Yesterday, the pro-divorce movement won the referendum on divorce with a majority of 54%, ending a battle that has delayed the much-needed measure for decades. The victory came despite the constant political meddling and religious blackmail of the Catholic Church.

Sound familiar? Aside from the happy ending, which left the Philippines the only country without divorce¹, the story of Malta’s divorce referendum shares similarities with our own reproductive health (RH) debates:

1. both countries are last bastions of Catholicism: Malta in Europe, the Philippines in Asia;
2. both countries are predominantly Catholic: 95% in Malta, 80% in the Philippines; and
3. both battles are primarily between progressive Catholics and conservative bishops.

And in both cases, the conservative bishops use fear mongering to keep their flock in line. In Malta, the religious blackmail came to a climax during a homily by
Bishop Mario Grech.

In the sermon, he warned of “brigands” who want to “lead the flock astray” and “are going after marriage.” He said that members of the pro-divorce movement were lying about being Catholic:

Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. And the wolf is now saying he is Catholic. This is a falsity, this is deceit. I am ready to dialogue with everyone but do not be false, do not lie. You cannot not be loyal to Christ and say you are a Christian or a Catholic. If you are not in communion with Christ’s teachings, you are not in communion with the Church and you cannot receive communion… we cannot pretend to be in communion with the Eucharist…²

The message is consistent with a nation-wide campaign the Church had launched, in which billboards featuring Jesus’ image said “Christ Yes, Divorce No.” Anti-divorce advocates also brought Mary into the picture:

Opponents of reform have invoked the Blessed Virgin and raised the spectre of Maltese society falling apart. Tonio Fenech, the finance minister and a Nationalist Party MP, wrote on a local news website recently: “I am sure Our Lady is very sorrowful that Malta is considering divorce.”

The anti-divorce campaign was denounced by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, an MP with the ruling Nationalist Party:

“The ‘no’ campaign has been disgusting,” said Mr Orlando, who set the referendum ball rolling. “Old ladies who said they would vote for divorce have been barred from taking Communion. An old electoral roll has been used, which means that 2,800 youngsters who are entitled to vote will not be able to. Lay Catholic organisations and 5,000 priests and nuns have also gone door-to-door campaigning. Limitless funds have been offered to the ‘no’ side.” Voting “yes” has been declared a mortal sin from the pulpit.”

To their credit, the bishops did say they were sorry if anyone was hurt by their anti-divorce campaign. Pro-divorce advocates, however, found this hard to believe:

In a reply, pro-divorce group StandUp Malta said the bishops’ statement was an apology which they found difficult to accept.

It was very hard to believe that the apology was genuine, especially since the Church’s campaign continued blatantly even on reflection day yesterday and voting day today.

The apology, they said, should have been made during the campaign when a lot of people were hurt by extreme declarations such as when those who were voting yes were called wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

The fact that the bishops wanted their apology broadcast once voting closed was Machiavellian and dirty.

Regardless of the bishops’ sincerity, I understand why they’re on the defensive. Winning the divorce debate is already Malta’s second secular victory in only six months. Last November, after a decade of opposition from the Catholic Church, they finally launched a long-awaited national sexual health policy — the counterpart of our RH Bill.

That’s two out of five D-E-A-T-H bills in half a year!³ How can a country that’s even more Catholic than the Philippines say “yes” to divorce and RH?

I believe the answer is secularism. While bishops fight to impose their convictions, progressive Catholics in Malta defend separation of church and state and respect the religious freedom of others — even those who have convictions different from theirs:

The Catholic pro-divorce group reiterated yesterday that although they held Christ’s teachings on marriage in high esteem they could not impose their beliefs on the rest of the people.

“Irrespective of how strongly we believe that divorce is bad for the country, we can never sideline the principle taught by Christ and expect others who do not share our faith to submit to our beliefs,” a group spokesman said.

The group said it was every Catholic’s duty to vote yes in the referendum because the issue at stake was whether what Catholics believed was right and wrong should be imposed by the state on everybody else. “We believe there should never be imposition…”

No imposition. Now — other than the bishops — who won’t say “yes” to that?

***

Notes

[1] No, I don’t consider the Vatican a country.

[2] Actually, you can be pro-divorce and still remain Catholic. But you could be excluded from Holy Communion for doing so. I wrote about these sanctions here.

[3] Divorce and Total Reproductive Health are down; Euthanasia, Abortion, and Homosexual Marriage remain.

Will pro-RH Catholics go to Hell when they die? If my research on the official teachings of the Catholic Church is correct, then it’s likely. This is not reserved for those who actually use contraceptives. Even Catholics who merely believe it’s OK to use them share the same fate.

I am not making this up. Nor is this based on some fringe fundamentalist position within the Catholic Church. This is based on the official teachings of the Vatican, and almost every statement I’ll cite to prove it came from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Threats and Taunts from the CBCP

Since an RH (reproductive health) bill was proposed over a decade ago, the CBCP and their cohorts have reacted to pro-RH Catholics in several ways, from threats of excommunication to insults such as “oxymoron,” both implying that an anti-RH position is required to remain in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church.

But are any of these threats and taunts valid? Are pro-RH Catholics still Catholic? Can the CBCP excommunicate someone for their pro-RH position? What happens to pro-RH Catholics when they die?

I’ll do my best to answer these questions — and explain how pro-RH Catholics could go to Hell — from the perspective of the Pope, the Vatican, and their version of God. I make this distinction because there are many progressive theologians and even more baptized Catholics who disagree with the Vatican.

As a freethinker, I do not believe in the Vatican’s authority — threats of excommunication and damnation are meaningless to me. And if there were a god — that is, an all-wise, all-loving god — I believe She’d have nothing against using artificial contraception and individual conscience. This is the God pro-RH Catholics believe in, and it goes without saying that She has no punishments reserved for the pro-RH.

Of course, this is all anathema to the Vatican, and whether this dissent is valid is a topic I’ll leave for another day. For now, here’s what the Vatican actually says about pro-RH Catholics.

I want to emphasize that I don’t agree with what the Vatican says. I don’t even think their views are worth anyone’s attention. But Catholics, regardless of their position on RH, should at least be aware of what their leaders think — especially those who claim to be infallible.

***

Are pro-RH Catholics still Catholic?

Yes. When a person is baptized Catholic, he remains Catholic until death.

Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become “unbaptized,” although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic — even if they get excommunicated, disagree with dogma (heretics), join a different denomination (schismatics), or leave Christianity altogether (apostates). They just become excommunicated Catholics, heretic Catholics, schismatic Catholics, and so on. In other words, although they are not in full communion with the Church — not fully Catholic — they are Catholic nonetheless.

Can the CBCP excommunicate someone for their pro-RH position?

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. Even pro-abortion Catholics are spared from excommunication:

Politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion. “Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. … Politicians exclude themselves from Communion.”

Next to excommunication — which excludes someone from all sacraments — exclusion from Holy Communion is the worst punishment a Catholic can get. We’ll return to this exclusion shortly.

What is the worst punishment possible for being pro-RH?

Eternal Damnation. Although there is no single statement that explicitly says this, we can follow the implications of several teachings and come to the same conclusion. I’ve elaborated this in 5 steps, each supported by official Vatican documents:

1. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is inherently evil, and that this teaching is a definitive doctrine ¹:

Every action which , whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. [In other words, infallible.]

- Official Guide for Confessors issued by the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family

2. Catholics who deny definitive doctrines are not in full communion with the Catholic Church:

Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths [definitive doctrines] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

- Joseph Ratzinger, “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI

3. Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church must abstain from receiving Holy Communion:

Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected.

- Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles

This is the same punishment proposed by the Vatican for pro-abortion Catholics mentioned above.

4. Catholics who do not fulfill their obligation to receive Holy Communion commit a grave sin.

The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church 2181

When you freely commit a sin knowing that it is of a grave matter, you commit a mortal sin. Note that receiving Holy Communion when you are unworthy is itself a grave matter (sacrilege), so freely committing it with full knowledge of its graveness is yet another mortal sin.

5. Catholics who die in mortal sin go to Hell:

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”

- Catechism of the Catholic Church 1035

Remember that any contraception, if done freely with the knowledge of its graveness, is by itself a mortal sin. But what I’ve elaborated above shows that even the belief ² that contraception is not inherently evil already disqualifies Catholics from partaking in Holy Communion. This is the same reason excommunication is a big deal: It excludes Catholics from the sacraments, of which Communion is the most important. And as I’ve shown, the Vatican teaches that without Communion, there’s no salvation.

Pro-RH Catholics and the Pope

So there you have it. According to the Vatican, Pro-RH Catholics, by their denial of a definitive doctrine, are not in full communion with the Church, preventing them from fulfilling their obligation to receive Holy Communion — a mortal sin, which if left unconfessed, means their souls will go to Hell when they die.

This should be more alarming than it is, but I realize this early that this information will be trivial to many. Because if you’re a pro-RH Catholic — someone who uses or promotes contraceptives in good conscience — you probably don’t care what the Pope says anyway.

The easiest way to get excommunicated

Not caring what the Pope says means you probably don’t believe in his infallibility. This, by the way, is a divinely revealed doctrine:

To the truths of the first paragraph [which refers to divinely revealed truths] belong … the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff …

Denying a divinely revealed doctrine, such as papal infallibility, is another mortal sin, one of the few that can get you an automatic excommunication:

These doctrines [divinely revealed truths] require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.

So according to the Pope, thinking that he could be wrong in a matter of faith and morals — such as his views on the evil of contraception — will get you automatically excommunicated. But then again, if you’re pro-RH, you probably disagree.

***

[1] On questioning the infallibility of the contraception teaching

Some progressive Catholics argue that the teaching on the inherent evil of contraception (let’s call it contraception teaching from here on) is not an infallible one. They make this mistake because they think that the only way for a teaching to be infallible is for it to be pronounced infallible by the Pope.

And officially, no Pope has pronounced the contraception teaching infallible by himself. But when a teaching is taught for a long time by most (if not all) Catholic bishops together with the Pope, the teaching is considered infallible — infallible by the Church’s teaching authority. This teaching authority is also known as the ordinary universal Magisterium. Some examples of teachings considered infallible in this way are the inherent evil of murder, prostitution, fornication, homosexual acts, abortion, euthanasia, ordination of women priests, and finally, contraception.

So although the teaching on contraception was not pronounced ex cathedra (with a solemn declaration of infallibility) by any pope, it is infallible by virtue of the unbroken tradition of bishops and popes collectively teaching its inherent evil.

The infallibility of the contraception teaching was the same conclusion reached by most Catholic theologians, both progressive — such as Hans Kung — and conservative — such as John C. Ford.

Because the teaching on contraception is an infallibly taught truth, it is a definitive doctrine and should therefore be held definitively by all Catholics.

But why must infallible truths be held definitively? When the Pope or the ordinary universal Magisterium teaches something infallibly, it is as if the teaching is made by God himself. This is reflected clearly by the following statements made by Pope John Paul II on the contraception teaching.

In the late 80s, he said that Humanae Vitae was “written by the creative hand of God in the nature of the human person,” and that Catholic theologians could not doubt the ban on contraception because doing so would be like doubting “the very idea of God’s holiness.” If that doesn’t convince you he thinks the contraception teaching is infallible, I don’t know what will.

[2] The difference between a sin of action and a sin of belief.

You may commit a sin, while believing that it is wrong. In this case all you have to do is confess and try your best not to do it again. But if your sin has to do with failing to believe something you’re supposed to believe, you can’t just confess. You have to change your belief as well. If you can’t ever change your belief — or don’t even want to try — then you’ll be in a state of perpetual sin.

Consider contraception. An anti-RH Catholic might out of “weakness” be forced to use a condom while thinking that it is immoral. He will be guilty until his next confession, or probably a few weeks after that. But once he confesses, the mortal sin is forgiven, and he’s back in full communion, worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist.

This success story does not apply to the pro-RH Catholic. If a pro-RH Catholic uses a condom and thinks it’s OK, he can’t just confess the action. Forget that it would be weird for him to confess something he doesn’t think is wrong. But even if he does confess the action, if he doesn’t change the belief, he’ll still be unworthy of the Holy Eucharist. And if he continues believing “immorally,” he never will be.

Of course, some will say you can believe something and at the same time think that the said belief is wrong. I won’t even try to get into that.

Pope John Paul II was beloved in the Philippines, which he visited twice during his reign, and all over the world. He was seen as the rock star pope, with a papacy that was known for its close ties with the laity. And when his almost 27 year reign as pope ended in 2005, after years of suffering Parkinson’s Disease, the people gathered at St. Peter’s Square shouted “santo subito!” (“sainthood now!”) and called him “John Paul the Great.” With his beatification this past May 1, sainthood is now all but assured.

The Catholic institution of canonization requires a total of two “verified” miracles in order to recognize a Catholic as being a saint who can hear prayers and intercede for those who ask for their help. It is theologically important to note that Christians are not “made” saints by the Church, but, rather, recognized. Before one is confirmed as a saint, however, one must first be beatified. In order to be beatified, a candidate must have one of the two required “verified” miracles under their belt.

The Roman Catholic Church takes miraculous claims seriously—having, until recently, the office of advocatus diaboli, or the Devil’s Advocate, which makes a case against the canonization of a particular candidate. Incidentally, it was John Paul II himself who abolished the office, which expedited hundreds of canonization proceedings. Christopher Hitchens, when he was asked to argue against the beatification of Mother Teresa after the dissolution of the office of the Devil’s Advocate, described his role as representing the devil “pro bono”. The Church investigates miraculous cures and requires that, in order to be attributable to the intercession of a candidate for canonization, the cure be instantaneous, complete, and lasting.

For John Paul II, one of his necessary miracles for canonization came in the form of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, who is said to have recovered from the incurable Parkinson’s disease, the same illness suffered by the late pontiff. Sister Simon-Pierre wrote the name of Pope John Paul II after his death on a piece of paper. The next day, she was apparently cured and resumed her duties in her order.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Sister Simon-Pierre was simply afflicted by an illness that had neurodegenerative appearances similar to Parkinson’s, but was curable. A doctor charged with investigating the nun’s condition aired out similar doubts.

But, even if the good Sister Simon-Pierre had Parkinson’s, what the Church is expecting its faithful (and the secular world) to accept is that her recovery was not a natural event. The Church is asking the world to consider that not only have the laws of the universe been suspended (let that sink in for a while: the laws of the universe have been suspended) but that they have been overturned in favor of the Roman Catholic Church and in a manner suspiciously convenient for its politics. With its pastiche of medical investigations that could earn a mid-season replacement spot on NBC, the Catholic Church purports its canonization procedures as scientific: skeptical and rigorous. And what could be more scientific and intellectually honest than concluding from an inexplicable recovery that a person who has died is now watching us from heaven and can help get our prayers to God answered?

With his recent beatification, John Paul II is now just one miracle shy of a confirmed sainthood. A confirmed sainthood would mean that the Roman Catholic Church believes on faith that John Paul II is, in fact, in a place called heaven, in the presence of someone called Jesus Christ. This is the level of pseudoscience, rivaling only ufology and homeopathy, that every believing Catholic has to swallow for each and every saint venerated inside their opulent cathedrals. It’s hard to imagine a bigger waste of human productivity. But for the sole political purpose of establishing John Paul II as a champion of the Roman Catholic Church and what it stands for, the recognition of his sainthood is perfectly appropriate.

Defenders of the current pope, Benedict XVI, cite Darío Cardinal Castríllon Hoyos when pointing the finger at the late John Paul II for the child rape scandal sweeping the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Hoyos served as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and was in charge of priests and deacons who are not in religious orders. In this capacity, he praised a French bishop, Pierre Pican, for not sending the child rapist Rev. Rene Bissey to “civil administration” and congratulated Pican for being “a model of a father who does not hand over his sons.” Cardinal Hoyos revealed that he did so under the approval of Pope John Paul II and was authorized to send his letter of praise to other bishops around the world. Pican served three months in prison for protecting the rapist. Bissey was sentenced to 18 years for the rape of a boy and the sexual assault of ten others.

A good friend of Pope John Paul II, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, “Father Maciel” as he was known, was the founder of the Legion of Christ. The pope described him as an “efficacious guide to youth.” Degollado used the Legion of Christ and his charismatic persona, targeting widows in particular, to funnel millions into Church coffers. The congregation’s assets have been estimated at 25 billion euros. Degollado had political clout with backers including current United States presidential hopeful Rick Santorum and the brother of former president George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, both noted conservatives in the Republican party. Father Maciel was honored by John Paul II in the Vatican in 2004 despite long-standing charges of sex abuse, which involved at least 20 Legion seminarians. As an efficacious guide to the youth, Degollado fathered several children, whom he also reportedly abused. The current pope, Benedict XVI, eventually invited Degollado to lead “a reserved life of prayer and penance”—apparently a punishment suitable for the crime. Degollado never faced any criminal sanctions and died in 2008 as a free man.

It was during Pope John Paul II’s reign when the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, the Holy See’s diplomat to Ireland, told Irish bishops that reporting the rape of innocent children to the proper authorities gave rise to “serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature.” Under John Paul II, Archbishop Storero upheld that canon law was above the secular law of a nation, showing a characteristic Vatican indifference to state sovereignty and cries for justice by their employees’ victims.

Pope John Paul II maintained when the first child rape cases started cropping up in the news that it was entirely an “American problem.” Like many other claims by the Church, this ultimately proved false. The Vatican’s position on the crisis was, and still is, that society, not the Church and its self-preservationist policies, is at fault with its permissiveness and “hyper-inflated” sexuality.

Society’s permissiveness apparently drove John Paul the Great to allow Hans Cardinal Hermann Groer, who molested over 2,000 boys (a number so large that it retains almost no meaning) to hide from police in a nunnery. Cardinal Groer eventually died there without being prosecuted for his crimes. Of course, the Church’s repressive Victorian attitudes towards sex, which were strengthened by Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana and reiterated in the Pope’s own The Splendour of Truth, which put the use of contraceptives on par with genocide, were not to blame for its systemic problem with sins against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue.

Pope John Paul II reinforced the old boys’ club of puritans and conservatives in the Catholic Church by having papal nuncios spy on clerics and recommend only for promotion to bishop those who were strongly against contraceptives. John Paul II’s policy of narrow-mindedness was crucial in the assembly of retrograde anachronisms that comprise the CBCP, as well as the other institutions that make up the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy we have today. This is his legacy to the world.

Filipino pilgrims led by Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales watched Pope John Paul II’s beatification ceremony this past May 1. It was their homage to a man who was indeed loved by Filipinos. While Pope John Paul II was undeniably a man who argued for peace and acted to heal religious strife between mutually contradictory faiths, he was also instrumental in the continued suffering of innocent children and the continued impunity enjoyed by child rapists in the Church. And because this moral inconsistency seems to be the spirit that guides the Church he left behind, there really is no one else better suited for sainthood than the Blessed John Paul II.

Attention fellow heathens, blasphemers, filibusters, fornicators, teroristas, and Nazis of all colors! If you don’t have any plans for this Sunday evening, you might want to take a look at ABS-CBN’s upcoming HARAPAN debate:

(Re-posted with permission from The Nightingale Chronicles)

HARAPAN
RH Bill: Ipasa o Ibasura?
The Grand Debate
May 8, 2011/Sunday/9:15pm – 11pm

Debate Moderators:

• Julius Babao
• Karen Davila

Venue:

PDA Hall or Studio 6 (ABS-CBN Compound)

Opening Statements ng Pro-RH at Anti-RH – 2mins each
Ano ang RH Bill? 3 Malalaking isyu sa bill

___________________________________________

Issue 1: Saan ba nagsisimula ang buhay? (When does life begin?)
Debate Proper I

Anti-RH

• Fr. Melvin Castro
• Dr. Ligaya Acosta
• Couples for Christ (CFC) representative

Pro-RH

• Protestant Bishop Rodrigo Tano
• Dr. Esperanza Cabral
• Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) representative

Poll Partial Results (Online & Text)

___________________________________________

Issue 2: Responsible Parenthood, Overpopulation, State Intervention, and Contraception
Debate Proper II

Anti-RH

• Rep. Anthony Golez
• Rep. Roilo Golez
• Joey Lina

Pro-RH

• Rep. Edcel Lagman
• Rep. Janette Garin
• Carlos Celdran

Fast Facts or Poll Partial Results (Online & Text)

___________________________________________

Issues 3: Sex Education, Access/Right to Information, Women’s Rights
Debate Proper III

Anti-RH

• Atty. Jo Imbong
• Christine Jacob Sandejas

Pro-RH

• Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel
• Beth Angsioco

___________________________________________

CONCLUSION: Summary of points raised
FINAL TALLY OF PULSO NG BAYAN (online & text surveys)

If it were a matter of brute strength, our side has that in spades ,with speakers like Ms. Baraquel, Ms. Angsioco, Mr. Celdran, and Dr. Cabral offering their collective ass-kicking rhetoric to defend the bill. It’s beauty and brains, muscle and finesse, all rolled into one deadly combination!

On the other hand, the opposition is also worth a look. Will Dr. Acosta befuddle us once again with  those unorthodox, mind-numbing tactics she’s become notorious for in previous bouts?

Will Golez whips his trademark rope-a-dope strategy to  wear down the opposition? What the man doesn’t have in technical finesse or instinct, he makes up for with experience and tenacity.

And of course, remember to participate in the polls – the Anti-RH bloc just loves to brag about how they’ve got the winning team. A good pharngulating of ABS-CBN’s polls should let them know otherwise.

In a recent interview, Ex-CBCP President Oscar Cruz said that Noynoy deserved to be excommunicated if he was proven to have an indirect hand in abortions due to the passage of the RH Bill (emphasis mine):

There are 2 ways for someone to be excommunicated. Abortion or harming the pope. But just in case the President signs the bill into law…he will not be excommunicated. Unless, if the church proves that he has an indirect hand on abortions, meaning because of his approval of the bill and abortions happen, then he becomes guilty,” Cruz warned.

According to Oscar, indirectly causing an abortion is grounds for excommunication. According to this logic, if the passage of the RH Bill causes a single person to have an abortion, then all those involved in passing the RH Bill are equally deserving of excommunication.

If the RH Bill passes, popular support will be one of the main reasons. According to a 2008 SWS survey, 7 out of 10 Catholics favor the passage of the RH Bill. Should pro-RH Catholics be excommunicated as well?

Whatever the CBCP decides, excommunication is their call — the Vatican’s, to be more precise. But consider this: If indirectly causing an abortion is grounds for excommunication, then the CBCP should excommunicate themselves first.

Here are the facts. Studies from all over the world show that increased contraception use reduces the number of induced abortions¹:

Recent studies offer strong evidence of a widely supposed but difficult-to-demonstrate benefit of reproductive health services: that increasing the use of effective contraception leads to declines in induced abortion rates.

In 2008, there were an estimated 560,000 induced abortions. If CBCP hadn’t been blocking the passage of an RH Bill for 13 years prior, this number would probably be a lot smaller. Stated more plainly, the CBCP is indirectly responsible for every abortion in the Philippines that could have been avoided through the information and contraception that a family planning program could have provided.

So before Oscar and the CBCP goes excommunication-happy on pro-RH Catholics, they should study the facts and check whether they still have the authority to excommunicate. They might have been auto-excommunicated a long time ago.

***

¹ In cases where increased contraception use fails to reduce abortion incidence, here’s the story:

In seven countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Turkey, Tunisia and Switzerland—abortion incidence declined as prevalence of modern contraceptive use rose. In six others—Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea—levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously. In all six of these countries, however, overall levels of fertility were falling during the period studied. After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea…

Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly.

The article “Lying for a Cause” generated a response from the creator of the anti-RH video, the core paragraphs of which are as follows:

In the said article, they accused us of purposely lying because in the video was a picture of a small kid being vaccinated. The video subtitle said it was sterilization and they point out that the picture was taken from another article regarding swine flu (?) and they go on ranting about this mistake, and how sterilizations are about vasectomy and ligations. They therefore concluded that we lied.

First of all, it is a given that I used pictures from all over the internet. Is this how Freethinkers are supposed to think? Cherry-pick on a small issue that is virtually a non-issue? That’s just shows the intellectual void between your ears. By focusing on that small point, they missed the larger point of the video. You miss the forest for the trees. But hey, let’s not stop them from doing their thing. They’re freethinkers after all. That is how they think.

Lastly, the article pointed out vasectomies and ligations as ways of sterilizations. Haven’t they heard of vaccines that were deliberately sterilized people? Try visiting this and read up: http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

Anti-RH groups have consistently hammered on artificial contraception as their main issue against reproductive health. Female sterilization is the most popular method of artificial contraception worldwide (20% use) and ranks second here in the Philippines (10% use). Opponents of RH should know what they are opposing. Sterilization, tubal ligation and vasectomy are not esoteric procedures. If the video’s creator thinks that not knowing what he is opposing is “virtually a non-issue”, I do hope responsible members of his group will tell him otherwise.

Besides the cherry-picking defense, the video’s creator came up with a bolder counterpoint: that there are vaccines that deliberately sterilize people. This claim is dangerous to infants and mothers and deserves a longer response.

First let’s tackle the source. Whale.to is a conspiracy theory site. It gave rise to Scopie’s Law which states: “In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room.” Others have written extensively on the website which you can read here and here, or you can simply browse www.whale.to and judge for yourself the general credibility of the site. This article’s point is more on the anti-RH video, specifically these two contradictory claims:

Anti-RH video says: “In 1916, Margaret Sanger formed Planned Parenthood. She believed in racial purity and targeted Black People. Adolf Hitler eventually adopted Sanger’s Eugenics… and killed more than 4 million Jews.”

Whale.to says: “There isn’t any evidence for homicidal gas chambers, only gas shelters or disinfection chambers to kill lice that spread Typhus (hence the use of Zyklon B), a major cause of death at the time and the reason for all the bodies seen in the mass graves at Belsen, that were used to convince people of Nazi ‘death camps.’ The gas chamber myth can easily be seen in the absurdity of the morgues that are passed off as gas chambers at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, and in the actual mechanics of using gas to kill humans (see Mechanics of Gassing Gas chambers). There also isn’t any written evidence for a policy of genocide known as the ‘Final Solution’.”

If the video’s creator thinks whale.to is credible enough to support his bold claim on vaccines that sterilize people, will he also believe the site’s extensive denial of Nazi death camps and drop his Sanger-Hitler-genocide argument? Or will he just admit his mistake on the sterilization-vaccination link? (Before answering, he may also want to examine first articles in the site that touch on Catholicism such as this one The Homosexual Colonization of The Catholic Church and this page Popes.)

This photo was used in the anti-RH video with the caption “…and killed more than 4 million Jews.” On the other hand, whale.to claims in the photo caption that these are victims of typhus and starvation.

Now on to the video’s message that contraception leads to genocide or is genocide. One test of this claim is to look at the Jewish people—the victims of Hitler’s genocide—and their current handling of contraception.

Genocide is punishable with death in Israel. Similar to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Israel defines the crime as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious (hereinafter referred to as ‘group’), as such:

(1)   killing members of the group;

(2)   causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(3)   inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part;

(4)   imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(5)   forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Yet, despite Act number 4 above being defined as genocide, contraception is legal and practiced in Israel, with 30% using IUDs, 13% pills, 4% condoms and 5% other modern methods. The key word in Act number 4 is “imposing”—making people use birth control against their will. Contraception based on free choice is legal and accepted.

Another test of the contraception-leads-to-genocide claim is to look at disparities in the use of modern methods in the Philippines. If less powerful groups are being targeted for destruction through contraception as part of a eugenics agenda, then we should see higher rates of contraceptive use among these groups. But the opposite trend is quite apparent—more powerful groups use more contraceptives (see table below). Instead of evidence of genocide, what we have are signs that marginalized people do not have equitable access to contraception.

Forcible sex is rape. Forcing others to follow your sexual practices violates a host of civil rights. Sex between consenting adults is accepted by society. Similar norms are applicable to contraception. Imposing birth control is genocide. Imposing Vatican-approved methods—as was done in Manila by ex-mayor Lito Atienza of Pro-Life Philippines—is a violation of human rights. The freedom to choose a family planning method and government services to realize the choice is a fine policy, and is at the core of the current Reproductive Health bill.

(Next: Erroneous claims on vaccines and abortion/sterilization and the deadly consequences for infants and women)

While many Filipino children are still being deprived of sex education thanks to conservative Catholic doctrine, a district in England, which already provides the much needed sex education, plans to teach children that Catholic dogma — or any kind of doctrine — is optional:

Education bosses in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire, have radically restructured the RE syllabus to accommodate non-religious beliefs.

Youngsters will continue to learn about the six major faiths – Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism – but they will also be taught humanism, the belief that there is no God or Gods, and that moral values are founded on human nature and experience.

The move recognises that more than 10,000 people in the borough do not have any religious beliefs. Both primary and secondary school pupils will be included in the shake-up.

Fiona Moss, from RE Today, which helped create the new syllabus, said: ‘We really must recognise that some people do not believe in God and do not have a religious background.

Sex education and Humanism education — I wonder which of the two the CBCP would oppose more?

In Blackburn with Darwen, though, it seems that religious leaders think both are OK. Here’s a religious leader’s take on HumEd (Hey, I like the sound of that.):

Reverend Kevin Logan, a local journalist, author and religious community leader, said: ‘It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

And here’s one Blackburn with Darwen bishop’s take on a 2009 plan to make sex education mandatory for children as young as five:

The Bishop of Burnley John Goddard said: “I would like to see parents informing their children but it is essential for this to happen in school if people feel unable to do this.”

It seems that in Blackburn with Darwen even bishops are in touch with reality. Although we have rational religious leaders of our own, it’s too bad it’s the idiots our government chooses to listen to.

My name is Jay Ignacio, an atheist who used to be a recording artist with Sony Music back in 1996. I am a founding member of the Silly People’s Improv Theatre (SPIT). I worked for Cheche Lazaro’s Probe Productions, Inc. back in 1997; taught Recording Technology and Sound Design at College of Saint Benilde; worked as Executive Chef for Chef Cuisine Catering Company, in charge of their Italian menus. Now I am venturing in to documentary film making, and my first project is called “The Bladed Hand: A Documentary On The Global Impact Of The Filipino Martial Arts”.

I am in the final editing stage of this docu which I plan to premiere in Manila by July this year, but I was sidetracked by recent events in my neighborhood. I spent 8 years in Southridge, from Grade 4 to 4th Year High School and am no big fan of Opus Dei and the Catholic Church.

I’d like to share with you two videos I made pertaining to the now infamous Ordinance #1-2011 that our Baranggay Most Holy have decided to come up with, and I hope the rest of the country does not follow in the footsteps of these oh-so-saintly Council Members who have violated the law in the name of Religion.

Enjoy!

Imagine if advocates of laissez-faire capitalism say to Congress, “Our taxes pay for government agencies that regulate our businesses and impose labor standards. But we are fundamentally opposed to such regulations and labor standards! Forcing us to pay is unjust and oppressive.” Should Congress cave in and eliminate these tax-funded measures that anger preachers of laissez-faire and objectivism? I think majority will say no. Most people want the goals of regulations and standards—like safe products, honest services and decent pay for employees and workers—and view them as established rights that must be protected.

Preachers of Catholic fundamentalism say something eerily similar about reproductive health (RH): “Our taxes will pay for artificial contraception. But we are fundamentally opposed to such services! Forcing us to pay is unjust and oppressive.” Should Congress heed this argument?

Public acceptability

It is true that Humanae Vitae forbids Catholics to use artificial contraception. But majority of Filipino Catholics do not believe or follow this papal encyclical. According to a 2010 SWS survey^[1], 69% of Catholics favor access to all legal means of family planning in government health facilities. The 2008 NDHS^[2] survey of 13,594 women—80% of whom are Catholics—shows that some 60% of currently married women had “ever used” a modern family planning method disapproved by Vatican. Another 38% had tried withdrawal^[3], a traditional method similarly banned by Vatican. In addition to Catholics who do not follow Humanae Vitae, other Filipinos have religions or norms that view artificial contraception as moral, and government will violate their freedom of religion and thought if such methods are singled out and excluded from public health services.

Thankfully, Catholic voices of reason and moderation are also being heard. Among them is Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Dean Emeritus of Ateneo Law School, who wrote the following in his blog:

The official Catholic teaching is that artificial contraception is immoral. Other religions believe in good faith otherwise. Seeking to impose Catholic belief and practices on non-Catholics and others violates freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not merely mean freedom to believe. It also means freedom to act or not to act according to one’s belief.

Religious objections

Using taxes for purposes that some people oppose on religious grounds is neither new nor unique to RH. Both Muslim and Jewish communities forbid drugs derived from pigs, yet example products like heparin (a drug for preventing blood clots) and MMR (measles, mumps & rubella) vaccines are in the Philippines’ core list of essential medicines, available in public health facilities and reimbursable through PhilHealth. Members of the Jehova’s Witness oppose medical blood products, yet we spend taxes for blood transfusion and organ transplant services. To manage these religious objections, individuals are simply allowed to refuse drugs and treatment and seek out alternatives.

Catholic bishops oppose the mere reading of Jose Rizals’ two novels, as expressed in the following statement they issued in 1956:

… [Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo] have included such substantial defects in their religious aspect as to render them objectionable reading in such sense that only with due permission obtained from ecclesiastical authority may these books be read by Catholics.  This permission, however, is readily granted for a justifiable reason, whenever the person concerned has sufficient knowledge of the Catholic doctrine in question.

Despite the bishops’ opposition, we spend taxes teaching Rizal’s novels in public schools as mandated by Republic Act No. 1425.

Cost effectivity

Finally, some people fear the tax burden of RH, especially the cost of supporting contraception. The fear is unfounded. Local and international studies by the Guttmacher Institute show that voluntary contraception will reduce total health costs by lowering the maternal and newborn care spending that come with unintended pregnancies.

In the Philippines, providing modern contraception to all women who need them^[4] would increase the total public and private spending from P1.9 billion to P4.0 billion^[5]. However, the increase would be offset by contraception’s impact on health spending for unintended pregnancies, which would fall from P3.5 billion to P0.6 billion. In sum: family planning costs would rise by P2.1 billion; medical costs for unintended pregnancies would fall by P2.9 billion; a net savings of P0.8 billion would be realized.

The details of the estimate are available online, but the following scenario may help explain the projected savings in public health. A woman belonging to the poorest 20% of families would, on the average, plan for three children but end up with five. If she has been enrolled in PhilHealth as required by regulations, the state health insurance agency would have to spend P6,500 for each normal childbirth; around P17,800 for each caesarean delivery; and P1,000 for each infant given a newborn care package. Two unplanned births would therefore cost P15,000 to P37,600. Around half would be paid for by PhilHealth^[6] and the rest shouldered by the woman or, if not yet depleted, by the public hospital’s funds for indigent patients. In comparison, PhilHealth spends only P4,000 for each tubal ligation or vasectomy, and less than P500 for a copper-IUD that could last for up to 10 years.

Public goods deserve public funding. Reproductive health is a public good with a wide range of benefits. It is understood and supported by most people. For the minority with objections on religious or other grounds, the freedom to use or not use such services should suffice. And on top of all these, RH services saves money. What more can anyone ask for?

designed by Julian Rodriguez

I come from a devout Catholic family and studied in a grade and high school that was non-sectarian (secular) but run by Opus Dei, a conservative organization in the Catholic Church. In my freshman year in high school I was taught sex education for a few weeks during Health class. The sex ed portion was eventually scrapped because of some complaints from parents.

My whole family staunchly opposes the Reproductive Health bill and wholeheartedly supports the ordinance. My mom and I both attended the public hearing last Saturday, but she was on the pro side — I was on the anti side. I’m pretty much the only one in my family that is for the RH bill and against the ordinance — and yes, it can get quite lonely.

In light of last Saturday’s public hearing on Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011, I would like to share with you this letter I mailed to the barangay chairman on how the ordinance is anti-woman and supports a culture of reproductive oppression. This letter was supposed to be my 5-minute speech but the format of the hearing was changed and I could not deliver it.

***
21 March 2011

CHAIRMAN ALFRED XEREZ-BURGOS
Barangay Ayala Alabang
Narra St, Ayala Alabang Village

Dear Mr. Xerez-Burgos,

Many women may feel the same way I do about Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011 and some of them cannot speak for themselves because they are scared of how society will brand them. I am writing this letter on behalf of these women and oppose Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01-2011.

For my entire life, I have been blessed to live in a country where I can receive a university education, choose a career, and participate in elections. I can wear whatever I want and I am not required to cover myself head to toe in cloth. Arranged marriages are a thing of the past – I can actually choose my own husband and I can marry when I please. I have been so privileged compared to my female ancestors, but one thing that has not changed is that I still live in a culture of reproductive oppression.

I believe this ordinance will continue to uphold this culture of reproductive oppression instead of eradicate it. By censoring the sex education I and other residents in this village would like to receive, I will be deprived of my right to learn about my sexual rights. The first time I heard about sex was in 5th grade, in a conversation with classmates. The school I attended for my elementary and high school education forbade sex education to be taught. My mother did eventually tell me about sex, but again, it was very limited. I have learned about the process of conception but I have yet to arm myself with the right information to protect myself from sexually transmitted infections, defend myself from unwanted sex and sexual harassment, or avoid pregnancies. When this ordinance is passed, it will become illegal for me to learn about birth control – other than natural means – in the confines of this barangay. I will continue to be a victim of dishonest sex education.

In this day and age, I believe it is my right to plan my pregnancies in the way that I choose, through both natural and artificial means. Yes, I included artificial birth control because I do not share the same sentiments you have. I believe that women deserve to be in control of their bodies and to exercise their own conscientious choices when it comes to reproductive health care. We have the right to all the information we need to make decisions about sex. This barangay institution, which is meant to safeguard and provide care for its residents, will systematically block women from being fully informed.

Mr. Xerez-Burgos, what offends me the most about this ordinance is that it aims to damage my reputation when I go to the drugstore to purchase birth control and a logbook has to be filled out with my private information that is nobody’s business and certainly not the barangay’s business. I will be labeled as an abortion practitioner if I use FDA-approved non-abortive contraceptives. Is this the 17th century where my information in this logbook will essentially become a scarlet letter, a badge of shame that will be pinned on my person? And because most artificial contraceptives were created to be used by women such as birth control pills and intra-uterine devices, the reputation of all women who choose to use artificial birth control will be in danger.

This ordinance upholds a culture of reproductive oppression against anyone who can get pregnant: women. This oppression is unfortunately scarily invisible, even to us who experience it, because it continues to be normalized and institutionalized. Being raised a devout Catholic without any reliable or scientifically accurate information about birth control or sex, thereby risking my health and the health of my future children, is a form of oppression. Needing a prescription to purchase a condom, is oppression. Having my decision to use artificial birth control judged as abortion is oppression. Being treated with hostility and shame for using artificial birth control is oppression. Not being able to get proper sex education from the barangay is oppression.

I oppose this ordinance because I believe the lives of women matter.

I oppose this ordinance because women should have the right to decide when and if they get pregnant, give birth, and raise children – not the barangay, nor the Church.

I oppose this ordinance because I believe that the right to control your own reproduction is a fundamental right and is protected under the Constitution and basic human rights ideals. I believe that the fundamental right includes the right to prevent pregnancy and the right to get pregnant, whether through natural or artificial means.

I oppose this ordinance because I do not believe that anyone should be legally compelled to expose their sex lives to the public.

I oppose this ordinance because I realize that my rights to birth control, to have children, and to make my own decisions hinge on my basic ability to decide when and if I reproduce.

I oppose this ordinance because I do not believe that people should be criminalized for exercising reproductive freedom and freedom of speech.

I oppose this ordinance because I am a woman and women deserve better.

Mr. Xerez-Burgos, thank you in anticipation of your kind consideration and I look forward to your reply*.

Best,
Marie Gonzalez

[*} Republic Act 9485 (2007), also known as the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, mandates that public officials must respond to letters of citizens within 5-10 days from receipt with a report on the action taken on the matter. This is to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property.

The image used for this article was printed on shirts anti-Ordinance advocates wore at the public hearing. It was created by Julian Rodriguez.

Reading certain passages from Humanae Vitae makes one wonder why the Church allows natural methods of birth control while remaining strongly opposed to the use of contraceptives:

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act…

…an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

Impairs the capacity to transmit life. ‘Impair’ is an active word, it is a commission and not just an omission. While abstaining from sex during the fertile period is really just an omission of a certain act in the transmission of life, it’s the counting of days since the wife’s last menstruation and the charting of her temperature to be sure she’s “safe” that constitutes the commission part. So why is natural family planning allowed? Recently released official documents of the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate shed some light. The following is an excerpt from the minority report (click here for an article on the majority report) drafted by the Jesuit theologian John Ford with assistance from another Catholic theologian, Germain Grisez:

.

But is the objection really ‘nugatory’? (I had to look that up and it means “of little or no importance; trifling.”) Let us try to dissect that passage and examine it carefully:

The only difference between artificial and natural methods of birth control is the timing, that is, when the act of birth control takes place. In natural family planning the method is applied before intercourse while in contraception it is during intercourse (the pill may be taken before intercourse but its effects are present during intercourse). But the intent is the same: to isolate the unitive significance from the procreative significance of the marriage act (in non-ecclesiastical language that means to enjoy sex without getting someone pregnant). As Igme once said, “What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch? The intent is the same!”

In case the similarity is still not clear, let us use an analogy about releasing baby turtles into the sea. Let’s try to find the difference between the two:

a. Building a concrete wall along the beach to prevent the turtles from reaching the ocean

b. Releasing the turtles when the tide is out and the sun is scorching hot and the only shade under which the baby turtles can get protection from the deadly heat is from the shadows of hungry sea gulls flying overhead

In both cases the effect is the same: the baby turtles do not make it to the safety of the water, much less into adulthood. While the first is obviously a deliberately preventive act, the second, if we take a moment to think about it, turns out to be just as deliberately preventive. The concrete wall may be an artificial intervention in the life cycle of turtles, but the timing of the release during extremely unfavorable conditions is really just the same in terms of intent and effect, even if it merely takes advantage of “a faculty provided by nature.”

So why does the Church allow natural methods but not artificial ones? The only logical explanation I can think of is that the Church has a strong preference for – a complete obsession with – the adjective natural. And if this is the case, as it probably is (if you think I’m wrong there’s a comment section below), the following passage from Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene says it best:

It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for ‘natural’ methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.

And since starvation is natural for as long as we simply allow women to bear babies into a world where there is not enough food without actively robbing them of their food, there should be nothing intrinsically evil about it. Children dying of hunger and disease are just succumbing to a population control faculty provided by nature, and maybe that’s why the Church seems more concerned about sperm cells slamming against the wall of a condom, ending their lives in an unnatural rubbery death – while millions still wouldn’t make it to the egg, much less to the womb, even without any form of birth control.

In this episode we recap what happened at the public hearing on the Ayala Alabang Village Ordinance that, among other things, required prescriptions for contraceptives — even condoms.

We talk about how the ordinance was created, what the anti-ordinance advocates are doing to stop it, and what we’re going to do next, given recent developments and all that’s happened at today’s hearing.

Joining us is Kevin Punzalan, one of the organizers of the anti-ordinance advocates and admin of the We Oppose the Ayala Alabang Ordinance 01 of 2011 Facebook group. Enjoy!

“Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!” (Enough! Priests should not interfere with our private parts!)

This was the call of the Filipino Freethinkers today at a protest program staged in front of St. Peter Parish in line with International Women’s Day. (Learn more about the other events of the day here.) Garbed in clothes drenched in fake blood, performers representing the 11 women who die daily from lack of access to reproductive health services called for the end of church interference in matters of women’s and reproductive rights, and the immediate passage of the Reproductive Health Bill into law.

The organization joined thousands of women at the mobilization with the theme of “Marching for RH, Marching for Life!” They called on lawmakers to hasten the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill, which is currently pending in the House of Representative.

The protagonists of the program cited instances of bigotry, discrimination, and deceit by the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines towards women, specifically with regards to the reproductive health rights. One antagonist was dressed as a bishop, representing the CBCP and pro-life groups; another was dressed as a politician, representing the politicians who pander to and obey the CBCP.

“The Catholic Church has been oppressing women from the start,” said Red Tani, president of the Filipino Freethinkers. “In the Old Testament, they were raped and enslaved, treated as nothing more than a man’s property. In the New Testament, they were kept in submission to their husbands and fathers, forbidden to speak, learn, or hold positions of authority. These oppressive teachings and practices have continued throughout the centuries, initiated by ignorant bigots and perpetuated by celibate bishops.”

Below is the script of the play. It was written by Dustin Celestino and Kristine Chan.

***

SCENE 1

Bishop is on pulpit telling 11 women what to do.

BISHOP: Tayo! Luhod! Talikod! Higa! Higa! Tayo! Luhod! Talikod! Talon! Hahahaha!

They women are shackled by rosaries. One woman starts to get fed up and decides to complain. BISHOP keeps making commands and WOMAN starts shaking her head.

MAIN WOMAN: Ayoko na!

BISHOP: Luhod! Tayo! Talikod! Higa! Tayo!

MAIN WOMAN: Ayoko na!

MAIN WOMAN goes up the pulpit and starts to rally the 10 other women.

MAIN WOMAN: Sawang sawa na ako… Sawang sawa na ako sa paninisi, pangaapi, at pangaalipin sa mga kababaihan ng simbahang katoliko. Mula pa sa alamat ni Eba at Adan, babae na raw ang may kasalanan. Babae ang ipinalabas na siyang dahilan sa pagpapalayas ng mag-asawa mula sa paraiso at sa pagpaparusa at pagpapahirap sa sankatauhan. Sawang sawa na ako.

BISHOP: Luhod! Tayo! Talikod! Tuwad!

MAIN WOMAN: Ayoko na! [to Bishops] Hindi niyo ba ako naririnig? Sawang sawa na ako sa pagbabaliwala sa boses ng kababaihan. [to Women] Kayo? Hindi pa ba kayo nagsasawa? Kailangan yata sabay sabay pa tayong sumigaw at magreklamo para marinig tayo. Manindigan tayo para sa mga kababaihang inapi, inalipin, at inalipusta!

BISHOP: Luhod! Tayo! Talikod! Tuwad!

10 women shake their heads.

SCENE 2

MAIN WOMAN: [To Bishop] “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!” Itigil niyo na ang pagtrato sa amin na parang mga kagamitan at pagmamayari ninyong mga kalalakihan! Sigaw ng kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Noong unang panahon, ipinagbawal ng simbahan ang pag-aaral ng kababaihan. At hanggang ngayon kung anu-ano ang ipinagbabawal na maaaring makapagpabuti ng kalagayan ng kababaihan – tulad na lamang ng RH bill. Sigaw ng mga kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Noong 1692 ilang kababaihan ang pinatay at pinahirapan ng mga tauhan ng simbahan sa bintang na pangungulam – mga bintang na walang katibayan. Ngayon, kung anu-anong bintang ang ibinabato sa mga inang piniling ipagtanggol ang sariling katawan sa delikadong pagbubuntis sa pamamagitan ng pag-gamit ng pills. Sigaw ng mga kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Ipinagbawal ng simbahan maging pari ang mga kababaihan. Parang sinasabi na di pantay ang halaga ng mga lalaki at babae. Hanggang ngayon, wagi pa rin sa mata ng simbahan ang opinyon at boses ng kalalakihan. Mga lalaki pa rin ang nagdedesisyon, mga pari, kung ano ang nararapat sa katawan ng mga babae. Sigaw ng kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Maraming madre sa mundo, lalo na sa AFRICA, ang ginagahasa ng mga mismong pari para makaiwas ang mga hayop na ‘to sa AIDS. At hanggang sa Pilipinas, babae pa rin ang tumatanggap ng ganitong abuso. Gayunpaman, patuloy pa rin ang simbahan sa pagbabawal ng mga kontraseptibong maaaring makapagligtas ng buhay ng maraming kababaihan. Sigaw ng kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Maraming babae sa mundo ang itinakwil ng simbahan dahil sa kanilang pagpapalaglag para sagipin ang sariling buhay. Para sa simbahan, mas importante pa ang buhay na walang malay kesa sa buhay ng isang babae. Sigaw ng kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Patuloy pa rin hanggang ngayon ang pagsisiwalat ng kasinungalingan tungkol sa mga kontraseptibong maaaring makapagligtas sa buhay ng maraming kababaihan. Sigaw ng kababaihan!

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

WOMAN: Wala kayong paki… Sa aming mga puke.

SCENE 3

Bishop stands from seat and starts laughing. Evil laughter echoes. Bishop walks around with congressman on leash. Bishop walks around woman and congressman crawls like a dog and threatens the woman.

BISHOP [to congressman]: Tama na daw? Hahahahaha! Anong tama na! Ito ang tama!

BISHOP: Kami ang masusunod kung ano ang mali’t tama, kaming magdidikta ng inyong mga kunsensiya. Kapag pinayagan gumamit ng mga condom ang mga tao, mas lalo silang lilibog at magiging masama.

CONGRESSMAN: TAMA! [Howls like a dog]

One woman falls dead…

BISHOP: Maraming rin sakit ang maaaring makuha sa paggamit ng condom – tulad ng kanser. May butas ang condom na maaaring lusutan ng HIV virus kaya’t hindi naman talaga ito nakakatulong sa pag-protekta sa mga STD. Ang totoo nga niyan, mas lalong kumakalat ang HIV at AIDS dahil sa mga condom!

CONGRESSMAN: TAMA! [Howls like a dog]

TWO WOMEN: TAMA NA!

Two women fall dead…

BISHOP: Hindi dapat turuan tungkol sa sex at sa sariling katawan ang kabataan. Bukod diyan, dapat hayaang mamatay ang mga inang may komplikasyong dahil mas mahalaga ang buhay ng isang fetus. Hindi rin dapat mag isip para sa sarili ang mga babae. Dapat mga paring lalaki ang magisip at magdesisyon para sa kanila.

CONGESSMAN: TAMA! [Howls like a dog]

THREE WOMEN: TAMA NA!

Three women fall dead…

BISHOP:Ang hindi sumunod sa payo at turo ng mga pari ay hindi tunay na katoliko. Ang sumuporta sa RH bill ay hindi tunay na katoliko. Ang gumamit ng condom at pills para magplano ng pamilya ay mapupunta sa impyerno!

CONGRESSMAN: TAMA! [Howls like a dog]

FOUR WOMEN: TAMA NA!

Four women fall dead…

BISHOP: Ang gobyerno ay hindi dapat makinig sa hinaing ng mamamayan o kababaihan; dapat simbahan ang kanilang pakinggan. Ang simbahan ay ni minsan hindi nagkakamali sa kahit anong bagay. Sa kahit anong debate o kontrobersiya sila ang nagwawagi sa huli.

CONGRESSMAN: TAMA! [Howls like a dog]

MAIN WOMAN: TAMA NA!

MAIN WOMAN falls dead…

AFTER 1 MINUTE…

OTHER WOMEN: “Tama na! Di dapat makialam ang pari, sa aming mga ari!”

11 women get up with bloody tummies.

NARRATOR: Labing-isang babae ang namamatay araw-araw dahil sa mga kumplikasyong dala ng pagbubuntis, panganganak, at di tamang kaalaman ukol sa kalusugan. Wag nating hayaan ang ganitong kapabayaan sa kalusugan ng mga kababaihan. Ipasa na ang RH Bill! Di dapat makialam ang pari sa aming mga ari.

An open letter to the CBCP delivered by more than a thousand women and their supporters had this simple message: “Eleven women die every day from pregnancy and childbirth, a continuing tragedy that can be ended by the RH bill you are blocking.” To stress the point that bishops are partly responsible for these deaths, women carried streamers with this question: “Do bishops care?”

A day or two later, CBCP News published a report with a short reply and disturbing indications that the CBCP representative did not even care to read the bill.

Let us start with the most obvious error. CBCP secretary general Msgr. Juanito Figura called for more health facilities and personnel to show that they are concerned about Filipino women, evidently unaware that the RH bill has very detailed provisions on these matters.

From the past Congress to the current one, versions of the RH bill had called for the hiring of fulltime skilled birth attendants (SBA) to achieve a ratio of 1 SBA to 150 deliveries. SBAs are midwives, doctors or nurses “educated and trained in the skills needed to manage normal (uncomplicated) pregnancies, childbirth and the immediate postnatal period, and in the identification, management and referral of complications in women and newborns.” The ratio of 1 to 150 is based on the experience of successful countries like Malaysia, where the maternal mortality ratio^[1] has been reduced to 50 and below since 1985, compared to the Philippines’ 162 in 2006.

Previous and current versions of the RH bill had also called for the setting up or upgrading of hospitals and other health facilities to provide emergency obstetric care (EmOC). Six lifesaving measures must be present for a facility to qualify as capable of basic EmOC; eight in a hospital tagged as comprehensive. Among these lifesaving measures are the administration of parenteral^[2] antibiotics, blood transfusion and delivery by cesarean section. The RH bill also targeted a ratio of 1 comprehensive plus 4 basic facilities for every 500,000 people to ensure sufficient and well-distributed services. All of these steps come from lessons in other countries and recommendations by the World Health Organization and other international agencies.

Next, Msgr. Figura cited “social inequities” as among the reasons for the deaths and sufferings of Filipino women, especially the poor, and claimed that the RH bill “can even worsen the already real and present problems.”

Social inequities abound in health care, including reproductive health. Long queues; women due for delivery sent away to prioritize those already in active labor; two or more mothers sharing a bed—all these are common scenes in obstetric wards of public hospitals. The bishops must truly be out of touch with the lives of poor people to claim that RH measures will worsen social inequities.

In the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), comparisons between the poorest and the richest quintile (20%) of women illustrate the serious inequities in reproductive health:

• 26% of the poorest women have been managed in childbirth by a SBA, compared to 94% of the richest;
• 13% of the poorest women have given birth in a health facility, compared to 84% of the richest;^[3]
• 1% of the poorest women have delivered via cesarean section, compared to 28% of the richest.^[4]

The RH bill seeks to remedy inequities through additional funds, facilities and personnel for the public health sector frequented by poor women. If these are not done, 11 women will continue to die every day from maternal complications. More often than not, these are women who can never set foot inside the air-conditioned single rooms of private hospitals.

Next, Msgr. Figura explained that among the reasons why bishops reject the RH bill is “its overall trajectory towards population control.” Wrong again. Freedom of choice and reproductive rights are among the fundamental principles in the RH bills. Reproductive rights are human rights, and in essence guarantee the rights of couples, individuals and women to “decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; to determine the number, spacing and timing of their children; [and] to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.” To make these principles enforceable, the RH bill prohibits public officials from forcing people to use or not use family planning services.

Surveys indicate that most women and couples want to have smaller families. Institutions and groups that wish to overturn this social trend through clandestine deals, political pressures, surprise ordinances and other undemocratic means are the ones engaged in population control.

Finally, Msgr. Figura said that bishops reject the RH bill because it intends to “use public funds to subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services.” The 2008 NDHS shows that among married women, 54% do not want to have any more children, and 19% want to delay the next birth by two or more years. If these women can avoid pregnancy, then they would not be in any danger of maternal death. If the government will help them use a method of their choice—whether artificial or natural family planning—then taxes would have been used to prevent maternal complications and deaths.

In a pluralistic and secular society, contraception and sterilization are not self-evidently objectionable. The CBCP’s short reply noticeably dropped any mention of Humanae Vitae or the natural moral law that usually underpin its opposition to contraception and sterilization. This is a good sign. Now if they would just read the bill.