GLIMPSES GLIMPSES
"In bayanihan, we will be our brother's keeper and forever shut the door to hunger among ourselves."
Jose Ma. Montelibano
1st of 2 parts
I cannot believe how former partners in the exploitation of land and people can suddenly turn on each other over reproductive and population control issues but deftly avoid their common guilt. I cannot believe how bishops and politicians can touch on how the poor should behave in their reproductive practices but veer away on the undisputed cause of poverty.
In previous articles, I have twitted the protagonists on the pro-life versus pro-choice controversy that they skirmish on the less essentials in order to distract themselves, and the people, from the most essential. One points to how the bigger number of children aggravate the poverty situation and the hardship of the poor families affected. The other points to fundamental religious tenets about the primacy of life, including the rights of the unborn. Both have valid points, but both remain afraid to do battle against the single biggest cause for what pro choice and pro life condemn.
Population does not cause poverty. A bigger family size can aggravate the suffering of poor families, but poverty also causes a bigger family size. The justification of the loudest pro choice advocates in Congress, and in legislative bodies of towns and cities, in calling for all types of birth control methods, products and devices is poverty. Yet, they are strangely quiet on the only proven cause for the ugliness and massiveness of poverty in the Philippines - corruption.
The Church suddenly finds the courage to challenge some representatives of the States. It called for Catholics to show their support for the pro life stance in a prayer rally which generated 10 -12 thousand instead of 1 - 2 million. And among the embarrassing number of Catholics who joined the pro life gatheri8ng in the University of Santo Tomas, the poor were not present, not even when they were the ones the Church tried to protect the most from the evil of artificial birth control. Perhaps, the poor were trying to tell the Church that they wanted to be protected from greed and exploitation, not condoms.
Just earlier this year, the Church finally articulated what ordinary Catholics and Filipino citizens have long been talking about - the cancer of corruption. After doing so, however, the newfound courage quickly retreated and could not lead the victims of corruption, or the whole Christendom of the Philippines, to an effective initiative against the most public of agents of corruption. Instead, it chose to hide behind the principle of separation of Church and State to wash its hands from having to be the righteous David to the corrupt Goliath. But condoms managed to make the same religious hierarchy shriek in dismay and anger, then call on catholics to do the same.
Who is right - pro life or pro choice? It is difficult to assess as advocates of both have shrank in credibility. Pro life Catholics have tolerated, maybe even participated, in corruption. Corruption has caused our poverty, and poverty has demeaned life that is and not just life that is yet to be. When pro life advocates led by the Church in the Philippines are seen as inutile or unconcerned in the active protection of the poor, their words or claim to being pro life rings hollow, even hypocritical. And because they are not that credible, even the message they give lack credibility.
to be continued tomorrow.......
--
1st of 2 parts
I cannot believe how former partners in the exploitation of land and people can suddenly turn on each other over reproductive and population control issues but deftly avoid their common guilt. I cannot believe how bishops and politicians can touch on how the poor should behave in their reproductive practices but veer away on the undisputed cause of poverty.
In previous articles, I have twitted the protagonists on the pro-life versus pro-choice controversy that they skirmish on the less essentials in order to distract themselves, and the people, from the most essential. One points to how the bigger number of children aggravate the poverty situation and the hardship of the poor families affected. The other points to fundamental religious tenets about the primacy of life, including the rights of the unborn. Both have valid points, but both remain afraid to do battle against the single biggest cause for what pro choice and pro life condemn.
Population does not cause poverty. A bigger family size can aggravate the suffering of poor families, but poverty also causes a bigger family size. The justification of the loudest pro choice advocates in Congress, and in legislative bodies of towns and cities, in calling for all types of birth control methods, products and devices is poverty. Yet, they are strangely quiet on the only proven cause for the ugliness and massiveness of poverty in the Philippines - corruption.
The Church suddenly finds the courage to challenge some representatives of the States. It called for Catholics to show their support for the pro life stance in a prayer rally which generated 10 -12 thousand instead of 1 - 2 million. And among the embarrassing number of Catholics who joined the pro life gatheri8ng in the University of Santo Tomas, the poor were not present, not even when they were the ones the Church tried to protect the most from the evil of artificial birth control. Perhaps, the poor were trying to tell the Church that they wanted to be protected from greed and exploitation, not condoms.
Just earlier this year, the Church finally articulated what ordinary Catholics and Filipino citizens have long been talking about - the cancer of corruption. After doing so, however, the newfound courage quickly retreated and could not lead the victims of corruption, or the whole Christendom of the Philippines, to an effective initiative against the most public of agents of corruption. Instead, it chose to hide behind the principle of separation of Church and State to wash its hands from having to be the righteous David to the corrupt Goliath. But condoms managed to make the same religious hierarchy shriek in dismay and anger, then call on catholics to do the same.
Who is right - pro life or pro choice? It is difficult to assess as advocates of both have shrank in credibility. Pro life Catholics have tolerated, maybe even participated, in corruption. Corruption has caused our poverty, and poverty has demeaned life that is and not just life that is yet to be. When pro life advocates led by the Church in the Philippines are seen as inutile or unconcerned in the active protection of the poor, their words or claim to being pro life rings hollow, even hypocritical. And because they are not that credible, even the message they give lack credibility.
to be continued tomorrow.......
--
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment