I thought about critically analyzing the pastoral letter as my follow-up entry since it'll bring more clarity to the issues at hand, however, I've changed my mind. Instead, I'll examine Arvin's dreadful comments regarding my previous post: The Philippine RH Bill A Clear-Cut Solution. I hope you'll enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.
First of all, it is false that CBCP is against family planning programs when they are agree in a family exercising Natural Family Planning.
Yes, it was indeed an error from my part. I should have explained and pointed out further that: with the numerous advances in technology (proven both safe and effective) towards preventing an unwanted pregnancy, the local priests preach instead for women to try guessing their egg-cycles. Now, isn't natural family planning's end-goal is inasmuch the same goal of artificial family planning? Then why should women bother themselves with these primitive yet complicated means of contraception? The main point here is that the Church's Morality should NOT in any manner encroach the FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF BOTH MEN AND WOMEN LET IT BE REPRODUCTIVE OR ANY OTHER. Should we allow morality to permeate our life decisions it will be an individual-to-individual basis.
Isn't the reasons stated why they are against RH bill by the Bishop in the Pastoral Letter are valid like population doesn't have correlation with poverty, that we are not overpopulated actually, and that we must address the true cause of poverty like wrong philosophy of development of our country, corruption and wrong education system? Since what they say about that is true, now, it doesn't follow that RH bill is a clear cut solution. And me reading the phrase "clear-cut" solution is like jumping in conclusion because by just thinking about its after effect, it is doubtful to think that we will solve many problems at one shot.
I'd hate to do a lecture but "Population having no relationship with poverty" is in-itself entirely misleading. The layman's explanation for this is that more people will have to compete for resources and in the Philippine context, we barely have any left. I guess you wouldn't trouble looking up our national budget for that. Nobody even has the authority either to claim that a country is overpopulated OR NOT since there is no quantitative criteria for telling that a country is overpopulated; it is but a qualitative term. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't curb the exponential growth of population because of limited resources. The global demand for food and employment however are both measurable phenomena and I am telling you that it is in a very alarming level which our country is not exclusive from.
Let's measure the motives of government and bishops. What personal interest would bishops and priests gain when they would be successful on stopping the passing of RH bill? I can't think of any and it is contrary to what may government gain. And that is either money or conscience or both. Money is the motive because passing of this bill will a create a massive project where profit can be massive; Conscience is another motive because contraceptives, from the word itself is against life and against the command of God na magpakarami, will be light on our conscience when it will be a law since anything in the law is for the good.
As for the motives of the clergy, my most feasible hypothesis would be that they are revolting to preserve the tradition of their canonical laws. This is unfair because their canon laws and scriptures solely apply to them, not to the Filipino people as a nation. On the contrary, just so you know, that instead of gaining profits, the government will have to fund this RH Bill, now known as the Responsible Parenthood Bill. Therefore, it is a debit not a credit to the national budget.
I have been stupendously aghast the moment you quoted "God" and "his command" in your reply. For the last time, your teachings and preachings are ENTIRELY LIMITED TO YOU AND YOUR CHRISTIANHOOD. Do not compromise our nation's democracy for your own religious propagandas because we have different beliefs. Respect that.