Monday, September 26, 2011

Fr. Bernas sets the record straight, HUH?!


Did he?


Let's read.

Taken from his blog.


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

In the current debate brought about by the introduction of the RH Bill the question of what is anti-life comes up. It is therefore important to be able to clarify what precisely is meant by being anti-life. In the current debate the phrase anti-life is often used in the most pejorative way. It is used in the sense of being against existing life. Murder, in other words[How could it not be?  You plan the death of another person, isn't that murder?  How else would you want to call it? Homicide?  Parricide?]

But it can also be understood to mean not being willing or not desiring to add more human life to the already crowded population. [If you live in a crowded place, it is crowded but if you live in Mindanao, skip, hop and jump to your hearts delight!]  This would be the stance of a married couple who decide to abstain from the acts that bring about life. To a certain extent this is also the stance of a young man who chooses a celibate life not because he hates children but out of a conviction that he can accomplish better what he feels he is called to do without the burden of raising children. [He is speaking about the consecrated life.] Definitely I would not categorize such persons as being anti-life. [Uhm...neither do the pro-lifers.  This is a different thing.]  They love life so much that they take it upon themselves to contribute in some way or other to the improvement of the quality of life of those who are already born.

We come now to contraception. Is contraception anti-life in the sense of being directed at actual life? The phrase anti-life is an active and not a passive word. The word “anti” in compound word is an active word aimed at life. Thus we must ask when life begins, because before life begins it is beyond the reach of anti-life action.

When does life begin? For me, the starting point in dealing with this very specific question is what the Constitution says. [Oh brother!  He asks a scientific question and read a legal document to answer it.]  It says that the state “shall protect the life of the unborn from conception.” What this means, in the understanding of the men and women who wrote that Constitution, is that life begins at conception, that is, upon fertilization. [At least he is truthful about it here.  He knows this for a fact since he is one of the framers of our present Constitution.]  Before fertilization there is no life. This is also the view of the Philippine Medical Society and this is the view of John Paul II. John Paul II says that life is so important that we should not do anything that will endanger it. We would be taking at least a very serious risk against life if we terminate development after fertilization.

What this means is that one who practices abstention is not anti-life. The celibate who gives up procreation for a higher calling is not anti-life. The use of contraceptive devises that only prevents fertilization is not anti-life in the sense of being an act of murder. [Now hold on to your horses.  He is tacitly saying that is you use condoms, which prevents the sperm from meeting the egg, then it is not anti-life.  Correct, right?  Well, how about Humanae Vitae? that is where things change, ain't it?]  Abortion, in the sense of expulsion of the fertilized ovum at any time after fertilization is anti-life, is abortion and is an act of murder. If life of the unborn is terminated at a stage of viability the crime is infanticide. For that reason the Penal Code and also the proposed RH Bill prohibits and penalizes abortion and infanticide. [Uhm, no.  The House version of the RH Bill does not say so.]

I have heard it loosely said that what are being marketed as contraception devices are in fact abortive devices. This is loose talk. If there are such abortive devices being marketed, they should be identified scientifically, not by gossip, and withdrawn from the market. [They have been identified oh Father!  Try getting out more often.  You want a copy of the studies?  Simple fact is that one of the mechanisms of action of OCPs is the prevention of a fertilized ovum from being implanted.  So what do you call that?  Will you see the answers for that in the Constitution?  Guess not.  Just saying because you like to quote and use the Constitution.]  The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility of ensuring that no abortifacient drugs be marketed. [But the DOH is pro-RH and the DOH is the head agency overseeing the FDA.  So what do you make of that?!]  I know of one drug which was withdrawn from the market after being proved before the FDA to be abortifacient. This was the subject of a thesis of a student of mine which she defended, as required for graduation from the Ateneo Law School, before a panel of professors.  [AND THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.]

Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church which prohibits not only abortion but also artificial contraception. Yet one might say that through this article I am in fact approving artificial contraception. [Oh yes you do evern if you are wearing THAT hat!]  I am not doing such a thing. Aside from being a Catholic priest in good standing I am also a lawyer and teacher and student of Constitutional Law. [I don't thing he is not that GOOD in standing now he created such a headache with his flip-flopping articles!] What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society. [WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAT?!?!]  Not all citizens of the Philippines are Catholics. [We're not idiots.  Don't keep on saying that.  But I think he forgot that majority of Filipinos are Catholics and that this is a democracy where the majority rules, isn't it?]  Many of them therefore do not consider artificial contraception immoral or anti-life. [Based on the Bible of SWS.] The teaching of my Church is that I must respect the belief of other religions even if I do not agree with them. [He conveniently leaves out the teaching of his Church about artificial contraceptives, and he does not give a strong stance against it.]  That is how Catholics and non-Catholics can live together in harmony. [In the age of Aquarius!!! lalalalala!!!]  The alternative, which God forbid, is the restoration of the Inquisition.

26 September 2011


Ever heard the evil of relativism?

Fr. Bernas is a perfect example of this.

What will Fr. Bernas say about the proposed divorce law or the gay "marriage" law?

I am pretty sure he will say:

"Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church...What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society."

Such a genius!    

He wears the hat of the Catholic priest yet acts like a Mason!  Religion does not matter!

Wanna send this post to the Holy See, Fr. Bernas?

Maybe he really needs a sampling of the Inquisition.

You asked for it Fr. Bernas!


  1. What Fr. Bernas did is he dug himself a deeper hole where he effectively used his mouth as spade. I thought he learned something from his past writings. I guess not!

    I think he'd be a good lawyer than a priest so let's petition him to spare his mother Church of embarrassment and leave the priesthood! After this, it ain't going to be stressful, right Fr. Bernas?


  2. Jesuit! huhuhuhu... With his stand I cannot be proud to be an Atenista.

    ...Bad Jesuit! Bad priest!