In a recent editorial entitled, “Two-pronged war against poverty,” Sun Star Cebu, a daily newspaper, claimed that the Philippines’ rising population is “one of the basic causes of pervasive poverty and which has become central to the reproductive health controversy.”

This is false and obsolete thinking.

Numerous economic studies have shown that there is no causal link or correlation between poverty and population growth. In the paper “A Primer on the proposed Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood, and Population Development Consolidated Bill,” Dr. Roberto de Vera cites Nobel Prize winner Simon Kuznets’ 1966 book, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread, which concluded: “no clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita.”

More recent studies have supported Kuznets’ original conclusion and applied it to all nations in general. De Vera cites five more:

“(1) the 1992 Ross Levine and David Renelt study of the relationship between growth and its determinants found no significant effect of population growth on economic growth;

(2) the 1994 Jeff King and Lant Pritchett study arrived at a similar finding where they allowed the effect of population on economic growth to vary according to the level of development and resource scarcity;

(3) in a 1996 review of the population-growth-poverty relationship, Dennis Ahlburg points out that studies have shown population growth has little or no effect on poverty;

(4) in a 2004 study examining the determinants of long-term growth, Gernot Dopelhoffer, Ronald Miller, and Xavier Sala-I-Martin, found that average annual population growth from 1960-1990 was not robustly correlated with economic growth;

(5) the 2007 Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wommann study found that total fertility rates, which can be seen as an alternative measure of population growth, did not have a statistically significant association with population growth.”

Dr. De Vera goes on to say:

Similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists in 1992.

Moreover, these studies support Kuznets’s explanation of why no direct relationship could be expected between population growth and economic growth. Population growth and economic growth are linked through a “common set of political and social institutions.” Thus, any “direct causal relation” between them “may be quite limited.” Moreover, any relationship that is measured cannot be used as a basis for managing population to affect economic growth.

It is important to note that even if there are recent econometric studies that show that population growth is negatively correlated with per capita income growth in the Philippine case (i.e. an increase in the population growth rate leads to decrease in the per capita income growth rate), these studies cannot conclude that higher population growth rates causes lower per capita income growth rates. It is more probable that there are intervening factors such as those mentioned by Kuznets that may cause economic growth. This these studies cannot serve as bases for a policy that aims to reduce population growth to raise per capita income growth.

For the Sun Star to say that population growth causes poverty is unscientific. Overpopulation is clearly a myth.

The real causes of poverty in the Philippines are massive corruption, bad governance, economic mismanagement, indiscriminate debt servicing, greed, and war (in Mindanao). The so-called “reproductive health” bill and its population control measures will not address these issues; but the Church’s social teaching — if put into practice — certainly will.

(NOTE: This post also appeared in my blog at http://mamador.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/obsolete-thinking-again/)

Barbie sets up

“True Love Waits.” That line might sound corny, but it’s an important truth our youth need to hear.

Consider this: Everyday they are bombarded with trendy messages telling them that if something feels good then it must be morally good. They are told that sex is fun, and that you don’t have to face its consequences as long as you have “safe” sex. No wonder then that so many of them engage in it before they are ready and — when contraceptives fail as they eventually will — they have to grow up quickly because of new, unexpected responsibilities.

Or, worse, they may end up murdering the innocent, unborn fruit of their indiscretion through abortion.

Is sex education the answer, as the proponents of the RH Bill say? Not if it just encourages more promiscuous behavior and even more health and social problems.

Fortunately, there is a viable, truly life-saving and life-changing alternative: education in purity and life values.

That is exactly what True Love Waits (TLW) Philippines (http://wagmuna.com and http://www.tlw.ph) is trying to do. The movement, which is affiliated with LifeWay Student Ministry, has a four-fold purpose (taken from the TLW Philippines website):

• GUIDE young people to make a commitment to sexual abstinence until marriage.
• GIVE young people who have made a commitment to abstinence a chance to reaffirm that promise and challenge other young people to do so.
• GUIDE parents of young people to make or reaffirm a commitment to Godly standards of sexual behavior and model a life committed to sexual purity.
• GIVE adults a tangible way to affirm and encourage young people who make a commitment to sexual abstinence until marriage.

Now that’s a whole lot better than teaching kids how to use condoms!

This month, on May 15, TLW will be conducting a Purity Conference Strategic Planning Session. The event will be held at the Waterfront Hotel in Lahug, Cebu City, from 9:00AM to 12:00 noon, and is for teachers, guidance counselors, leaders of youth organizations, and just about anyone else who wants to help organize the upcoming Purity Mega Event to be held on September 19, 2009, called UNASHAMED Cebu. Entrance is FREE.

Derek Ross, the group’s national Director, will be in Cebu to meet with interested parties at the planning conference and even afterwards. Derek’s a Texan, married with five kids, and likes to refer to himself as “Zaido, Pulis Pangkalokohan!” Yeah, I know. Don’t ask me where he got that one.

Barbie gives her testimony

I attended the UNASHAMED Purity Conference held at the Mega Tent in Pasig last February. It was meaty, straightforward, and did not beat around the bush. It gave the participants straight talk on issues that matter in their lives, and did it all with a good dose of fun and humor. At the end we were treated to some good live music. I had the privilege and pleasure to see Barbie (of Barbie’s Cradle) perform again. She’s such a beautiful, blessed, and talented lady. Her testimony touched me as I’m sure it touched so many others. This is something your kids (and even you) shouldn’t miss.

See you at UNASHAMED Cebu on September 19!

For more information, contact Ree Soria, TLW’s national Media Coordinator, at 0926-6102514

Position Paper: Catholic Alumni United for Life

http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043′s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

HB 5043 violates explicit Catholic teaching

Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.[4]

HB 5043, however explicitly promotes the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptive methods and devices, and provides funding for their procurement and distribution. In fact, HB 5043 mandates that contraceptives shall be classified as “essential medicine”. The claim, therefore, that the Bill is pro-life and is consistent with Catholic doctrine is totally false. No Catholic can support HB 5043 without violating the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

HB 5043 violates the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine Constitution, in Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception. It states:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

An abortifacient, however, causes the eventual destruction of the fertilized egg — of newly-conceived life. HB 5043, as stated earlier, promotes and funds such abortifacients. It therefore violates the Philippine Constitution.

HB 5043 is anti-women and anti-poor

While HB 5043 claims to prevent maternal death, its supporters fail to grasp that the great majority of such deaths are caused by the lack of proper medical facilities and care. Instead of using resources on controversial contraceptive methods and services, more good will be done by using such funds for basic health care, eliminating the real cause of maternal deaths. The Bill, however, does not address this lack of basic health care services, and will allow the problem to persist while it wastes funds on abortifacients and other ineffective reproductive health measures.

HB 5043 is coercive and violates freedom of speech

Section 21 (e) of the proposed bill lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.[5] It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients and other contraceptives to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000! HB 5043 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.

A call for Catholic unity and fidelity to Christ

No Catholic can support HB 5043 and remain faithful to the teachings of Christ, given to the Apostles and handed down through the centuries by the Church. To claim otherwise is deceptive and involves distortions of authentic Catholic teaching and flawed reasoning, if not outright falsehood.

For these reasons, we vigorously oppose HB 5043 and call on our respective alma mater — respected Catholic institutions — to unambiguously, unequivocally and publicly take a stand against HB 5043.

We also call on all Catholic educational institutions to rigorously examine their own different situations to determine whether the education they impart to Catholic students in their charge is faithful to the Magisterium, and to take steps to correct any contradictions being taught in the name of the Church.

December 2008
In Christ,

The Signatories

Emmanuel R. Amador
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Communication Arts (1984)
AB Philosophy (1985)

Marietta M. Aguado
Xavier University (1958)
Maryknoll College (1960)
De La Salle University (2006)

Bernard Bagaman
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Communication Arts (1984)

Philip V. Beley
Ateneo de Manila University
High School (1976)

Ricardo B. Boncan
Ateneo de Manila University
Grade School (1979)
High School (1983)

Tomas Borromeo
De La Salle University (Taft)
High School (1968)

Anna Filomena V. Generoso
School of the Holy Spirit (Q.C.)
High School (1986)

Jose Miguel R. Gomez
Ateneo de Manila University
AB Interdisciplinary Studies (1983)

Antonio Carlos Palad
Angelicum School (GS)
Holy Trinity Academy
High School (1998)

Atty. Jan Ralph Y. Perez, CPA
University of San Carlos
High School (1995)
BS-Accountancy (2000)
Bachelor of Laws Batch (2005)

Endnotes

1. One such study, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,”
   (http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126) came to the following conclusion:

   “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”

2. CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:
   

   “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”

   Another study by Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, “Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects,” which appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, notes:

   “There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”

3. Section 9 of the Bill subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement.
4. A short listing of some of these early Church Fathers, along with quotations from their writings, can be found in the January 1996 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. This article may also be found online at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM The relevant sections of The Catechism of the Catholic Church are Part Three: Life in Christ, Section Two: The Ten Commandments, Chapter Two: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, Article six: The Sixth Commandment, #2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370. These sections are online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm An english version of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

   An english version of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

   An english version of the Vademecum may be found online at the Holy See’s website:
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

5. As Cong. Pablo John Garcia said: “Section 21 (e) is plainly stupid, placed there, I believe, by a ‘pikon’ author. RH bill proponents complain of the ‘religious pressure’ brought to bear. Section 21 (e) seeks to elevate the RH bill into a state-mandated religion.”

The rights of the unborn and freedom of religion are under grave attack. Congressman Lagman’s anti-life Bill pending in Congress, now known as consolidated House Bill 5043, has been gaining support.If we don’t do something about it, Congress may just make the Bill into law.

The so-called “reproductive health” Bill contains provisions that promote abortion and will force people to act against their conscience.

Section 9 of the Bill, for example, subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement. Hormonal contraceptives and the IUD, however, are known abortifacients. They prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum (which is already a human being whose rights are recognized and protected by the Philippine Constitution), eventually leading to its destruction. This is an early chemical abortion.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonably quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.”

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, trampling on their religious rights. Those who refuse are subject penalties ranging from 1-6 months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000!

Stand Up and Be Counted

Couples for Christ has launched an online campaign against this monstrosity posing as a “health” Bill. Check out the following URL:

Kill Bill 5043
http://www.prolife.cfcinternationalmissions.com/

There’s another petition against HB 5043, this time created by an individual. Please sign this too!

No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/petition.html

Be counted and kill this murderous Bill! We have to stand and protect the rights of unborn children and the right of each of person to follow his conscience, free of government coercion. Online petitions may not have the force of written petitions with real signatures, but they do have some moral force. If you wish to register your opposition to this Bill online, you may do so using those petitions.

If you have time, you may also wish to write a letter to your favorite newspaper, your local government officials, and to your Congressman and any Senator. Let them know you are against this coercive and dangerous Bill.

And in 2010, make sure you DON’T vote for Lagman and his accomplices in Congress.

(Warning: this post mentions some mature — even sickening — concepts. It is not intended for young readers)

The proponents of same-sex marriage want to change a revered institution to accommodate the sexual preferences of certain groups. These groups often include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transexuals (sometimes referred to as the LGBT sector). Now while that may sound very inclusive and tolerant, their advocacy is actually based on faulty logic that will eventually lead to disaster.

Many people assume that because the institution marriage involves a relationship between a man and a woman (with God as Witness and Judge), then it must also be based on sexual preference: the distinctly heterosexual preference of the majority. That is not exactly the case.

God’s created reality as the basis of marriage

It is true that marriage — especially Christian marriage — is a monogamous heterosexual union. But the sexual preference of the human participants alone is NOT its basis. If it were, then it would be subject to change at any time, subject to the whims of any of the contracting parties. But marriage is supposed to be far more stable and permanent than that.

The truth of the matter is that the heterosexual orientation of marriage comes about because of something far more basic: the natural, biological reality that God created.

The purpose of marriage is to bring about the union of persons in a relationship that allows them to beget children and to raise them in a loving, nurturing environment: the family. Marriage, therefore, recognizes the simple biological reality in God’s design: that natural reproduction is essential for the continued survival of the human race.

This reality cannot be changed. Non-heterosexual unions cannot beget children. Even science, for all its advances, still cannot effectively replace natural reproduction (if it tried to, the world would de-populate very quickly). And even if it could, this does not change the original basis of marriage nor nullify its validity. It is still an institution based upon a biolgical imperative that is part of God’s created reality.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Well, so what if marriage recognizes this biological reality? Why not change marriage to accommodate a different set of sexual preferences anyway, since these are held by a minority group? What would be the consequences of this logic?

Well, obviously if the sexual preferences of the LGBT groups are to be accommodated, then what do we do about the sexual preferences of other groups? If we allow same-sex marriages, then what about catering to the desires of pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? What about incestuous marriages? What about casual marriages for those who prefer temporary relationships? What about polygamy for those who want more than one partner? What about making room for those who prefer sickening sadomasochism? What about forced marriages for those who are into extreme domination? What about…?

At this point the problem should be evident. If we tinker with marriage to accommodate the sexual preferences of one group, then why not modify it to accommodate the sexual preferences of all (or most) of the other groups as well? Why not make it cater to every gross sexual perversion under the sun?

The logic that allows same-sex marriage is the same logic that allows any and every kind of “marriage”. It is absurd on the face of it. The proponents of same-sex marriage simply do not have a rational leg to stand on.

Marriage is not simply a human institution. It is a divinely ordained institution. As such, it logically respects the natural design of God’s creation. The “modified” versions of marriage that other groups want to implement do not respect that design and will rapidly lead to moral, biological, medical, and economic disaster.

God did it right the first time. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Why in the world did some people make such a big fuss about the guidelines issued by the Archdiocese of Manila for proper attire at Mass? Other churches and many secular organizations have dress codes too. Why can’t there be one for something as holy and important as the Mass?The Mass is not a trivial or casual activity like shopping at the mall or hanging out at a coffee shop. It is supposed to be the highest formal worship event of the Catholic Church. It is where we re-enter into the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary, and where we partake of his real Body and Blood.

Doesn’t that deserve a little more respect and solemnity from believers?

We wear special clothes to show respect for our hosts and peers on other occasions such as weddings, board meetings, and civic club inductions, don’t we? Most professionals also wear proper office attire when they go to work or meet clients. Judges, lawyers, and even the general public have to wear decent clothes in court too. Even politicians (many of whom may not even deserve to be in their respective positions) have to be properly dressed in Congress and at the Senate.

Why is the Mass — and its real host: God Himself — not to be given as much respect?

We can, of course, show our respect in various ways, the most important of which is our inner attitude of love and obedience to God. But since the Mass is a public gathering, we must give some attention to how we present ourselves to others who are there. This is because we are actually part of the environment in the Church during the Mass, and we can enhance or detract from the worship experience of others. Just think: how exactly do we contribute to the solemnity of the activity if our outward appearance is distracting or even downright salacious?

It’s simply a matter of being considerate to others, and the new guidelines help us to do just that.

Now I have heard some objections to the effect that the guidelines will make it difficult for the poor since they don’t have nice clothes. That, however, betrays the fact those who make such objections probably haven’t seen the guidelines at all, which is available as a poster (which you can download) to be displayed in public.

Take a look at the guidelines. It allow t-shirts, slacks, and jeans. There aren’t even any specifications on proper footwear! The poor can easily comply. And I seriously doubt if most of the parishes will turn away a man who is so poor that he doesn’t have a shirt on his back. Some might even give him a shirt!

Besides, I have noticed that many of those who wear improper attire are often the rich and well-to-do. I often see them attending mass wearing expensive, racy, expose-what-you-can outfits (which are probably better classified as lingerie). Should we expect the Church to just ignore this?

Something tells me that those who are trying to stir up some controversy over the issue are just looking for another excuse — no matter how flimsy — to attack the Catholic Church. And they would probably love to see the Holy Mass profaned in any way possible.

The malicious prejudice of these Church-haters knows no bounds, and they will stoop to the lowest means just to lash out at Christ’s Church. Fortunately, some people can see through their thinly-veiled hypocrisy and will point it out.

(Click on the image above to view a larger version)

Note: This article was originally posted on my personal advocacy blog: http://mamador.wordpress.com