Friday, September 30, 2011

A renowned Jesuit does not get it.

From Hell's Bible, pinoy version


AS I watched Christ's faithful gather symbolically in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday, around Calvary's cross on Good Friday, and at the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, a wave of joy flowed over me. [I think he is talking about the Paschal Triduum Liturgy.]  Swept up like a chip of wood on the surface of a boiling wave by the power of the community singing, I recalled the unity in faith and hope of the millions who gathered 25 years ago at Edsa. [What now?]  But still there was an undercurrent of sadness, sadness due to the realization that the official Church no longer stands with a united people but with one part of a nation divided; and that the struggle is carried on, no longer in the respectful manner of the crowds at Edsa, but in an atmosphere of personal animosity and demonizing.  [Wow!  There goes the twist there folks!  From the Bible, to Edsa to RH.  Geez!  The Church tells a 'united people' that this bill is nothing but EVIL, the priest is SAD?  And the Church is demonizing?  What do you call Lucifer?  Fallen Angel?  Isn't that the same as DEVIL?  The semantics of Vatican II is really killing me.]

The sadness is made deeper by the sense that in the debate over the RH bill, the Church seems to have backed itself into a no-win situation. ["And I tell you, not even the Gates of Hell shall prevail against it."  I think Fr. Caroll is such a strategist, aint he?]  If the bill passes over the total opposition of the hierarchy, there will be gloating in some quarters and a sense of  "Who's afraid of the big bad Church?" If it is defeated by the opposition of the Church, I fear a powerful backlash at the Church's "interference in politics" and "  "reliance on political power rather than moral suasion:the beginnings of an anticlericalism such as has overwhelmed formerly Catholic bastions such as Spain and Ireland. [Now hold on to your socks there.  The position of the Church against artificial contraception has long been "defeated".  Practically the whole world has permitted artificial contraception even the Philippines.  It is legal here.  Did the Church get any backlash?  Nope.  When did anticlericalism start?  Was it after Humanae Vitae or was it even when Her Founder was still physically with us?  Masons have long been against the Church.  Atheists have long been against the Church as do Communists and radical Muslims.  The doomsday prophecy of Fr. Caroll is completely absurd, as absurd as how pro-RH people are saying "Majority of Catholics are pro-RH so the bishops should listen."  Artificial contraception is COMPLETELY NON_NEGOTIABLE.  Do you get that Father Caroll?]

With all due respect for the position of the Philippine bishops, [They expect not only the due respect that you just gave, but your due OBEDIENCE which Jesuits do not even know anymore!]  I do not see that total opposition to the bill necessary, once one gets past the polemics. First of all, the bill does not legalize contraceptives; they are already legal and may be purchased in any drugstore. What the bill proposes to do "rightly or wrongly" is to subsidize the cost of contraception as well as natural family planning to the poor. [I have read both versions of the Bill from the House and from the Senate and there is no mention whatsoever about it being for the POOR!  This is absurd!]  Neither does the bill legalize abortion; on the contrary it reaffirms the constitutional prohibition. It is highly probable in fact that if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced.  [because this intelligent priest does not even care to read the mechanism of action of OCPs which is to thin the lining of the uterine wall, which makes it hard for a fertilized ovum (which is in fact a human being) to stick and survive.  So when you kill a 1 week old human baby, what do you call that?  But this intelligent Jesuit does not even listen to this reason.  Because he is a Jesuit and he is intelligent.]

On the tricky scientific question whether the IUD and some contraceptive pills may prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the mother's womb and so destroy a human life, the current draft of the bill passes the responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration, which should ban any such contraceptives from drugstores throughout the country.  [The literature is available!  Good grief!  Wait for a government agency that does not even do its job?!?  Remember folks, the FDA is under the pro-RH Department of Health!]

[And on this part, he takes the position of the bishops.  Really, wacky if you ask me.  Firing at the bishops on the other hand, then conceding on the other.]
On the matter of sex education in the schools, the same draft allows parents to "opt out" for their children, i.e. to have them exempted from such classes. This is an improvement, although it would seem better to allow religious schools to develop their own programs. It may be still possible to negotiate for this. There is a graded set of modules on sex and population education already available, prepared by teachers of Catholic schools under the leadership of the Office of Population Studies Foundation of the University of San Carlos, and bearing the imprimatur of Ricardo Cardinal Vidal.

Other improvements may still be possible. One might be to strengthen the "conscience clauses" protecting health workers and teachers whose religious values conflict with certain aspects of the bill. Another could be representation of religious bodies on an oversight committee to make sure that freedom of conscience is fully respected in the field.

A sticking point for many is that the bill would subsidize the distribution of contraceptives to the poor. [As I said, the Bill does not mention the poor.  So even those who have the resources to get their own contraceptives, can get these for free under the Bill!]  The Catholic Church, while recognizing the fundamental moral difference between contraception and abortion, still insists that the former is wrong.  It debases the most sacred act which a husband and wife can perform: cooperation with the Creator in bringing into existence a new human person destined for eternity with God. [TRUE RIGHT YOU ARE FATHER!] Here it would seem more consistent for the Church to initiate a vigorous program of family life and natural family planning education for its people, helping them to form their consciences and make responsible decisions on this matter, rather than trying by political means to keep them away from temptation.  [I hope each parish and diocese does this!  One of my frustrations actually.  But...but... Father Caroll does not say if he is against artificial contraception.  Well, just asking.]

Which brings up what to me seems to be the most important issue here, namely, the family and family values. [hold on folks!] The charge is made that the RH bill will destroy the Filipino family. On the basis of more than 25 years of pastoral and social work in Payatas, [we don't have that, so we better shut up?]  and some seven years sponsoring natural family planning programs, I can say that the family is already at great risk and not because of contraceptives.  [wow!  Great math there!  It is almost the same as saying that "Filipino families are already threated by mistresses so outlawing brothels would not do much."]

While the dedication of many young people - our scholars and former scholars - to helping their families, and the sacrifices that they are willing to make, are sometimes overwhelming, these are often one-parent families abandoned by the fathers who have gone on to father second and even third families. Or no-parent families abandoned by both father and mother and being raised by grandparents. Moreover, one main reason why only some 20 percent of the women who take our seminars on natural family planning actually practice it is precisely the unwillingness of the husbands to cooperate.  [So, RH is the solution?  It would even make matters worse since artificial contraception does not even take into consideration of the woman wants to copulate or not!  That is the beauty of natural family planning!  The sexual act is done with the mutual consent of two loving heterosexual married couple, putting into consideration the body of the woman!]

Our family-life seminars seem to be much appreciated. If only the effort and resources being now invested in opposition to the RH bill were being used for serious family-life education and family support services, [we are using resources?!  Wow!  I did not know that?!  Better get my paycheck.]  there might be little reason to oppose the bill. And our Holy Week services might be true celebrations of unity, mutual respect and love.  [Uh....what?!]


Typical Jesuit arrogance.

Paints more gray areas than clear ones.


Fr. Caroll has raised practical pieces of advice on educating the public about NFP and how the Church can join in.  BUT!

The way he laments how he educates the women and the husbands do not cooperate, shows a hint of desperation that he is willing to bite the bullet and give artificial contraceptives just to get the job done in Payatas where he has been working.

And at the end of the article, whether you are pro or anti, you would agree that this priest supports RH.

Shame on someone who is on the twilight of his life!

Repent before it is too late!


No comments:

Post a Comment