On RH Bill now RH Law, a celebrated issue: Roman Catholic Church (Phils) vs the Government?

This is a forwarded message and a late upload. But this is a reality in the Philippines.  Now that RH is a Law, many Roman Catholic members  who personally support and agree Reproductive Health Law  still coy of exposing their true stance publicly.  Many are still hesitant to admit publicly for fear to be deported especially those non-Filipino sisters here in the Philippines. Though this was printed many years ago, still the Roman Catholic Church remains strong of their anti RH stance.

————————————————————————–

Hi all,

The bishops are getting on my nerves, so I sent this letter to the Inquirer. Ambot lang if they will publish it. (I wonder if the Inquirer will publish it.)

Arnold

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Arnold Vandenbroeck
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:54 PM
Subject: Churches/Religions and contraceptives
To: feedback@inquirer.com.ph

Dear Editor,

The Catholic bishops claim that the RH bill is immoral and some bishops even consider it “terroristic”. Can they please stop playing the self-appointed guardians of our morality? All the more since practically all other churches and religions accept artificial family planning as a moral choice.

The United Methodist Church values “family planning programs that improve health care, empower women and protect the global environment and that enable individuals and couples to decide about the number of their children free from violence, coercion and discrimination.” While Catholic bishops in the Philippines tend to be dismissive of the problem of present population growth, the UMC even says that “people have the duty to consider the impact on the total world community of their decision regarding child bearing and should have access to information and appropriate means to limit their fertility, including voluntary sterilization.” Clearly the UMC seems to have a fuller appreciation of what is the greater and common good.

Many Christian churches have standpoints similar to that of the UMC. Moreover, family planning (including contraception) is embraced by religions across the spectrum as a moral good, a responsible choice and a basic human right. Religious support for contraception and family planning is consistent with faith principles that give primacy to well being, including the health of children, families and the community at large. In fact, many religions believe that family planning is a moral duty, a stance echoed by well-known leaders. Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “Planned parenthood is an obligation of those who are Christians. Our church thinks we should use scientific methods that assist in family planning.” The Dalai Lama said, “Family planning is crucial, especially in the developing world.”

The Episcopal Church first approved of contraception for the purpose of family planning in 1930. In a 1994 resolution, it directed its dioceses and agencies to provide information to all men and women on the full range of affordable, acceptable, safe, and non coercive contraceptive and reproductive health care services.

In 1954, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America stated that a married couple should plan and govern their sexual relations so that any child born to their union will be desired both for itself and in relation to the time of its birth. How to do that is up to the couple.

The Presbyterian Church supports full and equal access to contraceptive methods. In a recent resolution endorsing insurance coverage for contraceptives, the church even affirmed that contraceptive services are part of basic health care and cautioned that unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, and maternal morbidity, and threaten the economic viability of families.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, supports the use of birth control that prevents conception from taking place.

Unitarian Universalists already in 1987 opposed any move to deny or restrict the distribution of government funds as a means of restricting access to contraception in the U.S. or abroad.

Jewish traditions have a long history of support for family planning, dating to the 1929 Reform resolution noting that birth control contributes to social stability. Already in a pioneering 1935 resolution, Women of Reform Judaism expressed support for lifting bans on the dissemination of information about birth control.

For Muslims, the Quran does not make any explicit statements about the morality of contraception. Early Sunni Muslim literature discusses various contraceptive methods, and a recent study concluded that any method that did not produce sterility was acceptable.

Sikhs have no objection to birth control. Whether or not Sikhs use contraception, and the form of contraception used, is a matter for the couple concerned.
The same applies to Hindoes, the same to Buddhists.

The Roman Catholic Church is the only major faith institution to forbid the use of contraception. However, in actual practice most Catholics disagree with the prohibition or don’t pay any attention to it. Not much of a moral problem. For one, they are in the good company of practically all other major religions of the world.

Arnold Vandenbroeck

(same text also in attachment)

—
Arnold Vandenbroeck
Third St. cor Trinidad Ave.
Trinidad Greenhills Subd., Ma-a,
Davao City, Philippines
Telefax: +63-82-2440090
Mobile: +63-918-5156245
Mail address: P.O.Box 81937
8000 Davao City, Philippines

just feeling happy

a cruel joke

I received a text message: “hahaha, tsup not tsug”.  It really struck me what does it meant? I was thinking first it was a misspent.  But with second thoughts, I said to myself, maybe the previous misspelled text was delayed to come.  I waited for fifteen minutes expecting a text following. I deleted messages in my sent items, outbox, drafts and even half of my inbox messages to give more space.  But none came.  I decided to check the sender so I called after twenty minutes past.  I asked the sender who was he texting and replied none.  I told him you misspent the text message. I heard on the other line a laugh then, “Oh it was for you. But I only realized later that the misspelled text message was not sent. Sorry.”  I asked, “Why did you not explain instead of just being silent? Or you texted me to explain or sent the misspelled text message so that I won’t be in doubts and end up questioning?” The sender replied, “Oh, it’s nonsense. I only realized later that it was not sent. Little thing, don’t mind. You are only making it a big deal. Sorry.”

I really wonder, men have no idea how little thing or nonsense for them could hurt a feeling? Do men really do not think nor feel that thing like this is not nonsense? It is a big deal when there was no effort to reach out? My thinking was, it was not really meant for me.  The sender really misspent the text message.  Because when I called, he seemed surprised why I was asking whom he was texting. When I mentioned, he misspent his text message, he began to explain. Because when he realized the misspelled text was not sent, he should: 1) explained or 2) forwarded the misspelled message immediately when he realized it was not sent to avoid misunderstanding and doubts.  But he did not! Why waited my call?  It was not really meant for me.  That was why he never bothered to explain nor text or call.  Should I have not called, then I would not know. The sender claimed that it was for me. How should I know?

If you were in my shoes, how would you react? Just accept the late explanation of the sender? Did I overly react?  For me it was a CRUEL JOKE! Wish to hear some feedbacks from you guys.   Thank you. 🙂 🙂 🙂