RH Bill - Q and A

Posted by Claire:

Abortion is the greatest sin in this world and each of us need to take stand for life, you cannot say you love God, if you are disobeying His commandments, life is precious in Gods eyes.

A piece of advice : Do not allow the world to fool you, you should not listen to those who are refusing to take stand on life. We must protect life and believe that God is who decides who should live or die.

Armor yourself with purity, humility and love. Keep prayer always near...

Claire May Tolentino

{Esther 8:2} ...and she humbled her body with fasting, and all the aspects of her beauty, she covered with her torn hair.

SharlieM..: Why are you talking about abortion?

Charity aka Yidda (my sister) :

Many forms of contraception are abortifacient (able to cause an abortion). Perhaps more abortions occur from abortifacient contraception than from surgical abortions.

Contraception leads to abortion because both are based on a rejection of sound ethics in the area of sexuality and procreation.

Pope John Paul II: "It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

"But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

"The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13)

www.gmanews.tv/story/212992/catholic-bishops-our-stand-on-the-rh-bill-is-like-edsa-1

Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Really? Then why did Pope John XXIII and later
expanded by Pope Paul VI created the Pontifical Commission on Birth
Control? A commission whose sole purpose is to study if the church can
change its stand on this issue without the Pope's Infallibility taking a hit.It
took the experts and clergy assigned in this commission two years from
1964 to 1966 of study and what was the majority's conclusion? In 1966,
majority of this commission basically concluded that "artificial birth
control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be
allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed".

The voting in this commission went 60 - 4 (laity)
for change, 9 - 6 (clergy) for change. The majority added that the
Pope's Infallibility will definitely take a hit but to change is the
right thing to do.

Pope Paul VI did not act on it immediately but when he did, he took the minority conclusion and the rest they say is history.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/220667/nation/palace-to-bishops-dont-turn-rh-bill-issue-into-personal-war-vs-aquino#comment-204304669

Yidda :

The person quoted above is mistaken about the commission. See this article for accurate information: http://www.zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

The claim that they were concerned that 'papal infallibility would take a hit' is false and absurd. The commission was studying the new form of birth control that had recently been invented, oral contraceptives. There was no prior magisterial teaching, infallible or non-infallible, specifically on oral contraceptives because it was a new invention. So there could not have been a prior use of papal infallibility on the subject.

The basic ethical question was: Are oral contraceptives morally the same as other forms of artificial birth control that had long been condemned by the Church.

Grisez: "But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned."

"Q. why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?

"Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.

"After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception."

Church teaching is not determined by a majority vote. What if the Jews of Jesus' time had voted as to whether or not He was the Messiah? Most Jews did not convert to Christianity, so we can conclude that most would vote, 'No.'

Joe wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

And below is the minority conclusion/report, co-authored by a Cardinal who would later on become Pope John Paul II:

"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself,
then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on
the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives),
and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists
in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that
for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a
large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.


This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme
imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be
sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by
the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at
least not approved."

Yidda:

The above quote reasons that the Holy Spirit could not possibly have abandoned the teaching authority of the Church, and therefore, the teaching of the Church against contraception must be a true teaching. Since this [at the time] new form of contraception is morally still a type of contraception, it too must be immoral. So the reasoning of this quote (attributed to Pope John Paul II when he was a Cardinal, but I cannot confirm this) is sound.

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

But the MAGISTERIUM (teaching authority) of the Roman Church is NEVER primary nor more powerful than the very CONSCIENCE OF MAN itself! My conscience tells me that my bishops are WRONG on the issue of the RH Bill. The right of the State to ensure the health of its citizens and give them education and legally recognized options to plan the growth of their individual families should never be deemed evil nor damnable by the Church. I admonish the bishops to listen to the COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCES OF ITS MEMBERS - the Body of Christ - who suffer the effects of poor education on this subject matter.

Yidda :

The Magisterium teaches either infallibly (no possibility of error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). The Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium in teaching on faith and morals. The Magisterium teaches from infallible Tradition and infallible Scripture. So the teaching of the Magisterium is above the conscience, which is unable to teach infallibly or even non-infallibly.

The expression 'the collective consciences of the faithful' is merely a way to suggest that the faithful could vote, and by a majority overrule the Holy Spirit teaching through the Magisterium. But the majority of the faithful can go astray, they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit as the Magisterium is.

Catholics are morally obligated to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. For the teaching of the Magisterium is the teaching of Christ. Should the listeners of Christ preaching, during His ministry here on earth, have been able to vote to see if a majority agreed with him?

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Claire, the election of a pope is a fruit of a "majority opinion". When you use the Word of God to make a point, I suggest you contemplate on it first. I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE INTO LAW OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

Yidda :

When a Pope is elected, only Cardinals vote. Currently, all Cardinals are Bishops. Also they are not voting on what is moral and what is immoral. But if they were voting on questions of morality, they are Bishops, so they can exercise the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the same as having a majority of the laity determine what is or is not moral by a vote.

MoralCaffeine wrote, in response to Claire May Tolentino:

Claire, before the MAGISTERIUM, there is the HUMAN CONSCIENCE! And my conscience is already tired of seeing so many children born from parents who have not planned their future ahead of time. Authentic respect from human life begins with PROPER FAMILY PLANNING!

Yidda:

The Magisterium is above the human conscience, because the Magisterium has the guarantee from Jesus that His Spirit will guide the teaching of the Magisterium to avoid error.

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good." (CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 38.)

The bad consequence that children are born in difficult situations cannot cause contraception to become moral, because contraception is intrinsically evil. It is a type of act that is wrong by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances.

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
[...]
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Casti Connubii, n. 54-56.)

Pope John Paul II: "Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church 'is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.' And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral 'every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.' " (Familiaris Consortio, 32; inner quote is from Humanae Vitae, n. 12, 14.)

_____________

there how it goes the discussion in GMAnews etc... posted here for easy reading ~ ClaireMay