Saturday, March 12, 2011

FUROR OVER ALABANG ORDINANCE


I am, of course, referring to an ordinance that bars distribution of contraceptive drugs and devises in Alabang village. In a copy of the ordinance which I have seen, the Alabang BARANGAY Council prohibits “Any natural or legal person to advertise within the territorial jurisdiction of the BARANGAY . . . or sell, offer for free or endorse, promote, prescribe or distribute abortifacients as defined” in the ordinance. The ordinance defines abortifacients as “any devise, medicine, substance or practice which may damage, injure, interfere with the natural development, endanger or cause the expulsion or death of an unborn child . . . Abortifacients include Intrauterine Devises (IUD’s), and hormonal contraceptives . . .” The Ordinance lists what it prohibits in an Annex.

Purportedly, this is merely an implementation of Section 37 of R.A. 5921. What is this Section 37 all about? It is part of the law governing the practice of pharmacy. Specifically it enumerates what drugs and devises may not be sold without a doctor’s prescription. It says: “No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.” Violation of this law is a criminal offense punishable by a penalty found in Section 40 of the same law.

It is important to note, therefore, that it is a penal law. Like any penal law it is limited strictly to what it prohibits. Thus, who are covered by it and what exactly does it prohibit?

Pharmacists are covered by the prohibition. R.A. 5921 is about the regulation of the practice of pharmacy. It is not a regulation of the activity of buyers of pharmaceutical goods but of the actions of pharmacists.

What does RA 5921 prohibit? What act does it punish? It does not prohibit the sale or dispensing without prescription of every contraceptive or abortive devise. It prohibits the dispensing without prescription only of contraceptive or abortive drugs or devises as classified by the Food and Drug Administration.” The FDA is the national body empowered to regulate drugs.

An interesting question is whether the Annex to the Alabang ordinance expands the list of drugs and devises listed by the Food and Drug Administration. It seems to me that the drugs and devises being currently sold over the counter are not in the FDA list. Interesting too is the question whether a barangay council can determine what doctors may or may not prescribe.

These, of course, are technical matters that can easily be verified. I believe, however, that there is something more eerily fundamental here. I see what is happening as an attempt by a sector of the Catholic church to instrumentalize the power of the state to impose Catholic belief on all others. This is something which gives the Catholic religion a bad name. It is reminiscent of the Inquisition.

We might perhaps agree about the evil of abortion. But when it comes to contraception, the nation divides mainly along religious lines. 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. And this too is the teaching of Vatican II in its decree Dignitatis Humanae.

The Alabang ordinance is not far from a statute declared unconstitutional which said: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

Of course, the ordinance authors will say that they are not prohibiting the use but merely regulating the sale. But they insult the intelligence of villagers by thinking that the Alabang residents are village idiots who do not have enough brains to see the truth behind the pretense. One does not have to be a genius to understand that the curtailment of sale is intended to prevent the use of what is sold. And therein lies the gross offense. As one court said: “The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a ‘governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.’ Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

Finally, the ordinance purports to prescribe a criminal penalty. Only a real court and not a village kangaroo court or vigilante may impose criminal penalty, and only after trial.

14 March 2011

109 comments:

  1. I am a resident of Ayala Alabang and I completely agree with you Father.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Question Father: Does the ordinance prohibit the sale of condoms without prescriptions? Or is that charge a misreading of the ordinance?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fr. Bernas, why don't we hear anything from you about the unconstitutionality of this bill and the injustice of making people who consider contraception to be an evil to pay for this bill with their taxes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. dear father bernas,

    a couple of questions;
    1) IF the FDA has condoms on the list of contraceptive devices (which is a technical requirement of the law), THEN the ordinance preventing the sale of condoms without prescription is valid?

    2) i dont understand your last paragraph:

    you write "One does not have to be a genius to understand that the curtailment of sale is intended to prevent the use of what is sold."

    in what sense? prescription for DRUGS, for instance, is not meant to prevent the USE of what is sold, nor even to prevent its SALE; the purpose is to ensure that the recipient SHOULD be able to possess the good.

    in fact, the goal of regulation is not to prevent sale, but merely to ration sale to those that fulfill a condition. as regards condoms, its not a condition that is completely prohibitive (i.e. a prescription is a script which you can get for free if need be)

    ReplyDelete
  6. wait a minute. FDA? 50 Dollar fine? That's very very sketchy and makes me suspect that the references used are bogus and were used with the belief that the readers will not bother to look up the mentioned articles.

    I believe the governing body for Food and Drug regulation in the Philippines is the BFAD, and we definitely DO NOT use Dollars in this country either.

    Now I do not have any reference material that will prove my suspicion except the above article. But maybe someone out there who reads this does. Whoever you are: please look it up and shed some light on this.

    Oh, and maybe the church should look into the Philippine Constitution. Separation of Church and State. Simple as that. You may have your beliefs, you may have your opinion. But that's as far as it should go.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Jesuits may be the only order left that can save the Catholic Church from destroying itself. Faith and reason are not incompatible. Faith and fascism are. Hear that Octopus Dei?

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a matter of fact, it's the State that is violating the principle of the separation of Church and State. You know how? The state is intervening in matters of the people's faith by using its coercive power to impose new norms and values. Tapos may penalty pa!

    What's more, the state is using our tax monies to buy or fund activities that are contrary to our beliefs. Who is doing the coercion here?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, I had the RH bill and Norby's comment in mind when I stated my comment. Specifically, the principle of separation of Church and State.

    ReplyDelete
  10. they should police the bedrooms in their own households before they go out and police the rest of the world. Glass houses and stones. Background checks are in order.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If Ayala Alabang, exercising its duties as the representatives of the residents, decide to have the ordinance, what right do you have meddling with their affairs? Are you a resident?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fr Bernas, you're supposed to be Catholic. What are you doing going directly against the CBCP? The non-Jesuit bishops not bright enough for you? But you had the exact same installation as bishops, right? What gives you the right to be different? If you have to dissent, shouldn't you leave first?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please answer the point raised by gbd above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm a long-time resident. I agree with the ordinance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am too. Twelve years. Kanlaon. I agree with the ordinance. Fr. Bernas, please bring your liberal Jesuit ideas elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Pat -I'm an Ayala Alabang resident. Fr. Bernas is not meddling in our affairs, but is merely giving his valued opinion as the foremost Constitutionalist in our country today. And he is right, the ordinance violates my freedom of religion. The way the barangay has been peddling it, namba-braso sila.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi, Amaranta. I'm not a resident, but two gentlemen above are, and they are for it. Were we to rescind the ordinance on your account, it'd seem unfair to them, right? Why not campaign hard for another set of officers next time?

    ReplyDelete
  18. People in the Philippines all too often assume that everyone in the country is a Catholic. Did the barangay officials in Ayala Alabang conduct a study on the religions of the residents? Is Ayala Alabang a 100% Catholic community?

    If a person isn't Catholic, stop trying to tell him to believe in what Catholics believe as right or wrong. Would Catholics be alright with a law being pushed by the Muslim communities to outlaw the consumption of pork? Let's issue prescriptions as well for the sale of pork.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Those who are residents and who agree, say "aye."

    I'll start with myself: "Aye."

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Aye." I support the ordinance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Pat - Fr. Bernas is not going against the CBCP. What he is against is imposing the Catholic beliefs on the residents of the barangay, who are not all Catholics. This is violative of our right to freedom of religion. Please read his blog entry again, and I quote, "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. And this too is the teaching of Vatican II in its decree Dignitatis Humanae."

    ReplyDelete
  22. @pat Whether the residents or the officials are for it does not make it constitutional. A ordinance allowing murder or stealing will not pass even if 100% of the people in the community are for it

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Amaranta, please pardon me if I agree, but Fr. Bernas IS going against the CBCP. The CBCP is opposing RHB 4244, Fr. Bernas is endorsing it!

    His beef against the AAV is just another in a series of pronouncements which brings him on a collision course with the Church.

    Again please pardon me, but I'm afraid you have it the other way around: it is the government, through the RHB, that's imposing its will on Catholics. Oral contraceptives, IUDs, ligation, vasectomy, name it, you have it-- DOH has been at it for 50 years!

    But this one's differnt. It proposes to use Catholics' tax money for a purpose that's an affront to the Church; it'll haul off to jail anyone attacking it-- please read the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Muwu. Hi. Could you please explain to me how the ordinance is unconstitutional? Were it so, then RA5921 is unconstitutional? But how could something that's unconstitutional become a law of the land?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @pat The question is not whether RA5921 is unconstitutional, but whether the ordinance is indeed a correct interpretation of RA5921.

    Why are condoms readily available in mini-marts and drug stores elsewhere without any need for prescriptions if it is supposedly illegal?

    The response of the Muntinlupa City Hall to the ordinance: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150106926883791&set=a.10150106926763791.280754.262155953790&ref=nf

    ReplyDelete
  26. @pat the BFAD does NOT regulate the sale of condoms. This is why condoms are readily available for sale anywhere else.

    RA5921 states:
    No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

    Critical word there is: AS CLASSIFIED. The BFAD determines what is to be controlled and what is not. They do not control the sale of condoms. The barangay ordinance is NOT an implementation of RA5921

    ReplyDelete
  27. what is being regulated here in this ordinance is the contraceptive pills and IUDs. Sat in when this was being drafted. This is because both are abortifacients.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @tashy,citizens who support the RH bill are taxpayers too. So those who are against the bill must not push down our throat what they believe. A secular government without the chuch's influence must have the right to decide what is good for its people. It doesn't mean that if 90% of the population believe that using contraceptives is detrimental to healt, despite huge scientific evidence and sound reason that it's not, just because their church leaders told them so, then the government will pass a bill to support it? Decisions based on sound judgement and logic will and must always be the foundation a law and not what your clerics are telling you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It makes no sense to write a prescription for something you do not ingest. It would be like writing a prescription for a t-shirt.

    The purpose of prescriptions is to control the sale of drugs, which we ingest, which could have potentially harmful consequences when not taken properly.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Pat - the ordinance expanded the definition of abortifacients as stated in RA5921 to include condoms. So they are not enforcing the law, but expanding it.

    And this blog entry of Fr Benas talks about the Ayala Alabang ordinance, not RHB 4244. Can you please read the article again.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is a charge of ill-intentions on the part of the authors of the ordinance enough to objectively repudiate an ordinance? The issue seems to be clear: The ordinance is based on RA 5921, and RA 5921 refers to FDA regulation. If at all, the investigation of intents and specifics should be directed to RA 5921, and not on the ordinance which merely seeks to implement a VALID law.

    Question: Is the ordinance imposing "Catholic belief on all others"? or is it merely implementing RA 5921?

    ReplyDelete
  32. amaranta,
    Please correct me if I'm wrong. What part of the ordinance made you conclude that "the ordinance expanded the definition of abortifacients as stated in RA5921 to include condoms."

    ReplyDelete
  33. hi pat,
    i am a resident and a catholic.
    the reason i am against the ordinance is this: ayala alabang is not a catholic enclave. it is a village open to people of all races & religions.
    this ordinance imposes catholic values on all residents. for perspective, try thinking of it this way: what if a group of muslim residents became the bgy council and passed an ordinance denouncing the consumption of pork and requiring residents to have special permits to purchase their pork products from bgy establishments.
    if one feels eating pork is sinful - than pls dont eat pork, but don't impose your religious restrictions on the rest of the barangay.
    ayala alabang village is not a parish. its a residential village.
    there is a difference.
    peace.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Following pat's arguments, let's not subsidize education because childless couples are discriminated. Let's not have the government buy flags because jehovah's witnesses are discriminated. Let's not spend taxpayer's money to subsidize government inspection of meat facilities because muslims are discriminated.

    Government can only spend on matters that are supported by a full consensus? Impossible. So what's the alternative? Tyranny by the catholic majority? That's obtuse. There's no religious discrimination issue here. If anything, there's discrimination *by* religion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. On Government Spending:
    Cannot agree more with Mr Tuazon. Democracy should not be enforced by the tyranny of the majority.

    While Catholics, Muslims and people of various IQ levels and beliefs pay taxes to the government, they entrust the government they elected with the discretion to allocate those funds.

    Let's use pat's own reasoning: If you're against the rising Congressional tide for the RH bill, why not elect a different set of lawmakers the next time?

    On dissent:
    Dissent against policy is not the sole right of people within a certain group, more so when we are all under the same sovereign territory. If dissent can only arise from within included groups, how can anyone dissent against policies that exclude them? If so, the apartheid may never have been lifted, women would not have gained the right to suffrage and slavery would still be legal.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Tyranny of the majority? Huh?!

    Majority of the people voted for our leaders.

    That is tyranny?

    Is it me or I just had an aneurysm trying to make sense in that term?

    The voice of the majority is NOT always a guarantee that what is being agreed upon is the universal truth.

    What we always read here as "Catholic morality being shoved down our throat" is actually morality that OTHER RELIGIONS hold and respect themselves.

    Read what the Muslim imams have to say about the RH Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @thepinoycatholic Other religions do not see artificial contraceptives as a sin. Catholic morality is not the morality of everyone. Protestants believe that pastors can marry and have children. Muslims believe that a man can have more than one wife. Are you prepared to accept their moralities?

    Moreover, morality varies not only from religion to religion, but also from person to person. Other people might believe that pre-marital sex is moral, while other people might not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. hi willyj
    lifted this from section 4 the definition of terms of the ordinance.

    " abortifacient - is any device, medicine, substance or practice which.... purpose of such device, medicine, substance, or practice is to cause the termination of a pregnancy or prevent conception. "

    so that's why condoms are included as they prevent conception.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That definition of abortifacient is inherently wrong.

    Contraception, but its name, works to counter conception, AKA works to prevent sperm and egg from ever meeting each other AKA prevents the woman from being pregnant in the first place.

    Abortifacients are any drug that stop pregnancy AFTER conception has happened AKA stops pregnancy, which occurred because conception happened. If pregnancy never happens, abortifacients have no job to do.

    They are not interchangeable concepts, and should not be treated as such. They mean very different things

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hmm... how come my comment wasn't posted?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Father Bernas,

    i dont see this issue as ONLY or even PRIMARILY about imposing morals.

    i think that its about the implementation of the pharmacy law. the fact that condoms have been sold freely means that our regulators either:

    a) have been ignorant about the pharmacy law
    b) have been ignoring its existence.

    ReplyDelete
  45. hmm... Is this really Fr. Bernas' blog?

    ReplyDelete
  46. You are human, too, and free to express your consternation about what you believe is a wrong move and lack of charity on the part of your fellow Catholics. But to compare the actions of a mere Barangay council to the Inquisition? This is a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I respect you very much but have two issues with what you wrote in your blog. First, I think that your characterization of the ordinance as “reminiscent of the Inquisition” is a dramatic exaggeration of the ordinance, and more than simply a bit of a stretch. I have a lot of respect for you but making such characterizations just serves to polarize people on an already controversial topic. If I recall correctly, you yourself are against such polarization of the Filipino people around the RH bill.

    ReplyDelete
  48. As you pointed out in your blog post, the ordinance is based on a penal law whose sanctions can be carried out by a court of law and not the Barangay. Because that is the precisely case, how can you compare the Barangay council to the Inquisition? The council has no power to find cause and penalize pharmacists who dispense the contraceptives on the BFAD’s list without a doctor’s prescription. I think it was extremely irresponsible of you to make such a comparison that only serves to further polarize not only the nation but Catholics on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  49. hmmm... is there a word-limit to the length of a comment here on blogger? i tried several times to post my comment in its entirety. i would then get the message that my comment was published but each time i returned to this page, it was gone. so, i posted it in parts but some of the parts are missing.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Does Fr. Bernas even run this blog? I am beginning to wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @gbd
    Please further read Fr. Bernas' article to understand what the pharmacy law really states. As already mentioned in the past comments in this article, the pharmacy law gives the FDA (and only the FDA) the right to classify which drugs and/or devices need prescription. No Barangay has the power to take the task of classifying which drugs/devices should need prescriptions.

    However, if the Barangay is firm on its stand that the said law is not being implemented, they should not make a redundant ordinance. Instead, they should take the issue to the national level so the law is not "neglected" as they claim.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Barangay ordinance is wrong in so many levels - legally and morally. I suggest you read the whole ordinance to see why many people are against it. You may also want to see Biazon's reaction on the matter which sums up many of the flaws of the said ordinance: http://www.ruffybiazon.ph/?p=1369

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am Catholic myself and am also a resident of the barangay. I must say that this ordinance has only brought out the worst in our barangay and our parish. Besides the deliberate misinformation the barangay published in AAVA news (like how they selectively quoted the city government's response to the ordinance), they also got the parish involved in this mess. It saddens me a lot that the parish has taken a political stunt (that even involved a dramatic testimony of an "almost un-born" girl in the Mass) because of this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @paolo

    there is an expectation that the bfad/fda has classified the condom as a contraceptive device. the who has done so. there is a common understanding that IT IS a contraceptive device.

    IF it HASNT, then that should give u pause too.

    WHY didnt it classify it as a contraceptive, when that is one of its accepted, commonly known uses?

    the occam's razor argument is that they simply didnt know the existence/relevance of the pharmacy law as it relates to contraceptives.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @paolo

    cong. biazon says the ordinance is redundant. if so, why isnt it being followed?

    ReplyDelete
  56. hi gbd-
    i think everyone agrees that condoms are contraceptives.
    the problem is that the ordinance classifies condoms as abortifacients.
    they don't mean the same things.
    contraceptives prevent conception while abortifacients induce abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  57. a question to all of you. Did you guys know that the Pope himself has a gray area on the use of condoms? read on as i dont wanna elaborate on it lest i be misunderstood http://goo.gl/Eop1P

    ReplyDelete
  58. hi nicole,

    my issue with this relates to the implementation of the pharmacy law, which states: : “No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.”:

    note: "preventing conception" as in contraceptives.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ang bobo nyo! Sna mamatay nlang kayong lahat! Lalo na ang mga pari at madre! You dont have d right to impose with the law of the land of your beliefs kasi di kayo nagbabayad ng buwis! Wla kayong krapatan!

    ReplyDelete
  60. @agilangtamad. Uh, it might be good were you to brush up a bit on that issue? No pro-RH would say that, now that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope's spokesman, and even the Pope himself belied what you're claiming here.

    ReplyDelete
  61. //Ang bobo nyo! Sna mamatay nlang kayong lahat! Lalo na ang mga pari at madre! You dont have d right to impose with the law of the land of your beliefs kasi di kayo nagbabayad ng buwis! Wla kayong krapatan!//

    Now here's one who's DEFINITELY not from AAV. Halata ba?

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ Paolo. You've said the AAV ordinance is wrong MORALLY. Care to explain here how? I assume you're familiar with the word.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @ Rousseau. You've said "Democracy should not be enforced by the tyranny of the majority."

    "Tyranny of the majority"? Simply because the ordiance did not sit well with you, it's a "tyranny of the majority"?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Fr. Bernas, inasmuch as you cannot seem to find agreement with the Church on a matter that's of great importance to her, why don't do you the honorable thing and LEAVE?

    ReplyDelete
  65. To the Catholics here who, like Fr. Bernas, could not seem to accept the Church teaching on contraception, why could you not simply leave, and come back only after you've come to accept EVERYTHING that the Church teaches, and not merely those that you find agreement with?

    ReplyDelete
  66. How about this, Arnold: how about you allow Catholics like Fr. Bernas to exercise their right to a free conscience just as Dignitatis Humanae says? Contrary to popular belief, Catholicism permits leeway for conscientious disagreement on certain beliefs that the Pope has not spoken ex cathedra on.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Arnold, I understand your concern about lukewarm Catholicism. As a Catholic, I abhor those who claim to be so, but do not live their faith accordingly. I am strongly against the proposed Responsible Parenthood Bill.

    However, micketymoc is correct. The Catholic Church not only allows, but encourages "conscientious disagreement on certain beliefs that the Pope has not spoken ex cathedra on". It is precisely through reasonable disagreement and discussion that the Church grows more and more fully into the Church of Christ.

    Peace!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ha! I knew 12 years of theology classes weren't for nothing, John-D. :D

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pat: rosseau's "tyranny of the majority" refers to how members of the predominant religion (Catholicism) can make decisions solely based on our church's teachings/standpoint, without regard to non-believers, members of other religions, and catholics exercising conscientious dissent.

    And let's stop with this inane reason that "we voted for these people in power, they can well do what they want." In that case, we'll have enclaves like AAV suddenly passing resolutions contrary to law or -- as in this case -- contrary to basic legal principles of non-delegation of legislation and separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ John D. Borra III

    The Church’s teaching on contraception- while not having been proclaimed ex cathedra in Humanae Vitae- IS INFALLIBLE because it has been a universally-held doctrine, one that has been taught through the millennia by all the bishops in communion with the Pope. Humanae Vitae merely repeats a teaching already infallibly taught elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  71. But, even were we to assume that the teaching is not infallible, STILL, THE TEACHING MUST BE OBEYED.
    Vatican II: “Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decisions, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even if he does not speak ex cathedra" (Gaudium et Spes).

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ John. May I have your comment on that detail please.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think it's good that the issue has been raised. This thing about the primacy of conscience, is, in my opinion, at the heart of why Jesuits are so fond of being "loose cannons on the Cathiolic deck," as someone else here has mentioned.

    I think the time has come to confront the Jesuit menace.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Oops, my posts are getting deleted. Not he way to go about a robust discussion. Scared?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Fr. Bernas. Please answer this:

    (1) Are you saying that man is bound to follow his conscience at all times and cannot be forced to act contrary to it?

    (2) Are ypiu saying that Vatican II, through Dignitatis Humanae, teaches the primacy of conscience over the demands of objective truth and the teachings of the Church?

    (3) Are you saying, then,that man has a moral right to be wrong? Really now, is this what the Council meant by freedom from force?

    (4) Are you saying that Vatican II mean that man’s conscience is autonomous and that man is free from the moral obligation to conform to the authority of the magisterium of the Church?

    Fr. Bernas, you're a priest. I'm not. But please try to address my questions head on. You have years of study on theology, something I don't have. Surely, I'm a push over? but please DO answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  76. It is funny how dissent and discussion inspire much vitriol from purported guardians of the faith. I'm sure that was what made the Catholic Church more appealing to its constituents through the years.

    Unfortunately, this "scourge" of intellectual discourse is not the sole purview of Jesuits but of all who believe in the dignity of reason. Axing everyone who voices a different opinion may well render the churches empty and silent... if not for the wonderful voices of some of the discussants above like the sanctified church choir they've been brought up to be.

    Where are the Catholic hordes supposed to storm Congress with their protests?

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Rousseau, please tell me what "vitriol" are you speaking of? The only post approaching the word is the one in Pilipino by one "Jo," and he's plainly not from the anti-RH side.

    Are you saying that asking uncomfortable questions is to spew vitriol?

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Rosseau: My entire comment, or what I had wished to post, did not contain any vitriol and I addressed Fr. Bernas specifically on issues about what he wrote. However, my comment was not posted in its entirety. Some parts were censored and some were posted. I have tried to re-post the censored parts to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Rosseau: "if not for the wonderful voices of some of the discussants above like the sanctified church choir they've been brought up to be."

    You are guilty of your own accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @gbd
    Yes, condoms are contraceptives, but as the law states, it is up to the FDA alone to decide whether buying condoms should require prescriptions. Nicole is also right that the barangay incorrectly classified these as abortifacients. I also recomend you don't turn a blind eye on the law's following statement: “as classified by the Food and Drug Administration.” I can go on and on explaining to you what this means, but if you refuse to accept what the line means, we will not go anywhere with your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @pat

    The ordinance is wrong morally because it does not consider other people's beliefs, it is intolerant of other faiths.

    Please don't attack Fr. Bernas for not agreeing with the CBCP's stand with regards to the RH Bill. He has every right to do so, most especially because he is a priest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @ arnold

    The issue is not even supposed to be focused on religion. Like you, I am Catholic and am against contraceptives myself; however, I am also against imposing my faith on other people. Since it appears that you are totally fine with having the Church should meddle with state affairs, I don't think you can resolve your issues with any of the people here who are simply stating the obvious: that the barangay should not pass an ordinance on the basis of faith rather than the common good of the constituents. Here's what Luis Sison, the self-proclaimed spokesman of the village (who is a actually not a resident of AAV) said himself: “Actually, the idea originated from our parish church, St. James The Great Church, so we talked about it. We wanted to make a strong statement so we asked the barangay council to pass an ordinance.”

    This shows that the ordinance is an ordinance done in the name of religion, rather than in the name of the constituents. Does that not go against the separation of Church and State?

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Rosseau. you said it best: "It is funny how dissent and discussion inspire much vitriol from purported guardians of the faith. ... Axing everyone who voices a different opinion may well render the churches empty and silent... "

    Lamentable.

    What comes to mind are dictators and robots. These do not equate to any sense of freedom.

    For all the education and intelligence we have as a people (Catholic Bishops included), I cannot understand why there is NO FAITH in letting the individual choose & make decisions for him/herself. Let me choose. Please! Please do not tell me what to decide for myself! Besides, what makes your choice/beliefs better than mine? You say I dont have enough education and information to make the best decision for myself? OK then, so why not educate me and give me information I need ... ergo, the RH Bill.

    Additionally, I dont get the Catholic heirarchy's compulsion to intervene or regulate personal/moral decisions. I sense great fear and severe insecurity.

    Finally, BRAVO to Fr Bernas. Thank you for your courage to dissent, for the inspiration to think for myself and for the display of selfless leadership. There certainly is hope within the ranks! Great!

    ReplyDelete
  85. To Catholics: If you think contraception is evil, then DON'T practise it. Or don't have sex. No one is forcing you to.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @paolo, father bernas,



    there is an expectation that the bfad/fda has classified the condom as a contraceptive device. the who has done so. there is a common understanding that IT IS a contraceptive device.

    IF it HASNT, then that should give u pause too.

    WHY didnt it classify it as a contraceptive, when that is one of its accepted, commonly known uses?

    the occam's razor argument is that they simply didnt know the existence/relevance of the pharmacy law as it relates to contraceptives.


    moreover, the WHO classifies condoms as contraceptives too. it should give us pause when the fda/bfad doesnt (or fails to!)

    ReplyDelete
  87. Norby,it's been FDA since RA 9711. And the dollar reference was of a decision of unconstitutionality, not necessarily here in the Philippines.

    Agree with Glenn Tuazon, completely. I don't agree with what the government spends on all the time, doesn't make the spending unconstitutional. So the anti-RH folks should just deal with it.

    Guys, train your guns on tobacco instead!! Kills 240 Pinoys a day and causes impotence!! Most preventable cause of death. Imagine the lives you will have saved if all this Catholic zeal was brought to bear on Big Tobacco.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Now that's a contraceptive I'm interested in banning, Ipat Luna :-)

    ReplyDelete
  89. @ gbd

    What part of "as classified" don't you understand? What part of the section makes you think that the WHO or the "common understanding" should be synonymous with the FDA's classification? Has it ever occurred to you that the Pharmaceutical Law was not made to prevent contraceptives and abortifacients from being sold freely, but rather, to prevent only those that can potentially harm its users from being sold freely? Perhaps you should read beyond Mr. Luis Sison's favorite section to see what I mean. It will show you the bigger picture, the context of the section, and the reason as to why the FDA is tasked to be the sole classifying body for the contraceptives and abortifacients that will require prescriptions.

    Now if you have problems with the FDA not classifying condoms in their list, go to them and complain to them. Fr. Bernas and all others are just stating the facts, and the fact is that the barangay has no right to classify these drugs, chemicals, and devices as they did with the ordinance.

    ReplyDelete
  90. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ gbd (continuation)

    Moreover, if you firmly believe that RA5921 is simply being neglected, there is no reason to make a new law. Instead, the solution would be to push for RA5921 to be implemented at a national level - not to make a redundant one at the barangay level that clashes with other national laws.

    Anyway, the Muntinlupa City Government has released another statement on the matter: http://adhor.tumblr.com/post/3856456233/ayala-alabang-ordinance-finally-declared-illegal-by-the

    ReplyDelete
  92. @paolo

    how do you know that condoms arent classified by fda as contraceptives?

    i tried looking for a list. i couldnt find any online. there might be a list SOMEWHERE. having said that, the WHO HAS a list, and it condoms in it. this implies (strongly), that if FDA had a list, it would include condoms in it.

    if there is NO LIST AT ALL, thats a problem too. making that list is part of their job as regulators.

    _____________
    " Instead, the solution would be to push for RA5921 to be implemented at a national level " -- I 100% agree, and this can START with barangays pushing for it to happen. ultimately, the national agencies should start implementing this (as well as other neglected laws).

    if people dont like this law, the legislature can/should deal with it. thats THEIR JOB.

    ReplyDelete
  93. //OK then, so why not educate me and give me information I need ... ergo, the RH Bill.//

    Sarah, it's all over the Internet, andall youhavew to do is help yourself to it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. // I am also against imposing my faith on other people. //

    Paolo, please tell me: in what way does your statement above differ from that of, say, the NDF saying "Please don't impose your ideology on other people"?

    In what way would your statement above differ from gays and lesbians telling striahgt people which, btw, far outnbumber them, "Please don't impose your heterosexual ways on other people"?

    Funny, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Fr. Bernas. Please answer this:

    (1) Are you saying that man is bound to follow his conscience at all times and cannot be forced to act contrary to it?

    (2) Are ypiu saying that Vatican II, through Dignitatis Humanae, teaches the primacy of conscience over the demands of objective truth and the teachings of the Church?

    (3) Are you saying, then,that man has a moral right to be wrong? Really now, is this what the Council meant by freedom from force?

    (4) Are you saying that Vatican II mean that man’s conscience is autonomous and that man is free from the moral obligation to conform to the authority of the magisterium of the Church?

    Fr. Bernas, you're a priest. I'm not. But please try to address my questions head on. You have years of study on theology, something I don't have. Surely, I'm a push over? but please DO answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  96. My suggestion: pass the RH bill but limit its benefits to non-Catholics. Same with the divorce bill. Give Catholics the freedom of choice to obey their priests or not, or stick to their miserable marriages or not. Let's see how well the Church can herd its flock or its moonlighting priests.

    I made my choice a long time ago with my feet. I encourage other like-minded people to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Some points here:
    1. The Bgy AAV Should definitely consider , being one of the framers of the constitution, Fr Bernas' opinion Re: AAV Ordinance, so that the ordinance would be constitutionally sound
    2. However, it is also worth noting Fr Bernas' comments on the RH Bill and pro-RH supporters should seriously consider the danger the current RH bill entail. See Fr Bernas' previous blogpost
    3. I however would differ with Fr Bernas' opinion that the AAV Ordinance is an attempt to impose Catholic beliefs and instrumentalize the State to advance this cause. I dont see any oppression of the minority in this bill. Protection of the Unborn is, in my Opinion, a Common Good and the AAV Ordinance is a Pro-active Measure to implement it, though the rightful application of applicable laws should be considered. And knowing too that the Fundamental Problem of Not being able to protect the Unborn can be a result of Irresponsible Sexual Lifestyle,
    thus the need to reinforce a change in Behaviour and getting sound medical advice, which in my opinion can be addressed by having a prescription first. This helps people get educated knowing that condoms can have up to 18% failure rate and can't really protect people from ALL STDs (though this is not the focus of the Ordinance but still impt)
    Note too that we can also say the same thing for those who are pushing for the RH Bill. In my opinion, RH Bill supporters may have several motivations why they support the bill. Take note that their primary reasons has changed from Population Control to Reproductive Health to Responsible Parenthood to Maternal Health (take note of their battlecry these days - several deaths due to maternity"). Common of which is the advancement of the Sex Education Agenda, and the Free Distribution of Contraceptives. They can also be accused of "imposing their liberal beliefs" towards the Majority. Although they will defend that you are free to "choose" but there are severe penalties for those who will "maliciously, and willfully withhold "reproductive services". this is a serious case and it seems to me, oppressive of the Catholic majority.
    4. I think Fr Bernas is speaking more as a Constitutionalist/Legal Expert here thus lends his opinions looking at the Ordinance through the eyes of our Existing Laws and Constitution, but whether it (Present Constitution/Law and its Principles) is working or not for the Philippines is another issue.
    5. Of course the Constitution is one important consideration in crafting laws/ordinances, but apart from it we should also consider Effective Governance/Leadership Strategies and Methods so as to craft laws that are really effective in addressing the Problem.
    Important Points to consider here: (for both AAV Ordinance and RH Bill)
    - will it introduce positive impact on its constituents? (being more responsible, etc)
    - will it Really work and solve the problem being addressed? Is it focused enough? think of Western countries who have Sex Education and Distribution of Contraceptives part of their Family planning. did it work? think of Uganda and other African countries which addressed their HIV/AIDS Problem (this might not be part of the current RH Bill, but the point is to learn how they crafted effective laws and governance strategies from them)
    Consider too Sweden and other euro countries how they dealt with Maternal Mortality - by increasing number of midwives and improvement of access to better maternal health care services. if we apply this here, this can be a very good job employment opportunity too. are there effective model programs in other countries which we can follow?
    - what will be the Cost-Benefits of implementing it?
    - does it advance the CommonGood? Does it Oppress the Minority?
    - should it be a Priority Now?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Some more points:
    1. Bec of too much issues arising from this bill, it is better to structure it such that important points are well tackled. I hope we can have a leader (either in Congress, Senate, Judicial, or Executive) that can help clear things up - can give country direction. and also the Media, hope they can really enlighten people and not just sensationalize the issues. I jst observed that while they put this blog as news, the subsequent insights of Fr Bernas were not (issues arising from the Rh Bill), and Religious Freedom (and the confusion re: Separation of Church and State - which a lot of anti-church people are using but whose interpretation as Fr Bernas has noted, is wrong. It is a guide more for the State not to interfere with Church and NOT Suppression of Opinion of Church to the State)

    2.While Fr Bernas is sober when it comes to his criticism of the RH Bill, i find his analogy of the ordinance as reminiscent of the Inquisition, and his sweeping statements of one church sector as instrumentalizing state laws to advance its cause rather harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Just want to answer Muwu above and state that the pills are abortifacient. They have lowered the levels of estrogen which allows break through ovulation. This means that if the egg is fertilized and the embryo now tries to attach to the wall of the uterus, it will be aborted because the embryo cannot attack to the uterine lining due to the thinner lining due to the progesterone the pill manufacturers added to compensate for the lower levels of estrogen-which in higher doses causes clots,strokes, etc. If the embryo cannot attach to the uterine wall, it is now lost in the woman's menses and is in essence, aborted. The pill is an abortifacient. The IUDS are also abortifacient.

    ReplyDelete
  100. arnold, are you saying its okay to impose your faith on other people? what if they disagree? can you walk on water to prove your right because communism do somehow work in china you know...and gays eat hate and breathe scorn to the point of dying to simplify the seemingly bewildered view of others about their life when they can just pretend to be straight. heterosexuals do outnumber them which also means the former outnumber them in rape statistics and abuses.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Against the ordinance and from Alabang. Let people decide for themselves whether they want to go to hell or not.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @arnold. Ha! You just failed the test! Opposition to the RH Bill is tantamount to denying people the basic right to education and information on reproductive health ... and thus perpetuating the prevalence of poor decisions (on family size) and the cycle of poverty in the country.

    You also failed to get that I do not plead for myself (duh!) ... if I may say, I know a lot more than you think, and it is NOT all from the internet. =D

    So for your sake, I will be explicit: the Catholic Bishop's opposition to the RH Bill is a clear refusal to empower people with (RH) education and information ... because they fear they will lose influence, they fear they will lose power. Independent, critical minds are the seeds of growth and prosperity, but to the Catholic heirarchy, its only a big worry; it is but a threat. In the meantime, the Bishops and those like you who kowtow to them ... make sure that that you are free of the burden of such ignorance ... by arming yourself with the same knowledge you wish to deny to everyone else. Concomitantly, you instill fear of 'sin' to many and simply leave the poor to bear the unpalatable consequences of poor education and ignorance: poverty. I guess the Bishops get what you want: Control ... Influence ... Power!!! ... but is that all that matters to them??? And what about you? do you not care?

    To me, nothing can be more self-serving and non-Catholic than that! ... and at what cost!!! My goodness!

    That you failed the test ... only means you badly need to think outside the box. That will be steep, but you gotta try for your own sake!

    Professor Sarah

    ReplyDelete
  103. @ gbd
    Well, the FDA has not been requiring prescriptions for condoms, have they? This, I think, makes it safe to assume that they are not on their list. Otherwise, condoms would need prescriptions. The only other possibility is that the law is not being implemented. If this is the case, I think you are very welcome as a citizen to speak against the failure in implementing this law.

    I also agree that the Barangay has every right to implement RA5921. Making an almost redundant law that makes the barangay officials at par with the FDA in doing the task of classifying drugs that require prescriptions is a different story altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @ arnold
    -
    In what way would your statement above differ from gays and lesbians telling striahgt people which, btw, far outnbumber them, "Please don't impose your heterosexual ways on other people"?

    Funny, isn't it?
    -
    Yep, there's not a single difference indeed. I honestly don't see what's so funny about the idea though - the only funny thing is that you're exhibiting how narrow-minded you are by seeing this idea as a "funny" idea.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ sarah
    Thankfully, not all Catholics are like Arnold and the current Ayala Alabang barangay officials. Also, not all priests in the Catholic hierarchy fit your description. I know other priests who share similar views with Fr. Bernas and are not afraid of rational thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The case that Father B quoted as being unconstitutional (fifty dollars fine) is Griswold vs. Connecticut. And yes, they have similarities, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  107. bottomline....

    There is and must be a clear Seperation of the Church and State on this matter for it to be decided fairly...

    father Bernas is not against the Church teachings.... what he sees is that there should be and will be Separation of CHurch and State on this matter...

    Because it beyond religion or moral, but a right of each individual in regards to reproductive health....

    ReplyDelete