|
|
Kind hearted and generous as he is widely known,
business mogul Manuel V. Pangilinan (MVP)) also has the prerogative to
stop supporting at anytime the beneficiaries of his altruistic acts like
what he did to the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU). His move would
have been fairer to all concerned had he just kept the matter between
them. The publication of his letter to ADMU President Fr. Jett Villarin,
SJ only gave rise to a lot of speculations and comments which are quite
unfair not only to him, the ADMU and others involved in these
controversial issues.
It is indeed quite clear already that MVP withdrew his support to ADMU because their positions on large-scale mining and the RH bill are “diametrically and unequivocally” opposite. Such categorical statement should have ended further speculations on other possible reasons for the termination of their humanitarian relationship. With the publication of the letter however, certain sectors say that MVP is still pressuring ADMU to change its stand on these two issues and that ADMU may still do so in exchange for continued support. This is quite unfair to both especially to ADMU which is pictured here as having a weak backbone easily susceptible to pressure. Definitely this is not in accordance with the school’s “do or die” stance when pushed to the wall on matters of principle. ADMU’s stoic silence an unpublished terse reply in this regard eloquently conveys this stance.
MVP’s withdrawal of support to ADMU appears to be more damaging to him because of the evolving public impression that there are strings attached to his altruistic acts. It may be true that his action is purely motivated by some of his “major concerns” as a Filipino. But the fact that his letter was published by the “business development” section of Philex Mining has been interpreted to mean that he stopped supporting ADMU’s academic and sports program because the latter’s adverse stand on large scale mining will affect his company’s mining business.
This MVP-ADMU parting of ways highlights once more the growing discord and confounding confusion brought about by this RH bill being imposed upon us by foreign lobbyists and governments out to enforce their agenda of population control through abortion by the use of contraceptives. They have even created cracks within a respected institution like ADMU where some professors and alumni openly came out with positions exactly opposite the school’s position on the RH bill. Most prominent among them are MVP and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ.
MVP is even blaming the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for withdrawing his support to the ADMU because of its failure to show “tangibly and significantly its concern for the poor and the corrupt and sharing the burden with business and government the enormous task of nation building — including the appropriate moral formation of our people and our leaders.”
The irony here is that in opposing the RH bill, the bishops are precisely trying to protect all Filipinos, regardless of creed and stature in life from the RH bill’s ill effects on their moral and physical welfare. They are not taking a position “contrary to the interest of our country,” but contrary to the interest of foreign lobby groups and pharmaceutical companies selling those contraceptives, by pointing out the fact that as already proven by the experiences in other countries, particularly the USA, contraception which the bill promotes under the guise of women’s reproductive health has only caused rampant abortion and other serious health problems as well as breakups of marriages and families.
On the other hand, Fr. Bernas, SJ whom I hold in high esteem seems to sow more confusion in his stand. He adheres to the Church teaching like ADMU, regarding the evils of contraception. But he still believes that the bishops cannot compel the State to adopt the Church teaching on contraception by rejecting the RH bill sponsored by foreign groups. I hope I am wrong, but my reading of Fr. Bernas’ stand is that the RH bill can still be enacted into law despite the proven dangers and harm it may bring to the life, health and morals of our people as already shown by experiences in other countries.
To stress once more, the main issue on the RH bill is not a matter of faith but a matter of fact and of law. So the Church should not be blamed for opposing it.
The facts as already shown in other countries are that
contraceptives which the bill makes available using taxpayers’ money,
directly cause or lead to abortion or the killing of a helpless,
defenseless unborn child, and other serious health problems on mother
and children, as well as broken marriages and families. The laws
violated are the Constitution which recognizes the sanctity of family
life and mandates the State to protect and strengthen family; to protect
the life of the mother and the unborn from conception; and to protect
marriage as an inviolable social institution (Article II Section 12,
Article XV Sections 1 and 2). Also violated is the Revised Penal Code
penalizing abortion (Articles 256-259).
This controversy on the RH bill indeed shows that our sense of values is getting distorted. We are becoming more and more materialistic and giving undue importance and excessive value to the things of this world. We care more for our material than our spiritual well being; for our body at the expense of our soul. Money has taken the place of God in our lives. We are slowly entering an era of too much relativism and individualism where our conscience “determines by itself” what is right or wrong without regard to the “objective truth indicated by the Divine and Natural Law.” This is a dangerous tendency that must be checked.
It is indeed quite clear already that MVP withdrew his support to ADMU because their positions on large-scale mining and the RH bill are “diametrically and unequivocally” opposite. Such categorical statement should have ended further speculations on other possible reasons for the termination of their humanitarian relationship. With the publication of the letter however, certain sectors say that MVP is still pressuring ADMU to change its stand on these two issues and that ADMU may still do so in exchange for continued support. This is quite unfair to both especially to ADMU which is pictured here as having a weak backbone easily susceptible to pressure. Definitely this is not in accordance with the school’s “do or die” stance when pushed to the wall on matters of principle. ADMU’s stoic silence an unpublished terse reply in this regard eloquently conveys this stance.
MVP’s withdrawal of support to ADMU appears to be more damaging to him because of the evolving public impression that there are strings attached to his altruistic acts. It may be true that his action is purely motivated by some of his “major concerns” as a Filipino. But the fact that his letter was published by the “business development” section of Philex Mining has been interpreted to mean that he stopped supporting ADMU’s academic and sports program because the latter’s adverse stand on large scale mining will affect his company’s mining business.
This MVP-ADMU parting of ways highlights once more the growing discord and confounding confusion brought about by this RH bill being imposed upon us by foreign lobbyists and governments out to enforce their agenda of population control through abortion by the use of contraceptives. They have even created cracks within a respected institution like ADMU where some professors and alumni openly came out with positions exactly opposite the school’s position on the RH bill. Most prominent among them are MVP and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ.
MVP is even blaming the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for withdrawing his support to the ADMU because of its failure to show “tangibly and significantly its concern for the poor and the corrupt and sharing the burden with business and government the enormous task of nation building — including the appropriate moral formation of our people and our leaders.”
The irony here is that in opposing the RH bill, the bishops are precisely trying to protect all Filipinos, regardless of creed and stature in life from the RH bill’s ill effects on their moral and physical welfare. They are not taking a position “contrary to the interest of our country,” but contrary to the interest of foreign lobby groups and pharmaceutical companies selling those contraceptives, by pointing out the fact that as already proven by the experiences in other countries, particularly the USA, contraception which the bill promotes under the guise of women’s reproductive health has only caused rampant abortion and other serious health problems as well as breakups of marriages and families.
On the other hand, Fr. Bernas, SJ whom I hold in high esteem seems to sow more confusion in his stand. He adheres to the Church teaching like ADMU, regarding the evils of contraception. But he still believes that the bishops cannot compel the State to adopt the Church teaching on contraception by rejecting the RH bill sponsored by foreign groups. I hope I am wrong, but my reading of Fr. Bernas’ stand is that the RH bill can still be enacted into law despite the proven dangers and harm it may bring to the life, health and morals of our people as already shown by experiences in other countries.
To stress once more, the main issue on the RH bill is not a matter of faith but a matter of fact and of law. So the Church should not be blamed for opposing it.
This controversy on the RH bill indeed shows that our sense of values is getting distorted. We are becoming more and more materialistic and giving undue importance and excessive value to the things of this world. We care more for our material than our spiritual well being; for our body at the expense of our soul. Money has taken the place of God in our lives. We are slowly entering an era of too much relativism and individualism where our conscience “determines by itself” what is right or wrong without regard to the “objective truth indicated by the Divine and Natural Law.” This is a dangerous tendency that must be checked.
* * *
