3B Group 1 - 30
3B Group 2 - 29
-depending on how you were graded by your leader, your score adjusts
-basically the only thing that I was able to see was that in the second group, not everyone was able to participate well. You also have to consider how the class participates.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
H3 Final Class Standing
H3 Class Standing
Guys, here are your class standings. Kindly review
The first set of columns are your quizzes.
The second set will be your seatworks, which would include:
a)Nagai and others individual and group (first TWO COLUMNS, ten each)
b)Damaso and Discipleship
c)Rolando Mendoza and Sin
d)Worksheet 1
For a total of 50 points.
The third set is your discipline specific requirements, which include:
a)Reflection video
b)Worksheet 2
c)Prayer Service
The fourth is your creative synthesis.
Just do the math.
Meanwhile, you can check your reflection video scores here - http://www.mediafire.com/?34j3dulx1cboms6
While other activities are here - http://www.mediafire.com/?7xm5wshp24l1k1u
Guys, here are your class standings. Kindly review
The first set of columns are your quizzes.
The second set will be your seatworks, which would include:
a)Nagai and others individual and group (first TWO COLUMNS, ten each)
b)Damaso and Discipleship
c)Rolando Mendoza and Sin
d)Worksheet 1
For a total of 50 points.
The third set is your discipline specific requirements, which include:
a)Reflection video
b)Worksheet 2
c)Prayer Service
The fourth is your creative synthesis.
Just do the math.
Meanwhile, you can check your reflection video scores here - http://www.mediafire.com/?34j3dulx1cboms6
While other activities are here - http://www.mediafire.com/?7xm5wshp24l1k1u
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Grade Update (Quizzes)
Your grades
Class number guide
These are your grades for the first three quizzes. Overall, it's over 44, and with the fourth quiz added, it will be over 60. Those cells highlighted in red are those who are failing. I would recommend that they meet me for group tutorial of the whole course, and second, exert extra effort for the rest of the requirements to make up for your scores.
And class behavior would help.
-Mr. V
Class number guide
These are your grades for the first three quizzes. Overall, it's over 44, and with the fourth quiz added, it will be over 60. Those cells highlighted in red are those who are failing. I would recommend that they meet me for group tutorial of the whole course, and second, exert extra effort for the rest of the requirements to make up for your scores.
And class behavior would help.
-Mr. V
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Activity: Using Wise Judgment
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. The doctors figured out that there was one drug that might save her. It was a special form of radium that was recently discovered by one of the chemists in town. The drug was expensive to make, but the chemist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He spent P4000 pesos, and he does not want to lower the price because he spent a lot of money making the drug. The sick woman’s husband went to everyone he knew to borrow money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together P1500. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist insists that he has to make money out of it.
The husband now thinks that the only way to get that drug and save the life of his wife is to steal it. Would he do it or not?
Find out what he should do by answering the following:
1.What are the conflicting values involved? Use the table below to answer
Name at least 3 values at stake in his choices.
2.See reality clearly.
-What are the important pieces of information one must consider in this case?
-What are the risks involved?
-What is the good end that must be pursued in relation to (1)?
3.Figure out the good.
-What could be other possible means available to achieve the good end?
-What are possible consequences, alternatives? What about long term consequences?
-Evaluate the means based on conditions of prudential judgment.
-Will the action be taken the only means available? Will it cost the least possible harm?
-Will the means not compromise the good end being sought?
The husband now thinks that the only way to get that drug and save the life of his wife is to steal it. Would he do it or not?
Find out what he should do by answering the following:
1.What are the conflicting values involved? Use the table below to answer
| Option 1 | VS | Option 2 |
| Value 1 | VS | Value 2 |
Name at least 3 values at stake in his choices.
2.See reality clearly.
-What are the important pieces of information one must consider in this case?
-What are the risks involved?
-What is the good end that must be pursued in relation to (1)?
3.Figure out the good.
-What could be other possible means available to achieve the good end?
-What are possible consequences, alternatives? What about long term consequences?
-Evaluate the means based on conditions of prudential judgment.
-Will the action be taken the only means available? Will it cost the least possible harm?
-Will the means not compromise the good end being sought?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Activity: Mapping Out The Conscience
1. In your groups, you will have to choose among these situations:
a.During the whole Saturday afternoon, you stayed in a local coffee shop in order to study for your upcoming quizzes in various subjects. As you were leaving, you suddenly noticed a small pouch bag at the table beside you. Seeing that no one was there on the table, you looked at what’s inside and saw that there are a thick wad of one thousand peso bills. The pouch bag does not have any label or identification, so it is impossible to return it to its owner. Suddenly, you remembered that you need to buy textbooks that could help in your studies. What would you do?
b.One of your best friends has just been warned by the school that he would face expulsion, because he was caught copying answers from his notebook during a CLE quiz. This means that if he cheats in any activity, he will automatically be expelled from school. A few days later, you had an activity in English where you are required to answer the questions individually and your seatmate will be responsible for correcting your work. Once you exchanged papers, you noticed that his answers are exactly the same as yours, even in the essay part of that activity. What are you going to do?
c.You hid a stack of sexually suggestive men’s magazines under your bed, and your brother knows it. One day, he got those magazines under your bed without informing you that he did. Unfortunately, he was caught by your parents reading those magazines and they planned to ground him for the weekend out of having those materials. Even though your brother was pointing out that the magazines were yours, your parents, out of anger, would not want to believe him. Would you take the blame and risk being punished, or would you just let your brother face the consequences?
d. Two of your best friends, a boy and a girl, are in a relationship. However, one day, the girl confides that she was secretly dating another boy, because she does not want his boyfriend anymore. However, because the boy was undergoing various problems involving his studies and his family, the girl requested that you keep it as a secret. On the other hand, the boy has completely no idea of what the girl is doing. Would you dare to tell the truth, or would you be faithful to your girl best friend?
e.You and your friends have a group work to finish during the weekend. On Friday morning, you all have agreed to distribute work among yourselves. You agreed that you will meet on Saturday morning. However, during Friday evening, you had a slight fever, and you immediately informed the group that you cannot attend. Fortunately, the group said that it is alright because you have already done your initial work and you will have a score for the group work. When you wake up in the morning, you noticed that your fever is gone and you feel totally well. Would you still go and help out with the group or would you rather stay at home and rest?
Fill up the following table:
b. How would our moral judgment change in these situations if ever our conscience is not properly formed? Will our decisions and answers be different if our consciences are:
i. Wrongly formed?
ii. Lax?
iii. Legalistic?
For each, state what you would have done if you have these kinds of malformed conscience.
c. What does this say about the role that the LISTEN process plays in connection to following one’s conscience?
a.During the whole Saturday afternoon, you stayed in a local coffee shop in order to study for your upcoming quizzes in various subjects. As you were leaving, you suddenly noticed a small pouch bag at the table beside you. Seeing that no one was there on the table, you looked at what’s inside and saw that there are a thick wad of one thousand peso bills. The pouch bag does not have any label or identification, so it is impossible to return it to its owner. Suddenly, you remembered that you need to buy textbooks that could help in your studies. What would you do?
b.One of your best friends has just been warned by the school that he would face expulsion, because he was caught copying answers from his notebook during a CLE quiz. This means that if he cheats in any activity, he will automatically be expelled from school. A few days later, you had an activity in English where you are required to answer the questions individually and your seatmate will be responsible for correcting your work. Once you exchanged papers, you noticed that his answers are exactly the same as yours, even in the essay part of that activity. What are you going to do?
c.You hid a stack of sexually suggestive men’s magazines under your bed, and your brother knows it. One day, he got those magazines under your bed without informing you that he did. Unfortunately, he was caught by your parents reading those magazines and they planned to ground him for the weekend out of having those materials. Even though your brother was pointing out that the magazines were yours, your parents, out of anger, would not want to believe him. Would you take the blame and risk being punished, or would you just let your brother face the consequences?
d. Two of your best friends, a boy and a girl, are in a relationship. However, one day, the girl confides that she was secretly dating another boy, because she does not want his boyfriend anymore. However, because the boy was undergoing various problems involving his studies and his family, the girl requested that you keep it as a secret. On the other hand, the boy has completely no idea of what the girl is doing. Would you dare to tell the truth, or would you be faithful to your girl best friend?
e.You and your friends have a group work to finish during the weekend. On Friday morning, you all have agreed to distribute work among yourselves. You agreed that you will meet on Saturday morning. However, during Friday evening, you had a slight fever, and you immediately informed the group that you cannot attend. Fortunately, the group said that it is alright because you have already done your initial work and you will have a score for the group work. When you wake up in the morning, you noticed that your fever is gone and you feel totally well. Would you still go and help out with the group or would you rather stay at home and rest?
Fill up the following table:
Moral Situation: ____________________________________________
Possible Decisions (name at least 3) | |
Primary Moral Principle | “Do good and avoid evil” |
Secondary Principles and Values That Have To Be Applicable and Evident In The Situation (think of the Ten Commandments and all other principles that could follow from them) | |
What should be done and why? |
Also, answer the following questions:
a. Why are we obliged to follow our conscience in these situations?b. How would our moral judgment change in these situations if ever our conscience is not properly formed? Will our decisions and answers be different if our consciences are:
i. Wrongly formed?
ii. Lax?
iii. Legalistic?
For each, state what you would have done if you have these kinds of malformed conscience.
c. What does this say about the role that the LISTEN process plays in connection to following one’s conscience?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Dean Tony La Viña: Standing by the Catholic Church
Thirty-one years ago, in a theology course in Ateneo de Manila taught by the late Fr. Tom O’Shaughnessy S.J., I memorized all the major social encyclicals of the Catholic Church. Fr. Tom was the most organized teacher I ever had (he was also our Logic professor), and gave fill-in-the-blanks and other objective type exams that would test our knowledge of Church doctrine on such matters as labor rights, economic development, and yes population, family planning and contraception (all of which we now bundle together as reproductive health issues). He was also a recognized expert on Islam and exemplified tolerance and respect of other religions and points of views. I remember at first being disappointed in that course. I had looked forward that semester to learning about Theology of Liberation but instead we studied what seemed like obscure texts from the Pope in Rome, with Latin titles like Rerum Novarum ("On Capital and Labor"), Populorum Progressio ("On the Development of Peoples"), and the controversial Humanae Vitae ("Human Life").
Today, I am very grateful for Fr. O’Shaughnessy's course where I learned by heart and mind Catholic social teaching. This teaching would guide me in many decisions – from such personal matters as marriage and parenthood concerns to my approach to political issues such as human rights, environmental protection and social injustice. Knowing Catholic social teaching, and secure and confident in its truthfulness, also did something formative for me intellectually and professionally: it enabled me to engage with the modern world without fear and without antagonism for those who thought differently.
Having solid knowledge of Catholic social teaching enabled me, for example, to engage in a constructive manner in the Christian-Marxist dialogue in the 1980s without fear of being co-opted or manipulated. In the 1990s, as I studied and later on worked in the United States, I lived and worked with and among homosexual and lesbian friends and colleagues, an experience that challenged my fundamental beliefs about sexuality and family. Finally, in recent years in my work as an environmental lawyer and governance practitioner, without abandoning or compromising my Catholic beliefs, I have partnered with colleagues working on reproductive health. I have learned when to disagree with those that have different perspectives; more importantly, I have been able to identify common grounds that allow collaboration. Thus with Marxists, I can work with them on issues involving social justice; with homosexual and lesbian activists, on discrimination issues; and with reproductive health advocates, on maternal and children's health and on resource management issues. Common ground is achievable if all persons are motivated by good will and by charity.
Let's take the case of reproductive health. As first articulated in 1968 by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, the Church teaches that "responsible parenthood designates the intelligent and free manner the spouses have at their disposal to fulfill their mission of cooperating with God in the transmission of life.” As a result, every marital act that is intentionally rendered unfruitful such as abortion and the use of artificial contraception is evil in itself since it is contrary to the procreative purpose of marriage; results in the moral decay that ensues in sex without consequence; and harms true love and deprives God of His sovereign role as the supreme giver of life. As Pope John Paul II explained in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, artificial birth control depersonalizes and exploits sexuality; thus the original import of human sexuality, which is the giving of self as a gift and acceptance of another, becomes distorted.
As I understand it, the Church teaching on reproductive health is above all about love – the love between husband and wife, love for children and family that is the fruit of that love, and ultimately the love of God that forgives us and that enables us to be faithful to the Word in spite of our sinfulness and scarce resources. This is a beautiful message and the Church should not be ashamed of it. But when this teaching is demeaned with such toxic statements as "all contraception is abortion" or "excommunication is a proximate possibility" (for the President), the message is lost and the Catholic Church is accused of being a bully with a medieval mindset.
To be honest, it has always perplexed me on why such a profound message of love is frequently delivered belligerently, often sliding into vicious name-calling (use of words like "pro-death", "baby-killers", etc.) for political gain. This in turn begets responses as we have seen in the protest of Carlos Celdran where what many considered as holy and consecrated ground was disrespected. Unless all of us – whatever side we are on this issue – step back and rethink our strategies, I am afraid we are on a slippery slope towards bigotry and even religious-based violence. It is clear to me that neither the Catholic Church nor Mr. Celdran and his supporters intentionally want this to happen but let us be forewarned that in many places in the world very bad things happen in the name of or against religion.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church should not seek to influence public policy on reproductive health? Of course not. If the Catholic Church is secure in its teaching, it should engage with the state and with the public on this subject with the following issues as paramount: (1) freedom of conscience - every citizen should be able to make informed decisions about their reproductive health options without coercion by state, church or other entity; (2) freedom of conscience also means the right of Catholic or other medical professionals to make professional decisions consistent with their respective beliefs without being forced to promote means that they consider violative of their individual consciences; (3) finding a consensus, based on scientific and cultural considerations, on how to communicate reproductive health options so that bias for or against one set of means is minimized; (4) establishing the best maternal and child care system possible so that maternal or infant mortality is reduced, if not eliminated; (5) working together to build prosperous, just and sustainable communities so that it does not matter even if our population, as expected sometime in the next five years, exceeds 100 million people. In all of these, we must be mindful that it is the poor that suffers most in our society's inability to find consensus in the issue of reproductive health and population.
Disagreements will remain despite a well-conducted dialogue where every one is in good faith. Agreement on the use of contraceptives, particularly those which the Church consider abortifacient but not considered as such by many in the medical community, is for example not likely. But there are democratic procedures to resolve this. The President must decide as a matter of constitutional duty what the executive department should do; what this means to him as a Catholic is up to the President and his spiritual director and is not for public debate. The President is not above all faiths, as his spokesman has said, but he is the President of all Filipinos regardless of their faith (including atheists). As for Congress, the House and the Senate should bring the reproductive health bill to a vote as soon as the dialogue is done. Citizens and their organizations, including the Catholic Church and other religious groups, can dissent from these policy decisions and make their views known through their votes in subsequent elections.
Realizing the immensity of responsibility that the Church teaching on conjugal and family life seemed to impose on married couples, I was initially shocked, even angered by it. The message of the teaching was lost in the language that proscribed contraception and implied that couples were not sovereign in their bedrooms. For many years, when I was still single, I struggled accepting this intellectually. That ended when I got married at the age of twenty-five. My wife and I together prayed and discerned what the teaching of the Church meant to us, why it was important to follow, and what resources were available so we could be faithful. Paradoxically, two minds and hearts were better than one in making this tough decision.
In the midst of this discernment process, we were also graced by an event that irrevocably changed our life as a couple: three months after getting married, my wife was operated on for an ovarian cyst and her doctor told us that we better have children right away if we wanted to have any at all. When that happened, we abandoned our well laid plans not to have children yet while she prioritized her career, I finished law school, and we built up savings from our meager salaries as a philosophy teacher and NGO worker. In that event and during our discernment process, the message of love that is the heart of the teaching became clear and we joyfully made the decision to obey the Church – to be always open to life and to use natural means to plan our family. The fruits of this decision are three sons – now young men as passionate about life and opinionated on issues (including this one) as us. How can we have any regrets?
Today, I am very grateful for Fr. O’Shaughnessy's course where I learned by heart and mind Catholic social teaching. This teaching would guide me in many decisions – from such personal matters as marriage and parenthood concerns to my approach to political issues such as human rights, environmental protection and social injustice. Knowing Catholic social teaching, and secure and confident in its truthfulness, also did something formative for me intellectually and professionally: it enabled me to engage with the modern world without fear and without antagonism for those who thought differently.
Having solid knowledge of Catholic social teaching enabled me, for example, to engage in a constructive manner in the Christian-Marxist dialogue in the 1980s without fear of being co-opted or manipulated. In the 1990s, as I studied and later on worked in the United States, I lived and worked with and among homosexual and lesbian friends and colleagues, an experience that challenged my fundamental beliefs about sexuality and family. Finally, in recent years in my work as an environmental lawyer and governance practitioner, without abandoning or compromising my Catholic beliefs, I have partnered with colleagues working on reproductive health. I have learned when to disagree with those that have different perspectives; more importantly, I have been able to identify common grounds that allow collaboration. Thus with Marxists, I can work with them on issues involving social justice; with homosexual and lesbian activists, on discrimination issues; and with reproductive health advocates, on maternal and children's health and on resource management issues. Common ground is achievable if all persons are motivated by good will and by charity.
Let's take the case of reproductive health. As first articulated in 1968 by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, the Church teaches that "responsible parenthood designates the intelligent and free manner the spouses have at their disposal to fulfill their mission of cooperating with God in the transmission of life.” As a result, every marital act that is intentionally rendered unfruitful such as abortion and the use of artificial contraception is evil in itself since it is contrary to the procreative purpose of marriage; results in the moral decay that ensues in sex without consequence; and harms true love and deprives God of His sovereign role as the supreme giver of life. As Pope John Paul II explained in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, artificial birth control depersonalizes and exploits sexuality; thus the original import of human sexuality, which is the giving of self as a gift and acceptance of another, becomes distorted.
As I understand it, the Church teaching on reproductive health is above all about love – the love between husband and wife, love for children and family that is the fruit of that love, and ultimately the love of God that forgives us and that enables us to be faithful to the Word in spite of our sinfulness and scarce resources. This is a beautiful message and the Church should not be ashamed of it. But when this teaching is demeaned with such toxic statements as "all contraception is abortion" or "excommunication is a proximate possibility" (for the President), the message is lost and the Catholic Church is accused of being a bully with a medieval mindset.
To be honest, it has always perplexed me on why such a profound message of love is frequently delivered belligerently, often sliding into vicious name-calling (use of words like "pro-death", "baby-killers", etc.) for political gain. This in turn begets responses as we have seen in the protest of Carlos Celdran where what many considered as holy and consecrated ground was disrespected. Unless all of us – whatever side we are on this issue – step back and rethink our strategies, I am afraid we are on a slippery slope towards bigotry and even religious-based violence. It is clear to me that neither the Catholic Church nor Mr. Celdran and his supporters intentionally want this to happen but let us be forewarned that in many places in the world very bad things happen in the name of or against religion.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church should not seek to influence public policy on reproductive health? Of course not. If the Catholic Church is secure in its teaching, it should engage with the state and with the public on this subject with the following issues as paramount: (1) freedom of conscience - every citizen should be able to make informed decisions about their reproductive health options without coercion by state, church or other entity; (2) freedom of conscience also means the right of Catholic or other medical professionals to make professional decisions consistent with their respective beliefs without being forced to promote means that they consider violative of their individual consciences; (3) finding a consensus, based on scientific and cultural considerations, on how to communicate reproductive health options so that bias for or against one set of means is minimized; (4) establishing the best maternal and child care system possible so that maternal or infant mortality is reduced, if not eliminated; (5) working together to build prosperous, just and sustainable communities so that it does not matter even if our population, as expected sometime in the next five years, exceeds 100 million people. In all of these, we must be mindful that it is the poor that suffers most in our society's inability to find consensus in the issue of reproductive health and population.
Disagreements will remain despite a well-conducted dialogue where every one is in good faith. Agreement on the use of contraceptives, particularly those which the Church consider abortifacient but not considered as such by many in the medical community, is for example not likely. But there are democratic procedures to resolve this. The President must decide as a matter of constitutional duty what the executive department should do; what this means to him as a Catholic is up to the President and his spiritual director and is not for public debate. The President is not above all faiths, as his spokesman has said, but he is the President of all Filipinos regardless of their faith (including atheists). As for Congress, the House and the Senate should bring the reproductive health bill to a vote as soon as the dialogue is done. Citizens and their organizations, including the Catholic Church and other religious groups, can dissent from these policy decisions and make their views known through their votes in subsequent elections.
Realizing the immensity of responsibility that the Church teaching on conjugal and family life seemed to impose on married couples, I was initially shocked, even angered by it. The message of the teaching was lost in the language that proscribed contraception and implied that couples were not sovereign in their bedrooms. For many years, when I was still single, I struggled accepting this intellectually. That ended when I got married at the age of twenty-five. My wife and I together prayed and discerned what the teaching of the Church meant to us, why it was important to follow, and what resources were available so we could be faithful. Paradoxically, two minds and hearts were better than one in making this tough decision.
In the midst of this discernment process, we were also graced by an event that irrevocably changed our life as a couple: three months after getting married, my wife was operated on for an ovarian cyst and her doctor told us that we better have children right away if we wanted to have any at all. When that happened, we abandoned our well laid plans not to have children yet while she prioritized her career, I finished law school, and we built up savings from our meager salaries as a philosophy teacher and NGO worker. In that event and during our discernment process, the message of love that is the heart of the teaching became clear and we joyfully made the decision to obey the Church – to be always open to life and to use natural means to plan our family. The fruits of this decision are three sons – now young men as passionate about life and opinionated on issues (including this one) as us. How can we have any regrets?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Talking Points for Dialogue on RH Bill 96, filed 1 July 2010
*From the blog of Fr. Jessel Gerard Gonzales, SJ*
NOTE: This post is intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96). Please post, discuss, and pass on. I intentionally highlighted in bold letters the intention of this article so that those who might sensationalize the issue (like the media, especially the Inquirer) will NOT miss it. In addition, the RH Bill we are talking about here is RH 96 filed on 1 July 2010. We are not talking about the others. Thanks.
_______________________
Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)
The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.
The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:
The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.
Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.
Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.
Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.
Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?
Employers’ Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.
Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.
Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.
Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill’s implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.
The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.
Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.
***************************************************************************
I encourage you to read other posts and articles about the RH Bill. Will post links later on.
NOTE: This post is intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96). Please post, discuss, and pass on. I intentionally highlighted in bold letters the intention of this article so that those who might sensationalize the issue (like the media, especially the Inquirer) will NOT miss it. In addition, the RH Bill we are talking about here is RH 96 filed on 1 July 2010. We are not talking about the others. Thanks.
_______________________
Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)
The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.
The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:
The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.
Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.
Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.
Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.
Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?
Employers’ Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.
Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.
Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.
Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill’s implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.
The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.
Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.
***************************************************************************
I encourage you to read other posts and articles about the RH Bill. Will post links later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)