-off is very serious and is exacerbated by sex education, first cousin of RH.

In this duel, three groups become apparent.

The first is a huge sector that belongs to the Catholic Church, body and soul. Its members believe that the official Church makes no mistakes; all its pronouncements carry the weight of dogma and must be believed and followed. As strong language (read agitated), their slogans are unmatched, like “Deliver us from the evils of the RH bill,” “culture of death,” “contraceptive mentality.” With a good press and TV exposure and pressure politics too (read lobbying or bullying, depending on whom you ask), [Really?  Are you sure?  Like what the Iglesia ni Cristo does?  Can you even write against the INC?  I don't think so.  You know the bishops won't answer back at you or have armed goons know on your door like the INC does.  You and the PDI are just too chicken to treat the INC like how you and your paper treat the Catholic Church.] they back the Church in its relentless drive to “stop artificial birth control.” [Now you get a feel that this writer is REALLY anti-Catholic.  She does not even know what those "slogans" really mean and she rants and pain.]

It’s a chain of command from Pope to bishops to priests to laity, and one doesn’t depart from orders from on high. [Oh really?  You think?] A dear friend said that if anyone in her house practiced contraception he/she had to “leave the house.” So dead serious was she that I backed off. [Good for your friend!]

Yet, I can’t erase the scenario that in the future, birth control, so earthshaking now, may go the way of the interest in money, overturned from “immoral” to “moral”; or of slavery, overturned from “moral” for bloody centuries to thoroughly “immoral.” Never say “never!” [Really?!  Contraception would go the same road as the equality of whites and blacks?  Is the prevention of the conception of a human life the same as treating people equally because of their color?  The Church has never treated people differently because of their color!  Look it up in the Catechism!  People will have the same rights and dignity no matter what the color of their skin may be!  Life will always begin at the moment of conception and that definition will stay that way....FOREVER!]

The second group in this war of attrition? The people who ignore the media war, and who think and decide for themselves, which isn’t so bad and which is already happening. [Like you?]

They examine if every pat argument of the Church holds water or springs leaks, like: “The world is big enough for x-more people,” or “Every sex act must be open to procreation.” (Is it so in natural birth control?) Or “Contraception will open the floodgates to abortion and promiscuity” (sequitur or non?), [when was the last time you were in Europe, Japan and the US, huh?] or “Teaching sex education is the sole right and responsibility of parents.” (Do they? Can they? Did my parents? Did yours?) [Yeah.  My parents did because they were responsible enough!  My mom taught it to me with details and all!  Oh, yeah I can hear her rebut "But that is your mom!"  Yeah, right.  Chicken parry.]

Two articles: “True North” by Thomas A. Shannon and “The Limits of Authority” by Richard Gaillardetz from Catholic magazines—America [run by American Jesuits and therefore...liberal and dissenting.  Remember how its former editor, Thomas Reese, SJ was asked to step down by a not so known cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger for publishing articles in support of...(hold on to your seats!) homosexual lifestyle, contraceptives, anti-priestly celibacy and women ordination.  Yeah, Ms. Maramba.  America IS Catholic.  Yup.  That is sooo well thought of eh, Ms. Maramba.] and Commonweal, [oh and isn't this so surprising, Ms. Maramba.  This publication openly questioned Pope Paul VI's not so well known encyclical Humanae Vitae, which condemns (hold on to your seat Ms. Maramba, artificial birth control.] respectively—actually confirm what is already happening and is being fortuitously done by many.

“True North”—with lead sentence “How moral theologians help set Catholics on the right course”—proposes “not so much to tell people what to do as it is to help them become moral agents by forming their consciences.” As “dispenser of the Church’s tradition,” the Church lays down the “generally accepted positions of the Church’s magisterium” but “focus is shifted to the moral agent, the person, making the decision” on a concrete case on hand; who weighs all the situational, scientific, historical factors entering the picture and synthesizes these with the Church’s tradition.

“The Limits of Authority”—with lead sentence “When bishops speak…. Catholics should listen but don’t have to agree”—takes a similar vein. [WHAT?!?  Isn't this a load of schismatic bull!] It speaks of three levels of Church teaching: laying down the Church’s “universal moral teachings”; admitting specific, collateral moral principles emerging from the general principle; and the prudential judgment of the moral agent.

In other words, something happens to the general principle, accosted by circumstances, scientific or doctrinal developments, current and historical context, as it travels down to the ground where a decision must be made. [The Church tells you what is right and what is wrong.  It is up to you to follow or not.  But all things have an effect.  You do something, something happens.  And this is what the Church reminds us.]

The first level belongs to the Church. That is her duty and explains why encyclicals are brimming with general principles. [What was the last encyclical you read, Ms. Maramba?] In the second and third levels, the moral agent takes a decisive role; episcopal authority is “diminished” and the “prudential judgement” must be respected. [Yeah, the Church does.  Do you see the bishops and priests pointing a knife at you?] This process is neither chopping nor choosing morality but applying it judiciously. “The guidance of bishops… does not trump the obligation of Catholics to exercise their own prudential judgement.”

I suspect this is the process young couples seriously go through. No matter that their menopausal parents cry themselves hoarse opposing RH. Try the process on RH and sex education.

The third group embraces the greatest number of people—huge colonies that pour out of alleys, dirt roads, railroad tracks, feebly dignified as informal settlers; farmers, fisherfolk, people of the earth in hinterlands; our lavandera with 34 grandchildren and 12 great grands. What chance have they got? “Control yourself naman,” I told a laborer. His smile clearly said he was entitled to “it,” anytime, drunk or sober.

They don’t know what RH is or what’s happening between Congress and the Church with its fumbling preferential option for the poor. [She is sooooo annoying, isn't she?  Ms. Maramba, have you been to Mindoro, Mindanao or to the Sulu archipelago?  Have you seen the work of Catholic missionaries in places even the government you soo worship has done?  One village I went to a month ago does not even know the word "Health Worker".] Has any parish in this biggest network in the country set up a systematic teaching program on natural family planning? Have pilot projects been sustained? Who talks to the people? Who teaches them? [Now this is the only one I would agree on.  Hello CBCP!  Please answer the question because honestly I don't know how because I can't see your work here.]

The first group is in the Church’s pocket. The second helps themselves. It’s the people from the third group for whom RH must be studied most carefully and collaboratively. Nobody is forcing them to do this or that. But they need information and help. Badly. [And not this pontificating of a woman!]

Asuncion David Maramba is a retired professor, [Thank God she is retired!  No wonder the rants.]  book editor and occasional journalist. Comments to marda_ph, fax 8284454


This is the kind of bull that the Western Media would like you to believe in:

LET NOBODY TELL YOU WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG! And we all know that worked wonders in Europe and in the US.  See how happy they all are for enjoying their guiltless freedom!

See?  The Philippines has its own brand of Hell's Bible,  New York Times wannabe.  The PDI.  The Philippine's Demonic Inquirer!

I was educated at the PDI and I know how bloated the ego of some of their people (there are great guys there.  Gani Yambot is one!) are in there especially the old guy in Sports.  He is the AC/DC stuff.  If your in the PR world, you'll know what that means.  And I also know some in other sections who would not dare talk to you or even read your press release if you do not know...

Unfortunately, the PDI has fallen into the pitfall of always going against the established norm for the sake of publicity.  Hey publicity makes money!

No comments:

Post a Comment