CBCP’s Scheme to Prevent RH Progress

The CBCP is on the defensive. Since Noynoy declared that he would give poor Filipinos the option to use contraceptives, the bishops have been planning their counterattack. Fr. Melvin Castro, executive director of the Catholic bishops’ Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, threatened to “do everything just to block the measure.”

Yesterday the CBCP revealed their strategy:

A network of 100 Catholic lay groups across the country Tuesday geared up for protest actions.
Preliminary consultations among lay leaders will be held in Metro Manila this week.

“Initially, they (the lay) would write letters to legislators and national leaders and, without discounting the great possibility of [holding] rallies in the streets… we are gearing towards that,” Castro said.

“We fear that (Mr. Aquino’s statement) will not end here but we are praying that we are wrong,” Castro said.

But prayers and protests are just one side of their strategy. Because they lack reason and evidence — not to mention the numbers — to support their cause, the bishops have once again resorted to myths, misinformation, and manipulation.

Here are just some of their dirty tactics:

Misrepresentation and Hasty Generalization

The CBCP has around 133 members. Their voice is not even a whisper in a country of 92 million. But for their protest to have political clout, they’re going to need the numbers. This is why instead of admitting that the CBCP is the main force behind this protest, they’re making it seems as if they’re not prime movers but mere consultants:

Castro said the Catholic clergy, including the bishops, would back the lay groups’ actions. “On the side of the clergy, we will simply support them in this initiative,” he added.

CBCP, if you want to continue using this strategy, you can start by replacing Fr. Castro as the spokesperson of the movement.

But hiding behind the lay groups is not enough for one bishop:

Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez of Caloocan criticized Mr. Aquino’s statement. “The whole Church is against it,” he told The Associated Press.

The whole Church is against it? How did he know? Did he do a new survey? Because in the most recent surveys, two-thirds said they wanted contraception. Or maybe this Church he’s referring to only includes Catholics who agree with the CBCP on contraceptives.

Emotional Blackmail

Fr. Castro said their actions would “not be confrontational” with the President. He lied. Just ask presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, who called “unfair’’ and “below the belt’’ a statement made by Castro:

“It’s just a small amount compared to the moral values that we are going to lose,” Castro said in a press release. “Apparently for that measly sum of money in the name of fighting poverty, here we are again, selling out the Filipino soul. It’s just sad.”

And in case the “Filipino soul” is too impersonal to induce enough guilt, Castro thinks appealing to “family” might do the job:

Castro said the Church and the faithful had hoped that Mr. Aquino, as the son of the late former President and prolife champion Corazon Aquino and being surrounded by four sisters, could be “influenced” to address the issue of poverty through economic means, not by population control.

Promoting Theocracy

For an organization that is against choice, the CBCP uses the word “freedom” quite casually:

“Our lay leaders, who have their own families, see the need to be very visible in this protest and we respect their freedom.”

In this case, it’s good that Castro qualified freedom with “their.” Because the CBCP only respects the freedom of those who already agree with them. What about the freedom of those who choose contraception? As Rosa Luxemburg said, freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.

Yet all this is consistent with the CBCP’s preferred political system — theocracy.

In another statement, Castro said that the President should listen to those who protest contraceptives because “among them are people who really supported him during the elections” and “elected him into office.”

But what about the voters who support contraception? And what about those who didn’t vote for Noynoy but support his stance on contraceptives? It seems that Castro thinks only those on the CBCP’s side deserve to be listened to. Which is just a roundabout way of saying that only the CBCP deserves to be listened to. Ignoring the majority in favor of a few bishops is not democracy. But then again, that’s not what the CBCP wants.

Indoctrination and Misinformation

The CBCP is also intensifying its brainwashing efforts:

The CBCP was gearing up against any other future government moves through mobilization of lay groups and the faithful and by intensifying value formation and catechism down to the barangay chapels.

“So whatever the government will do in the near or far future, our faithful will have a well-formed conscience,” he said.

And what kind of wisdom will the faithful form their consciences with?

Church officials have argued that contraception is a type of abortion, which is banned by the Constitution.

Saying this over and over will not make it true. Once again, CBCP, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy; contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy. But I guess the CBCP can teach whatever it wants. After all, what they’re doing is not education — it’s indoctrination.

Discrediting the Informed

It’s useless to spread lies when those pesky doctors and health officials keep telling the truth. Which is why for the CBCP, disparaging them only makes sense:

Antipolo Auxiliary Bishop Francisco de Leon viewed Mr. Aquino’s statement as a “passive stance” on birth control. “But what is happening on the local level is more aggressive,” De Leon said on Radio Veritas. De Leon said local health officials were the ones telling couples what should be done, instead of letting them decide.

Health officials cannot decide for a couple. The most they can do is give advice based on their research and experience. Since when has giving advice been the same as making a decision for someone? Could it be that given the right information, the bishops know that people are more likely to choose contraception?

They’re making it seem like health officials — and those who promote RH information — are robbing people of their freedom. But freedom requires having options. These health officials aren’t taking away freedom; they’re giving people more of it.

Monopolizing Morality

Whenever the CBCP is threatened, you can be sure they’ll spout the word “morality” pretty soon:

Fr. Francis Lucas, the CBCP executive secretary for social communications and mass media, said it was morally incorrect to let people decide what was right and wrong according to their needs.

First they say that people should make their own decisions. Then they say that it’s morally incorrect to do so?

Fr. Lucas added that “the ‘optional’ use of contraceptives blurs the lines between right and wrong.”

That is their solution to complex issues of morality? Removing options? This shows just how much they trust their flock. But didn’t a bishop say that the “whole Church” is against contraception? If so, then what are they afraid of?

* * *

The CBCP came close to the truth when they said that providing contraceptives “is a serious matter” because “it is the Filipino family at stake here.” Yes, this is a serious matter. Yes, the Filipino family is at stake. But the danger doesn’t come from the president’s promise. We got in this predicament because the CBCP has been blocking RH progress for too long.

Revealing the CBCP’s manipulative strategy weakens it, helping ensure Noynoy follows through with his promise. We will have to organize counter-protests, but thankfully, we don’t have to stoop to their level. Reason and evidence — not to mention the majority of Filipinos –are on our side. In a democratic country, these should be more than enough.

30 comments

  1. I was raised from a devoted catholic family i served the church for some time in my life. The time that i got pregnant and got married inisp ko agad kung anu ang mga dapat gawin pag anjan na ang anak ko, di kelangang mag tanga tangahan sa mga consequences pag nabuntis ako ulit and so i had to talk to my husband and make a concrete plan sa maging pamilya namin para di kami mahirapan pag dating ng future.One major thing is the family planning. After kung manganak i know na what to do so nagpalagay ako ng IUD coz yun ang nakikita kung hiyang sa akin. Tell me, ibig sabhin ba nito kinokundena ako ng dyos dahil sa napili kung method? well i dont think so, kasi para sa akin bilang isang babae me karapatan akong alagaan ang health ko to the fullest and live an active sex life at the same time at para makapag hanap buhay para sa mga bills at makapag save para sa kinabukasan ng pamilya namin. If ang sagot ng simbahan sa akin is yes kukundinahin ako ng dyos sa aking pagpapalagay ng IUD then let me ask u this. Sino ba kayo to judge me at e judge at ang mga babae at mamamayan na pabor sa RH BILL? Dyos ba kayo?? sa inyo ba kami haharap pag namatay kami?? Ang pag husga nyo ba ang aking kailangan?? HOW DARE YOU palibhasa di nyo kasi nasubukan magka anak at magka asawa at magkapamilya at kumayod ng kumayod para magtrabaho. Napakadamot nyo at mga hipokrito kayong lahat. Nagkaron pa tayo ng demokrasya kung ipagdadamot samin ang aming kalayaang mamili, para kayong mga kumunista kung magpatupad ng rules. Kung ayaw nyo ipatupad ang RH BILL e di gumawa kayo ng mga eskwelahan na libre na pang hangang kolehiyo para sa mga pamilyang me mga anak na 4 o hangang isang dosena ka tao, tapos pakainin nyo ang mga pamilyang yan na libre at bigyan nyo narin ng libreng livelihood ang mga magulang..magpakitang gilas kayo kung talagang nagmamalasakit kayo sa utos ng dyos.. pero alam ko di nyo kayang gawin yan, sarap kasi ng mga buhay nyo e, naka aircon ang mga kwarto nyo at sarap ng mga kinakain nyo at me sasakyan pa kayo, bindisyon nga lang ng bungalow na bahay 500 pesos ka agad at ibang price pag dos andanas na bahay at eto e sheshare ko lang sa lahat ang isa pang hinanakit ko sa simbahan. Ngayong kasi pati yung pagalay ko ng misa buwan buwan sa mga namatay kung mga kamag anak pinag iinitan nyo pa, ang mass offering for souls e me presyo na din, 50 pesos daw per kaluluwa..SINO GINAGAGO NILA? nakaka shock dahil pati kaluluwa pinagkikitaan pa and i know for sure na kahit anung amount ang donation kahit piso pa yan. E ang dami kong mga patay na na kamag anak at ayaw kung me e d-drop ako sa listahan ko dahil lang sa singil nila but i always tell them na eto lang ang amount na kaya ko at di ko kaya ang amount na hinihingi nyo..so to make this short dismayado ako sa inyong mga nasa simbahan and it made me realized na all of you ay HINDI TAPAT SA INYONG BOKASYON. as of now im thinking to leave the church dahil sa inyo at panginoon nalang ang humusga sa akin.

  2. Ang plastik naman ng mga pari na yan, if i know for sure nagmamasturbate din yang mga yan. Di naman sila robbot para di makaramdam ng init ng katawan from time to time. Dont tell me na tumatayo at tumitigas ang pagkalalaki nila??? di ako bastos but im just expressing my point of view. They are humans too just like us..papapugot ako ng ulo kung di sila nakakaramdam ng sexual arousal at sexy sensation and wild imaginations about fucking. Wag na kasing magpaka ipokrito dahil ang RH BILL ay direktang para sa kapakanan naming mga kababaihan wag na kayong mangialam!

  3. we have to show our support for the RH bill in concrete terms. everytime they mention RH bill in their homily, don't contribute a centavo to their coffers for a week. the next time, make it 2 weeks, then 3 weeks ans so on. let's hit them where it hurts. fund raising seems to be the church's priority these days.

  4. what are the cbcp's interests in going against contraception? do you think its purely moral? perhaps they've been asking for some "cuts" from durex that durex cannot afford hehehe.

  5. Red, religious fundamentalists HAVE maimed, hurt, and killed people in their God's name. They've had legislation moved against community just because they don't like their skin color, or their sexual orientation.

    The most "rabid" thing I've ever heard a "militant" atheist ever do was nail a wafer, make a song about the pope that says "Fuck" every 2 seconds, or draw smiley's of the prophet.

    And quite frankly, it is very difficult not to be angry when somebody starts getting away with sex abuse because of their religious organization's meddling. And so long as the RCC denies these incidents while pretending to take the moral high ground, I think we should just ditch the niceties, and call a spade a spade – a rapist a rapist.

    • Please read about Communism and in a lesser extent Fascism, both of which have took religion to be useless, indeed "the opium of the masses."

      Did the eradication of religion in these kinds of nation states stop all kinds of brutality?

      Religion may give people an excuse to hate/maim/kill each other, but the absence of religion assures nothing. I leave it at that for now for fear we're diverging too far from the topic of the article.

      • If you're referencing Mao Zedong's brand of communism, you will find that much like religious fundamentalism, it relies on a blind subservience to dogma and cult figures to make it work.

        I don't see where this is going either, so I'll happily drop the discussion here too.

      • You're going to have to be a little more specific with Fascism btw. Hitler made copious references to religious doctrine while he was Fuhrer, while Romania's Iron Guard movement made very strong references to Orthodox Christianity.

        • Okay, my bad.

          The general trend of Fascism leans towards being anti-religious, with the Iron Guard being an exception to the rule 🙁

  6. Frankly I'd like to see if they can muster up the numbers they claim they can. If Noynoy isn't a pussy and doesn't back down, this may be what people need to realize that the church isn't as strong as it claims to be.

  7. It's funny how we all seem to be taking issue with last sentences. 🙂

    The damage created by any extremist is the fact that when they stir the pot it makes it harder for things to settle. Let's say Christianity is an angry, retarded tiger in a zoo. The tiger repeatedly does stupid things so the secular humanist starts poking with a stick and calling it names. This infuriates the retarded tiger so much that it jumps out of its cage and mauls not only the foolish humanist, but random passerby.

    In this sense, I would strongly agree that any kind of extremism is the enemy, and not specifically the religious sort.

    To quote William James, a leading figure of American Pragmatism:
    "The most fervent opponents of Christian doctrine have often enough shown a temper which, psychologically considered, is indistinguishable from religious zeal."

    If we do not wish to become that which we despise, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.

    • I agree about not stooping to their level, but your analogy is far from accurate. You make it seem as if the ill effects of religious fundamentalism are caused more by external factors rather than built into their warped worldview. Another inaccuracy is the "poking with a stick." That's clearly a violation of personal space, and is already a form of violence. I'm also sure many would take issue with comparing fundamentalists to retarded tigers 😀 I'm not nitpicking here — just holding you to a higher standard 😉

      • I know you're not nitpicking, it's fine.

        I can't seem to find your comment, but the last sentence was something like vocal athiests are more benign than religiouis fundamentalists. I took that to mean you were referring to militants of the same sort, ie people who are vocal about their views, and not necessarily suicide bombers, which would be a different case altogether.

        Of course not all ill effects of fundamentalism are caused by external factors, but any extremist point of view, whether secular or religious, only creates more tensions and lessens the possibility of civilized dialogue.

        I used the analogy as a specific example to show how what we may think as benign activism can stir a shitload of trouble.

    • And that is one reason why I always back up my argument with solid evidence.

      And furthermore, I do think your tiger analogy is lacking in scope. What about situations where the skeptic is calling out a genuinely dehumanizing aspect of a faith, such as treating blacks or women as second-class citizens?

      The religious may find the criticism offensive, but in the end, wouldn't that be valid criticism?

      And furthermore, why would I be stupid enough to poke an angry tiger with a stick. I'd bring, at the very least, a .50 Beowulf slug. 😉

      • Name me an analogy that encompasses all possible situations and I'll call the nobel prize society, or at least Ripley's Believe it or not.

        If a specific dehumanizing aspect is taking place, by all means, call it out. but call the act out, and not the religion itself. If a religious leader is propagating it, call the leader out. If a specific doctrine in their canon propagates it, call that doctrine out.

        On blacks and women, do you honestly believe that it was religion that created these inequalities (an honest question, not needling)? Because frankly speaking I believe that white people hated blacks because a)they were black and b)emancipation of blacks meant that they would lose the secular (ie lawful) rights that they held over black people.

        As for women being second class citizens, I think that the anthropological roots of that go way before any of the organized religions of the present day.

        • [On blacks and women, do you honestly believe that it was religion that created these inequalities (an honest question, not needling)? ]

          No, but religion does play a large part in the racism I see today. Well to be more exact, I've seen it being used as convenient excuse for the likes of the the Klu Klux Klan and Alex Jones to propagate their bile.

  8. That doesn't make the usage of the term correct.

    Legislators listen to them because (1) They're afraid of losing votes; (2) They think they're doing the right thing; (3) They're stupid and they don't really understand the issues.

  9. I'm all for fighting the Church on the reproductive health bill.

    I've noticed though that a lot of RH bill advocates like to use the term "theocracy" and invoke the "separation of church and state. I just wanted to clarify a few things:

    Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler or one that is ruled by officials thought to be divinely guided. Theocracy should not be confused with (1) a secular form of governme…nt that has a state religion; (2) a government that is merely influenced by theological or moral concepts; or (3) a monarchy that is premised on the "divine right" of kings.

    What separation of church and state means: "Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views – whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social – for the rest of society. Nor should tax revenues be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree. Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle." <a href="http://(http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#separation)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#separation)

    Separation of church and state does not prevent religious institutions of any creed or denomination from expressing positions on issues. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. "Separation of church and state" does not exclude people with religious beliefs from democratic political processes.

    In other words, we can't tell the clergy or the faithful to shut up. But we can express views opposed to theirs. We can make arguments based on facts. We can educate people on issues. We can rally greater support for our causes. We can engage our policy makers in dialogue.

    It would be useful to read Marx's "On the (German-)Jewish Question" in order to fully understand what it means to "secularize the human background of religion". At the core of the issue is not so much the abolition of theocracy as the disavowal of any claim to exclusivity and special privilege (think the Jewish-Palestinian war), which would imply the separation of church and state. More fundamentally, this presupposes the return to civil rights as the basis for religion.

  10. The CBCP has long been a thorn in my brain, all I want is for them to shut up when they know that they are in the wrong. They want to leash us unto them, control us. Who do they think they are? The supreme ruler of the human race?! Believe you me, I'll bitchslap any priest or bishop or cardinal EVEN the POPE when they come my way. Religous zealots should keep themselves lock in their cloister but make sure to evacuate the little boys and girls that they keep as pets and sexual toys! Makes one think, they NEED to replenish their stock of cute little boys and girls that's why they need the people to make kids for them since they are incapable of doing so because of their supposed marriage with christ… jesus fucking christ!

    • [Believe you me, I'll bitchslap any priest or bishop or cardinal EVEN the POPE when they come my way.]

      Dude, bad idea.

      They might enjoy the spanking 0_0

    • what's your religion bro? ask yourself… what's your attitude bro? ask again yourself… religious man doesn't speak like that. no God, no life.

  11. The silent majority may be powerful, but without people to inspire them to shout, they're basically useless.

    So who will inspire them? The other side, though smaller, is well organized, and has a battle plan, and plans B and C

    • One way is to touch the silent majority is to give them information that that strikes close home. Documentaries of the masses and their plight due to overpopulation and poor family planning literally dot youtube, with most coming from legit news agencies such as Al Jazeera and BBC.

      The CBCP may pretend it's in the right, but from what I've seen, almost every scientific study, survey, and skeptic's source says the same thing about their birth control policies: It's full of shit.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here