RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards

409
17733

Going against the grain, going against the tide, going against popularity surveys, the University of Santo Tomas has upheld the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) condemning the Reproductive Health (RH) bill as an anti-poor, social-engineering measure that not only denigrates the natural law but also runs roughshod over maternal health, kowtows to the contraceptive imperialism of the West, and generally blames the poor and their alleged overpopulation for the ills of society, when it’s the Philippine state and its depredations—its mismanagement and appalling corruption—that are to blame.

UST is a Catholic institution. It is a pontifical institution—the second to be so named in world history. Nobody should question whether the University supports the Church’s stand as the Gospel of Christ is UST’s—and any Catholic institution’s—pillar and foundation.

Professors who are affiliated with UST must respect the stand of the University against the RH bill as they are part of an institution which is fundamentally bound with Catholic faith and teachings. If UST professors don’t agree with the stand of the CBCP, then they have a problem. The bishops are the successors of the Christ’s apostles and possess the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

If faculty members of UST and other Catholic schools feel they need to invoke their academic freedom to make known their stand in conflict with the bishops regarding the RH bill, then they’re free to do so. But they must resign from UST. They must give up their Catholic academic affiliation. They must have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Upholding their conscience, they must respect the Church and her teachings.

Recently, a number of professors from Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University have voiced their support for the RH bill. A close reading of the measure should show it promotes abortifacients.

A total of 192 Ateneo professors supported the RH bill in their Aug. 13 statement, arguing that the “RH bill can have a decided impact on alleviating pressing social concerns such as high maternal mortality ratio, the rise in teenage pregnancies, and the increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases, among others.”

Last Sept. 3, 45 La Salle professors joined the bandwagon, arguing that there is a need for artificial contraceptives as these can control the growth of the population and improve the quality of life.

It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems. How could they argue that an RH measure would be needed to lower maternal mortality when the Philippine government not too long ago had told the United Nations that it was on track to meet the Unesco millennium development goals by 2015, one of which was the lowering of maternal deaths? How could they argue that alleged high mortality must be checked by an RH measure when pregnancy complications are not in the Top 10 causes of women’s deaths? How could they argue that contraceptives allegedly worth billions of pesos must be given to women to avert pregnancy risks when contraceptives have been known to cause cardiac problems, which are the No. 1 cause of death of Filipino women?

How could Ateneo and La Salle professors dismiss the medically established dangerous side effects of contraceptives when they are not even physicians?

In contrast, UST, which has the oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, has always warned about the dangerous side effects of contraceptives. UST and her physicians surely know whereof they speak. They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!

But what’s more appalling is that the Jesuit and Christian Brother administrations of Ateneo and La Salle didn’t reprimand their faculty members for openly defying the bishops. Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.

The Ateneo administration did not even clamp down on two theology professors who signed the pro-RH statement for violating the mandatum of the Catholic Church on theology professors to observe orthodoxy. Perhaps even worse, a Filipino Jesuit professor has been quoted by his student in the latter’s Facebook as scoffing at the alleged threat of the bishops to remove Ateneo’s Catholic title, saying that Ateneo in any case does not have the word “Catholic” appended to its name, so what’s there to lose? We’re pretty sure Saint Ignatius would have no confusion on where to put that jesuitic Jesuit—in Heaven or Hell?—in his famous Spiritual Exercises.

The Ateneo and La Salle professors therefore have been treated with kid gloves by the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers. Although they’re religious and members of Catholic orders, the Jesuits and Christian Brothers have failed to uphold orthodoxy and defend the Church. As far as the RH bill and support for it among their faculty are concerned, they’re lemons. And as far as the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned, they’re dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.

It is quite gratifying that UST has cracked the whip and reminded its faculty members that they’re members of a Catholic institution and should toe the line.

UST Secretary General Fr. Winston Cabading, O.P. has sent a letter to Prof. Clarita Carillo, Ph.D., vice rector for academic affairs and research, to reaffirm the University’s support of the bishops on matters of faith and morals.

“In the light of recent events where some faculty members of Catholic Universities have publicly expressed dissenting positions from the Catholic bishops on matters of faith and morals, we in the University would like to reaffirm our fidelity to the magisterium of the Church as the Catholic University of the Philippines,” Cabading stated in the letter.

UST was given the title of “The Catholic University of the Philippines” in 1947 by Pope Pius XII. Even earlier, in 1902, UST had been declared a “Pontifical University,” the second to be so named in history even ahead of European universities. Therefore, the University has embodied the ideals that Catholic universities must possess, including the Catholic “education” which the students must learn from their professors.

Cabading also stated in his letter that “all faculty members of the University are to refrain from teaching or expressing their personal opinions within the bounds of the University, anything contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”

As these professors have chosen to teach in a Catholic university, they must abide by its teachings and beliefs. In the first place, the same is demanded of students.

Cabading emphasized that such reaffirmation is “to safeguard the right of the students to a solid Catholic education.”

Faculty members are “obliged to uphold and show deference to their teaching authority whenever the bishops of the Church have spoken on an issue and have taken a stand in behalf of the Church,” the Dominican Patristics scholar explained.

Father Cabading has also clarified that professors, “if they are to speak outside the University of anything contrary to the position of the Church, they are to do so only as private individuals and never identify themselves as faculty members of the University.”

Every person is given the “freedom” to choose but that freedom is not absolute.

Professors, who are opposed to the University’s—and the bishops’—stand, have always the choice of leaving the University’s portals if they adulterate the Catholic education that the student is entitled to with their personal preference or personal position. The student of a Catholic school must receive Catholic teachings without adulteration, without debasement.

But is Father Cabading’s declaration contrary to “academic freedom?”

In the first place, academic freedom is not absolute. The Church does not say that a professor must always take the stand of the Church. In the first place, teachers and scholars should know that they’re applying for teaching positions in a sectarian institution.

The professors, before they apply for a university position, must know the background of a university. In this case, a Catholic university, like Ateneo, La Salle and UST, has a purpose over and above academic freedoms: the nature and function of a Catholic school are inextricably tied up with the mandatum given by Christ to the Apostles before He ascended to Heaven: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Douay-Rheims Bible).

In short, over and above academic freedom, the Catholic university exists for evangelical purposes. By going against the stand of the bishops, the Ateneo and La Salle professors are saying they don’t agree with the Church’s mission. If so, they’re free to leave. In fact, they must leave. They must resign if they have the courage of their conviction.

But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila.

409 COMMENTS

    • This is way too much!
      1) Is UST so frustrated that it can no longer think straight on how to PROPERLY present its stand?
      2) What good does insulting others brings you?
      3) Do you think that by presenting the school’s stand/opinion arrogantly that it is practicing the Catholic values?

      I expect nothing like this from my alma matter. This is so embarassing. Shameful!

      • Religion, being a way of life, is a very sensitive topic. Some people die for it (like a martyr) and some kill for it (like a jihadist).

    • I admire the conviction of the UST officials as stated in this editorial. We need clear directions from the people who were precisely tasked to be in a position of guidance. No ifs or buts – either one is in or out. In this time of relativism, a clear stand such as this is badly needed. Yes there will be critics but that’s what standing for what is right truly means. More power to UST! You know God’s blessings are on you at this time.

      • No issue with standing for what you think is right. The problem here is with the defamation of others in the process.

        This is a sign of poor character. What a shame.

      • A Catholic man? Woman? Or a Catholic ass? We don’t even know who or what kind of creature could write shallow arguments wrapped in scathing insults like this. Surely, you must be kidding when you attribute courage to someone who is so cowardly he attacks others without showing who he is. Whoever wrote this editorial made himself clear on his stand on the RH bill, good for him, but why is there a need for insults? That’s not a very Christ-like thing to do.

      • Sounds like you. And let me tell you, it’s pathetic. In the seas of negative feedback about the article you just made, you tried to sway the majority’s voice by posting a fake comment like yours. Arrogante ka na wala sa lugar at mukhang ikaw ang may saltik sa utak.

      • What is there to admire in this editorial? The draconian rule against the expression of one’s own opinions in teaching? The staunch stand of the Catholic Church against a bill with provisions that HAVE been proven all over the world to aid in the improvement of lives? The discounting of the RH-bill as a bill that will pave the path towards abortion when in fact there is no unbiased reading of it that will lead one to that conclusion(the writer has also forgotten to quote which part of the RH-bill implies this)? The belittling of Ateneo and De La Salle professors? The absolutist stance on the issue?

        Well, I find there to be a -lot- of things to be admired in this editorial.

        Since when has relativism been a bad thing? There is no such thing as black and white in the real world. The moral landscape is a dynamic thing! This is not a -clear- stand. This is a derogatory attack on other people who -dare- to think that there are those out there who know how to think for themselves and not doggedly follow the teachings of a church that has done many, many horrifying things in its history up until the present.

        “Standing for what is right” in this case, is tantamount to standing for the movement that is slowly turning the Philippine government into a theocracy.

      • And I thought the days of friars written by Rizal were ancient! NAY!!!! I say to thee! This editorial only proves the sense of heirarchy and power these friars ideally exercise over their constituents!

        If you cant exercise opinion on pertinent issues that involve public life then what do you teach? And teaching ethics based on freedom of expression based on one’s own moral judgement is NOT Catholic?! This is simply prejudice.

        Despite the fact that I abhor the government funding something as absurd as the RH Bill, I cannot help but take the side of a free-willing professor who stands for his own moral and ethical better judgement, not something ruled by so called rulings based on Royal Pontifical biases.

        LEMONS WILL ALWAYS BE YELLOW NOT BLUE NOR GREEN!

      • This “no ifs or buts” thinking is what started the Inquisition in the 12th century. In my opinion, questioning is essential for your faith. It is healthy. Questioning is searching for knowledge. It strengthens your faith. It is different from doubt. Doubting refuses knowledge. Let us not confuse our free will and our ability to think with relativism. I do not think it makes us heretics and less moral for standing up to the CBCP for what we believe in.

      • This “no ifs or buts” thinking is what started the Inquisition in the 12th century. In my opinion, questioning is essential for your faith. It is healthy. Questioning is searching for knowledge. It strengthens your faith. It is different from doubt. Doubting refuses knowledge. Let us not confuse our free will and our ability to think with relativism. I do not think it makes us heretics and less moral for supporting the RH bill as something we believe will be good for the country.

      • Yes, I get your point Ma’am/Sir but The Varsitarian is a student publication and this is an editorial. Editorial writers should not go against nor make a stand on an issue. Based form facts.

      • It does take courage. It does take courage especially when you’re feeding the mouths of 5 children, inside a shanty with little or almost no income, and believe that one day God shall reward those who are poor. It does take courage to wait it out until one receives such blessings in the afterlife.

        But while it is courageous to stand by beliefs, it is no less dangerous for one to risk the lives of his/her children or possible children in the name of faith. Yes, birth control methods may be dangerous, but isn’t giving numerous births dangerous to the life of the mother as well?

        Eh kung mapapanganib naman buhay ko at ng mga anak ko dahil natatakot akong tanggalin sa simbahang Katoliko, kung mapapanganib kami dahil sa paniniwala namin, magiging “duwag” na lang ako. Aalis na lang ako at lilipat sa relihiyon kung saan hindi masusukat ang karakter namin ng mga KAPWA TAO din (may basbas man ang CBCP, TAO pa rin lang sila).

        Tutal, lumipat man ako, pagkatapos ng lahat – DIYOS lang ang makakapaghusga sa akin.

  1. are you really a thomasian? after reading your editorial, i feel like i’m not really sure. being a graduate of UST, i am confident that the University did not raise me this way. i was taught to respect the opinions of others even if it is contrary to my own. i was taught that in order to be respected, you must first respect others. your writing, im sorry to say, does not reflect the proper upbringing of a Thomasian. i feel so sorry for you.

  2. If this is your idea of faith and the Catholic church, how is it different from slavery? Forcing individuals to abandon their common sense and just sticking to what a single institution is saying.

    Sana hindi na lang pinagaral yung mga tao. Sana hindi ka na lang tinuruan ng sports o kung ano pa mang wala sa Bible. Sana sumunod na lang lahat sa turo ng simbahan.

    “Every person is given the “freedom” to choose but that freedom is not absolute.”

    I do not agree. Each one of us has absolute freedom. Kaya ka nga nakapgsulat ka ng ganitong article nang walang pakialam sa side ng mga tinira mo diba???

    Its up to the person to decide what he does or how he makes use of that that freedom. Same goes for the use of contraceptives. Its not a mandatory thing. You have the FREEDOM to choose.

    Bear in mind that not all citizens of this country are under your so called Church.

    Also since you gave so much facts. I’d like to give one also. In the Southeast Asian region, what’s the only country where the Christian Church is the dominant religious institution? Next question. In the same region, what country is the one that is struggling the most? Same answer for both.

    You write good, author pero sana you think better.

  3. There are so many things wrong here on sooo many levels, agree?
    There are a lot of good things that the ‘Catholic Church’ uphold yet I believe ‘God’ would be disappointed with your short-sightedness and close-mindedness. It’s so sad to have Catholics who think and believe this way 🙁
    I (and many others I hope) that ‘God’ would open up your hearts to your own blindness and foolishness, please I really hope ‘God’ would do that to you in time 🙂

  4. The Philippines knows neither free speech nor what academic freedom is. Do you want a theocracy or a secular democracy? What you have now is a theocracy colluding with the warlords and capitalist landlords to oppress the people. You cannot have bishops telling faculty what they can or cannot say and call it a democracy, or call it a university. What yo have is a school of dogmatic indoctrination. Call it a school. Call the country a theocracy. If that’s what the people want, then they have what they want. The Philippines is the last country on Earth controlled by the Catholic Church and is thus a battleground of fierce abusive manipulations and lies promulgated by the clergy. Your country is a joke. No one takes you seriously. Look at the poverty and the suffering, of which the Catholic Church does nothing to end. The issue in the RH Bill is not about contraception but about the maintenance of the tyranny of the Church and the servants in government who serve the autocratic power of the rich and the Church. The fraud, the charade is over.

    • i completely agree with you…this is not about the “Catholic values” they were fighting for. you got the right word for this…Church tyranny. So as the people are worried about the return of “martial law” in the country, shouldnt they be worried that the “El Fili” scenario which is still happening up to this generation.

  5. This article could have been feasible enough to be respected. Your points on contraceptives being more of a harm than good would have opened intellectual discourse. However, the writer and editors of this fallacious and atrocious article should recant and completely delete this post because for a school who claims to be so godly and holy, your biased and groundless accusations, actually insults, show how the only thing you people can exude is hypocrisy.

    Seriously, your bible talks of nothing but casting the first stone and God being the one true judger. And you come out bashing my school and Ateneo. Talk about unprofessional journalism and eternal damnation on your part. And by the way, before you go out flinging statements, read up. There is no mention of the allowance of abortion in the RH Bill. As a matter of fact, the RH Bill defines Reproductive health care as “Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;”.

    PS. I hope Ateneo wins in UAAP.

  6. UST have their own right to choose their stand over the hot topic -RH Bill. It is okay to clearly state the stand – if this is the unified perception of the university of the school and proclaim your high ground on being a “PONTIFICAL INSTITUTION” but wrongful to insult and not clearly state the facts among other Catholic schools – mostly for ADMU and DLSU.

    You just bragged your university and done damage to other two – that’s all. A narcissist who just want to won the argument at the expense of others. Your published opinion is nonetheless but a bias one which doesn’t show the true light of the pros and cons of both the school and the bill – which by the way, a good journalist should do.

    CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY. From the word itself, UST, together with DLSU and ADMU are both a Catholic and an educational institution that adheres to educational excellence and enlightenment of its students, faculty, and other members with the light of Catholic teachings.

    With regards to your opinion, you only favored Catholic teachings without regards to high education. If that is the case, then, you should not be an institution for knowledge but better be a center of Catholicism. The educational competence of the prestige university must then be questioned.

    • Abortion is evil; it is murdering babies, just unborn
      ALL nations that legalize abortion started with an RH law
      In the US, study shows that 6 out of 10 women who go to abortion clinics are due to failed contraceptives, resulting to UNWANTED babies; logical choice? Kill their babies.. such evil!

      It is grand stupidity that you persist in supporting the RH bill when you know very well it will lead to the murdering of your future grandchildren c/o your brainwashed grown up kids, thanks to you..
      The Catholic Church exists in preaching Christ’s Truth; She perishes otherwise.
      Pro-Rh people do not have such danger; therefore they can spew lies like their evil father, the father of lies
      Again, you join perishing your soul when you take part in propagating the evil lies in pro-rh; you take part in the future blood-letting human sacrifices brought about by your complicity. God will have mercy on your soul, but you will have to equally make a concrete penance for your complicity, like a public recantation. Failing so, every woman who got convinced to abort their babies, you will have a part on them

  7. UST gets it. We need institutions who champion the cause of the Church which has the sole and full authority to interpret the teachings of Christ as handed on to the apostles.

    Today’s reading from the a letter of St. Paul to the Galatians:
    Gal 1: 6-9 states:

    6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel —
    7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
    8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
    9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

    I am La Sallian but I agree with this article wholeheartedly. We need more humble submission to the teachings of Christ’s present day apostles instead of the unruly willfulness of those who pretend to a wisdom they do not have. Pride of knowledge, if it could be called true knowledge, is a human defect as old as time. It caused the downfall of lucifer and the banishment of Adam.

    It’s really quite simple. If you want to teach in a Catholic institution, you don’t teach anything contrary to what it represents. If you insist on teaching something else, you can always teach at UP. No one’s stopping you.

    • So, is this what Christ would have done? I am a graduate of UST and I am against the RH Bill… but this article reeks!!! Christ allowed himself to be crucified, didn’t He? So why is UST crucifying others?

      Christ never judged anyone. He never judged St. Peter who betrayed Him. He never judged St. Paul who killed Christians. He never judged St. Augustine who committed every sin in the book. How can this writer judge teachers, who have served UST and its students, this way? Is this writer perfect? Are you perfect?

      Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    • Why bring U.P. into this? I am a La Sallian and I am proud that there are La Sallian Professors and alumni who take a stand on these matters.

      Also, it goes both ways, you know. If you’re not happy because La Sallian Professors exercise their rights/intellectual freedom/opinions or whatever you wish to call it, YOU can join the writer of this appalling editorial (which lacks proofreading, by the way) and build an institution of your own because, if you have read the other comments, the writer OBVIOUSLY does not speak for all Thomasians (just the happily repressed ones). Go on… No one’s stopping you.

      Nobody asked you to enroll in DLSU so what makes you so special that professionals belonging to the La Sallian community have to adjust to you?

      P.S. Your quote on the Bible was not PROPERLY cited. That’s plagiarism, you know…

    • Hello Ms. Coronel,

      Not everyone can ‘just teach’ at UP. Nakakatawa ka naman. You obviously do not know what a UP education entails.
      You also contradict the teachings of Christ about love and compassion by virtue of these un-Christian and injurious condemnation and ‘accursing’.
      Please study your theology better.

    • Such a shame that you are a Lasallian. Please stop calling yourself one because people in La Salle are being taught to have an open-mind and stand for themselves.

      Better study in UST. You belong there.

    • I resent your comment, “If you insist on teaching something else, you can always teach at UP.” This sentence has so many negative implications. Well for one, I am a Christian and an alumna of both UST (elementary and HS days) and UP (undergrad days). So I guess this contradicts your generalization.
      At the end of the day, it all boils down to respect. While I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, it is always disappointing that some abuse this right. To impose religious beliefs for the promotion of intolerance and discrimination is a shame for the religion I choose to stand by and for the epidemiology I use to understand the world. This article sheds heat, not light.
      We, Christians, always take pride in evangelism and in humble submission to God’s will. But this editorial did none of that. What it simply did was to bash other institutions and use God’s words to back up his agenda. If he/she truly wanted to have a discourse, may it be religious or political, he/she should have chosen his words wisely. And why would he/she pass judgment to other institutions or religion when ours is not even perfect from the start.

      And Varsitarian, please screen your editorials. This is utmost misrepresentation of both students and faculty and Christianity. In a world of fake preachers and power grabbers, you might want to lessen the world of them.

    • When considering an applications for a teaching position, does UST discriminate based on religion? do they reject qualified teachers who are, non catholic christians, muslims, bhuddists, aitheists? If yes, then by all means, all qualified non catholic teachers, teach somewhere else. Let it be UST’s loss.

    • no one has the monopoly of truth. your comment is simply intolerant of other faiths and beliefs. the assertion that if one wants to teach in a catholic institution one must not deviate from catholic teachings is flawed.

      first, it is against the law to discriminate people for their religious beliefs. hiring professors to teach is based on merit, not on their religious affiliations. this given, it is reasonable to expect that they are allowed to express their beliefs in matters relating to faith.

      you live in the middle ages, when catholicism ruled over the western world and advanced the false idea that it is the only authority. open your mind and shed your arrogance.

  8. You are saying that they must respect the stand of the Bishops, I think respect should be mutual, they must also respect the beliefs of others.

    I am a graduate of UST, this is the first time i felt embarrassed i was part of this institution…

  9. I’m a UST med alumni and is so proud of being one. But this article readily shames me!! It contains nothing but arrogance in striking unto those who bravely stand for what they believe against those hypocrites who continue to “evangelize” while threatening jobs and freedom of speech!! At least the people in Ateneo and La Salle are bold enough to show and reveal their names unlike you who egotistically claims to know all while hiding under priestly hood! The people from theose universities you mentioned are academicians and scholars too! Di mo katulad na nagmamagaling pero maangas at nagdudunong-dunungan!! Nakakahiya ka na Thomasian!!

    • Abortion is evil; it is murdering babies, just unborn
      ALL nations that legalize abortion started with an RH law
      In the US, study shows that 6 out of 10 women who go to abortion clinics are due to failed contraceptives, resulting to UNWANTED babies; logical choice? Kill their babies.. such evil!

      It is grand stupidity that you persist in supporting the RH bill when you know very well it will lead to the murdering of your future grandchildren c/o your brainwashed grown up kids, thanks to you..
      The Catholic Church exists in preaching Christ’s Truth; She perishes otherwise.
      Pro-Rh people do not have such danger; therefore they can spew lies like their evil father, the father of lies
      Again, you join perishing your soul when you take part in propagating the evil lies in pro-rh; you take part in the future blood-letting human sacrifices brought about by your complicity. God will have mercy on your soul, but you will have to equally make a concrete penance for your complicity, like a public recantation. Failing so, every woman who got convinced to abort their babies, you will have a part on them

  10. This sounds more like a rant than an editorial. It’s clear that the author is biased (something to avoid in journalism) and woefully insulting. Do the malicious words contained therein not constitute libel? Calling other people cowards while hiding behind your own anonymity is itself more cowardly.

  11. I am graduate of UST and I am against the RH Bill… but this article reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness!!! How can you threaten teachers who don’t agree with you to resign? Is this what Christ would have done? He allowed himself to be crucified, didn’t He? So why are you crucifying others?

    You’re the coward because you didn’t even give your name!

  12. I agree that the UST, which is a catholic university or institution, has all the right to oppose- and it’s justified to do so- the RH bill. Here’s one thing that many pro-RH bill folks fail or refuse to understand: THE RH BILL SEEKS TO FORCE Catholic doctors and hospitals, including employers and the entire private sector, to breach their FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE and religious freedom. You don’t have to be a catholic or religionist to oppose the bill… and I am a rabid ATHEIST. There are many atheists or agnostics who oppose the RH bill on secular, non-religious grounds. We oppose the bill on the ground that it would violate or negate people’s rights and freedoms. We believe that rights and freedoms should not clash with each other!

    CONTINUE… http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/when-uaap-meets-the-rh-bill-it-means-more-than-academic-tension/

  13. You guys should have read this first:

    Medical Experts’ Declaration on the Action of Contraceptives
    Posted Mon, 09/05/2011

    On Monday, 8 August 2011, 21 experts from diverse scientific fields including biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, obstetrics and gynecology, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, internal medicine, demography, and public health gathered to examine raging questions on pregnancy and contraception applying scientific and evidence-based analysis.

    These are our conclusions:

    1. Conception is not an exact scientific term. For some it means implantation; for others it is an event that occurs at some time after fertilization. No one at the meeting equates conception with fertilization.

    2. Fertilization encompasses the process of penetration of the egg cell by the sperm cell and the combination of their genetic material to form the fertilized egg or the zygote. The process is estimated to take about 24 hours. At present, there is no accepted laboratory or clinical method of determining if and exactly when natural fertilization has taken place, but we accept that it has occurred after a pregnancy has been detected. Natural losses occur all the time; 33%-50% of all fertilized eggs never implant without the woman doing or taking anything.

    3. All contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives and IUDs, have been demonstrated by laboratory and clinical studies, to act primarily prior to fertilization. Hormonal contraceptives prevent ovulation and make cervical mucus impenetrable to sperm. Medicated IUDs act like hormonal contraceptives. Copper T IUDs incapacitate sperm and prevent fertilization.

    4. The thickening or thinning of the endometrium (inner lining of the uterus) associated with the use of hormonal contraceptives have not been demonstrated to exert contraceptive action, i.e. if ovulation happens and there is fertilization, the developing fertilized egg (blastocyst) will implant and result in a pregnancy (contraceptive failure). In fact, blastocysts have been shown to implant in inhospitable sites without an endometrium, such as in Fallopian tubes.

    5. Pregnancy can be detected and established using currently available laboratory and clinical tests – e.g. blood and urine levels of HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) and ultrasound – only after implantation of the blastocyst. While there are efforts to study chemical factors associated with fertilization, currently there is no test establishing if and when it occurs.

    6. Abortion is the termination of an established pregnancy before fetal viability (the fetus’ ability to exist independently of the mother). Aside from the 50% of zygotes that are naturally unable to implant, an additional wastage of about 20% of all fertilized eggs occurs due to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages).

    7. Abortifacient drugs have different chemical properties and actions from contraceptives. Abortifacients terminate an established pregnancy, while contraceptives prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization.

    8. Like all medical products and interventions, contraceptives must first be approved for safety and effectiveness by drug regulatory agencies. Like all approved drugs, contraceptives have “side effects” and adverse reactions, which warrant their use based on risk-benefit balance and the principles of Rational Drug Use. Risk-benefit balance also applies when doing nothing or not providing medicines, which can result in greater morbidities and death.

    In the case of contraceptives, which are 50 year old medicines, the Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) developed by the WHO is the comprehensive clinicians’ reference guiding the advisability of contraceptives for particular medical conditions.

    9. The benefits of the rational use of contraceptives far outweigh the risks. The risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications is high (1 to 2 per 1000 live births, repeated with every pregnancy). Compared to women nonsmokers aged below 35 who use contraceptive pills, the risk of dying from pregnancy and delivery complications is about 2,700 times higher.

    10. The risk of cardiovascular complications from the appropriate use of hormonal contraceptives is low. While the risk for venous thromboembolism (blood clotting in the veins) among oral contraceptive users is increased, the risk of dying is low, 900 times lower than the risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications. Heart attack and stroke are also rare in women of reproductive age and occur in women using hormonal contraceptives only in the presence of risk factors – like smoking, hypertension, and diabetes. The MEC will guide providers in handling patients with cardiovascular conditions.

    11. The risk of breast cancer from the use of combined hormonal pills (exogenous estrogen or estrogen from external sources) is lower than the risk from prolonged exposure to endogenous estrogens (hormones naturally present in the body). Current users of oral contraceptives have a risk of 1.2 compared to 1.9 among women who had early menarche (first menstruation) and late menopause, and 3.0 among women who had their first child after age 35. The risk of breast cancer from oral contraceptive use also completely disappears after 10 years of discontinuing use.

    Combined hormonal pills are known to have protective effects against ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancer.

    12. The safety and efficacy of contraceptives which passed the scientific scrutiny of the most stringent drug regulatory agencies, including the US FDA, warranted their inclusion in the WHO’s “core list” of Essential Medicines since 1977. The core list enumerates “minimum medicine needs for a basic health care system listing the most efficacious, safe and cost- effective medicines for priority conditions.”

    13. Contraceptives are included in the Universal Health package of the Department of Health. The use of contraceptives in Family Planning programs are known to reduce maternal mortality by 35% through the elimination of unintended pregnancy and unsafe induced abortions.

    Names and signatures to the Medical Experts’ Declaration on the Action of Contraceptives:

    Dr. Enrique T. Ona (Kidney Transplant, Hospital Management, Public Health) DOH Secretary, 2010 – present

    Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral (Cardiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Education, Social Welfare and Development, Public Health) DOH Secretary, 2010 – 2010

    Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr. (Physiology, Health Research, Medical Education, Public Health) DOH Secretary, 1998 – 2001

    Dr. Soe Nyunt-U (Health Planning and Financing) WHO Representative to the Philippines

    Dr. Ernesto O. Domingo (Liver Disease, Clinical Epidemiology, Health Research, Medical Education) National Scientist, Professor Emeritus, UP Manila

    Dr. Marita V.T. Reyes (Biochemistry, Health Research, Medical Education, Ethics) Chair, National Ethics Committee, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development

    Dr. Suzette H. Lazo (Experimental & Clinical Pharmacology) Director, Food and Drug Administration

    Dr. Paulyn Jean R. Ubial (Public Health) DOH Assistant Health Secretary

    Dr. Mariella S. Castillo (Pediatrics, Child Protection) MCH Technical Officer, Office of WHO Representative in the Philippines

    Dr. Virgilio R. Oblepias (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Oncology) President, Society for the Advancement of Reproductive Health–Philippines (SARH-Phil)

    Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Planning) Founding-Managing Director, Midwife E Philippines

    NS Mercedes B. Concepcion (Demography) National Scientist, Vice-President, National Academy of Science and Technology

    Dr. Rebecca M. Ramos (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Public Health) International Consultant,
    Women’s Health

    Dr. Lyra Ruth Clemente-Chua (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility) Director, Women’s Health Care Center, The Medical City Obstetrics and Gynecology

    Dr. Honorata L. Catibog (Public Health, Family Planning) Director III, DOH National Center for Disease Prevention and Control

    Dr. Lourdes B. Capito (Obstetrics and Gynecology) Professor, UP Manila; Chair, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Philippine General Hospital

    Dr. Esmeraldo T. Ilem (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perinatology, Family Planning) Head, Comprehensive Family Planning Services, Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital

    Dr. Enrico Gil C. Oblepias (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility) Associate Professor, Department of OB-Gyne, UP College of Medicine

    Dr. Jessica Ona-Cruz (Obstetrics and Gynecology) POGS Women’s Reproductive Health Advocacy

    Dr. Godofreda V. Dalmacion (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Epidemiology) Professor of Pharmacology, UP Manila

    Dr. Sonia E. Bongala (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology)

    Dr. Kenneth Hartigan-Go (Internal Medicine, Pharmacology WHO Advisory Committee on Safety of Medicinal Product) Core Faculty, Asian Institute of Management

    Dr. Eileen B. Habawel Member, Commission on Legislation, Philippine Medical Association

    Dr. Gregorio B. Pastorfide (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility) Professor, UP-PGH Medical Director, Victory ART Laboratory

  14. This is so subjective and biased. Nowadays, writers must value objectivity. There are always two sides of a story, so you should lay down both of them. How can you be so sure that UST is really courageous, that it does not have any flaws? There is nothing perfect in this world. Don’t just belittle others. Every wrong deed has a repercussion.

    “Can you practice what you preach?” Don’t wash your hands. You cannot be always that clean.

    Contemplate more before writing an article. Especially, if you bear the name of a very big institution thus influencing its reputation.

  15. CONGRATULATIONS! As per RA 10175 — Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, you have just committed the crime of libel. Goodluck to you brave but stupid one. I hope your case will set a good jurisprudence for everyone else. May you be an example not to be followed by those who have the same intelligence as yours.

  16. To be so arrogant to believe that you know it all and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot is the very hallmark of someone who knows nothing. To believe that every professor, every doctor, every citizen that is for the RH Bill has no idea what they’re talking about it and you’re the great experts just pure stupidity.

    I’m suuuure it takes a ton of courage to be catholic in the only country left on earth that still bans divorce, where the country is 80% Catholic.

    No, what i think you mean is that it takes a ton of courage to be a catholic sheep nowadays

  17. So, is this what Christ would have done? I am a graduate of UST and I am against the RH Bill… but this article reeks!!! Christ allowed himself to be crucified, didn’t He? So why is UST crucifying others?

    Christ never judged anyone. He never judged St. Peter who betrayed Him. He never judged St. Paul who killed Christians. He never judged St. Augustine who committed every sin in the book. How can this writer judge teachers, who have served UST and its students, this way? Is this writer perfect? Are you perfect?

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  18. I am a UST student and in the medical field. The writer of the article is just BLATANTLY IGNORANT and WORST TYPE of NAIVE (talking about naive!) This article is disrectful to anyone who has an opinion. Youre making UST the most naive university in the Phil!! You should be ashameD! Im a thomasian! But i don’t need to bleed BLACK AND GOLD!! I bleed real blood. So should UST condone me? I dont think so. And to the Chief Editor of the Varsitarian, you are such a disappointment for printing an article like this.

  19. Fr. Dacanay defended his thesis in latin. And got a perfect grade.

    Fr. Dacanay is part of the marriage tribunal in the Philippines and one of the few who can grant an annulment.

    He has a doctorate from the Gregorian University in Rome, the TOP theology university in the world. He studied Morality there.

    There is a reason why people from UST, DLSU, and ADMU respect him. That respect is born out of fear. And even I fear him.

    He doesn’t know who you are, he doesn’t know what you want. If you are looking for an argument, he will tell you that he doesn’t have the time. But what he has is a very particular set of skills; skills that he has acquired over a very long career. Skills that make him a nightmare for people like you. If you stop right now, that’ll be the end of it. He will not look for you, he will not call you out. But if you don’t,we will look for you, he will find you, and he will debate with you.

  20. If you read between the lines, I think it’s either sour grapes (bakit sila pwedeng umangal pero tayo hindi) or a thinly veiled suggestion to the UST faculty that it’s time to wake up, raise the roof and shout out loud “F.U. Cabading and shove this up your pontificated Dominican ass!”

  21. A university teaches its students to think, not to blindly follow. We are not automatons, we have free will (I hope UST remembers that), and freedom is what makes great nations great. UST and the CBCP should not dictate what the faculty and the students should believe. They should teach and teach alone. There’s no room for another Hitler in this time and age.

  22. This article can degrade UST. In reality, UST doesn’t tell it’s professors to follow it’s campaign. There are Professors who have their own opinion. The only wrong thing Professors from Ateneo and La salle did was to use the name of the school, people have different perspectives. Professors are people also. What they shouldve done was to comment and post their beliefs as individuals, not part of these institutions. Live and Let Live!

  23. “As these professors have chosen to teach in a Catholic university, they must abide by its teachings and beliefs. In the first place, the same is demanded of students.”

    – So basically we, the readers, Thomasians or not, will obviously be in an agreement that this was written by someone from UST (either a student or a professor). So you mean to say your article reflects the teaching of your Univesity? All I read was a barrage of biased and arrogant lines to those who simply stood up for what they KNOW is right. Shameful at all aspect I must say. You did more harm than good my friend. I will not say more, welcome to the internet era because this is already popular 🙂

    With this, I am assuring that my son will not set foot to your University, I will find a better one so to speak 😉

  24. I think the author has ruined its own image for letting this article out, even for an editorial. Though I respect his viewpoint at first, the way he bragged and the way he criticized as he progressed deemed to be a shameful and arrogant one – I suppose his writing didn’t uphold any of his presumed “Catholic” values. Even more, I believe his assertions are rigid and are poorly argued.

    I agree with Raphael. You write good. Now you think better next time.

  25. What right have you to judge what the values or positions institutions when they themselves do not judging you? It seems to me you like quoting from the bible so here’s one for you: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” – Romans 2:1

    If you have any idea on what the values of Ateneo Jesuits are or the La Sallian Brothers are you would know why they do not condemn their teachers so easily. It’s clear you haven’t even researched what you are talking about nor do you realize what the faults of your article are.

    “UST…oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, ”


    Sorry as much as I want it to be, UST is not the “foremost school in South East Asia.” Singapore and Malaysian Universities have better and far advance Medical institutions in our region alone.

    “They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”


    Name calling does not make your argument any stronger. Ateneo and DLSU if you actually did some research has medical institutions and scientific laboratories. Some of their scientist and doctors have awards and recognized by various institutions not only in the Philippines but internationally as well. This is what makes them competitive and even relevant in the ranking of universities all over the world.

    “Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.”


    It goes around for the Ateneo and DLSU as well. Who do you think gives money to these schools? Not the Catholic church for sure. They are more obliged to their students, the parents and alumni than they are to the Church itself. These institutions have the responsibility in providing their students a full education and allow them to be the judge as to what is right and wrong – the Church who has nothing to do in paying for their education.

    “The Ateneo and La Salle professors therefore have been treated with kid gloves by the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers. Although they’re religious and members of Catholic orders, the Jesuits and Christian Brothers have failed to uphold orthodoxy and defend the Church.”


    Again clearly you have not done your research. These institutions particularly the Jesuits have throughout history proven to be the liberal minded and free thinking branch of the Church. Which explains why they allow new ideas even if it is not inline with the church’s.

    “the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned…dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.”


    These professors are far braver to declare their support for the bill despite the risk of being fired or condemned by organizations such as yourself. So you think that anyone that disagrees with any organization that they belong to should quit? That’s more of a coward’s act than these people who are facing the problem head on.

    I could go on about everything that you have said but it’s clear to me that this editorial for the most port is nothing but biased and egotistic.

    Education, real education is about finding the truth and being able to judge what to do with that truth. Being Catholic puts the values in the judging process – that’s the holistic Catholic Education. Unfortunately for you, UST has decided to just go with the latter and forget about the former. But i’m sure that in your enclosed world of Catholic doctrinism you wouldn’t care because you have already accepted the word from one end and not even understand the other.

    Here’s a final quote for you about Catholic Education:
    “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” -Romans 12:2

  26. What right have you to judge what the values or positions institutions when they themselves do not judging you? It seems to me you like quoting from the bible so here’s one for you: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” – Romans 2:1

    If you have any idea on what the values of Ateneo Jesuits are or the La Sallian Brothers are you would know why they do not condemn their teachers so easily. It’s clear you haven’t even researched what you are talking about nor do you realize what the faults of your article are.

    “UST…oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, ”


    Sorry as much as I want it to be, UST is not the “foremost school in South East Asia.” Singapore and Malaysian Universities have better and far advance Medical institutions in our region alone.

    “They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”


    Name calling does not make your argument any stronger. Ateneo and DLSU if you actually did some research has medical institutions and scientific laboratories. Some of their scientist and doctors have awards and recognized by various institutions not only in the Philippines but internationally as well. This is what makes them competitive and even relevant in the ranking of universities all over the world.

    “Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.”


    It goes around for the Ateneo and DLSU as well. Who do you think gives money to these schools? Not the Catholic church for sure. They are more obliged to their students, the parents and alumni than they are to the Church itself. These institutions have the responsibility in providing their students a full education and allow them to be the judge as to what is right and wrong – the Church who has nothing to do in paying for their education.

    “The Ateneo and La Salle professors therefore have been treated with kid gloves by the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers. Although they’re religious and members of Catholic orders, the Jesuits and Christian Brothers have failed to uphold orthodoxy and defend the Church.”


    Again clearly you have not done your research. These institutions particularly the Jesuits have throughout history proven to be the liberal minded and free thinking branch of the Church. Which explains why they allow new ideas even if it is not inline with the church’s.

    “the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned…dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.”


    These professors are far braver to declare their support for the bill despite the risk of being fired or condemned by organizations such as yourself. So you think that anyone that disagrees with any organization that they belong to should quit? That’s more of a coward’s act than these people who are facing the problem head on.

    I could go on about everything that you have said but it’s clear to me that this editorial for the most port is nothing but biased and egotistic.

    Education, real education is about finding the truth and being able to judge what to do with that truth. Being Catholic puts the values in the judging process – that’s the holistic Catholic Education. Unfortunately for you, UST has decided to just go with the latter and forget about the former. But i’m sure that in your enclosed world of Catholic doctrinism you wouldn’t care because you have already accepted the word from one end and not even understand the other.

    Here’s a final quote for you about Catholic Education:
    “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” -Romans 12:2

  27. I would like to commend you on your good writing. However, it all ends there. It’s a pity that despite your bright mind your short on perspective. Being a Christian or Catholic is not about locking yourself up in a cell and accept whatever is being taught of you. Didn’t it even occur to you why the hell we are taught on how to treat human freedom in our theology classes? I came from a Catholic school as well and I’m sure as hell that our professors (I hope yours as well) did not teach me to be a dumb believer. I agree with you that freedom is not absolute. But that statement does not mean that you should be dumb and accept whatever is taught of you. God has given you a brain and a sense of judgement for a reason. Maybe you should use it. By the way, we do not have absolute freedom in the sense that we can do whatever we want without consequences. But we have a choice. As I said, we are given brains, the capacity to discern and the capacity to decide on what to do. We have a choice on what we should and should not do. God never taught us not to think and accept whatever is clogged into our heads.

    Get your head straight. Your a bright person but you need to learn how thinking and discerning works.

  28. Spot on!!! When is telling the Truth become less important than hurting somebody else’s feeling? As the saying goes, “Truth hurts”. The Church has it’s flaws but when it comes to the issue of faith and morals, no other institution has the authority more than the Catholic Church which CHRIST HIMSELF established. And we as Catholics shouldn’t be afraid to tell the Truth just as GOD is the Truth.

  29. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  30. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  31. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  32. First and foremost, I’m a Thomasian, like our dear anonymous editorial writer. I also work in UST.

    I’m making these comments public not to denigrate the University and its administration, but, rather, to contribute to the self-understanding of the Thomasian community. I believe that this is how a true Thomasian should show his/her love to UST.

    It’s quite unfortunate that a Thomasian writer (in particular our dear anonymous editorial writer) would unwittingly engage in ad hominem arguments and dangerous sloganeering. The problem with an anonymous editorial is that it feigns the collective disposition of the institution it purports to represent, in this case UST. As a Thomasian, I have learned to love UST not only because it “was” dubbed “Catholic” and “Pontifical” by decrees of the past, but because it is in UST where I learned the value of relentless search for truth (or at least justice) and a sense of community. It is in UST where I realized the importance and beauty of reasoned debate and refined intellectual exchange.

    It’s quite unfortunate that through this anonymous editorial, the “insular” self-absorbed mentality and “fundamentalist” tendency of the writer are made public. In contrast our dear anonymous editorial writer, most UST professors are by no means insular and ultra-fundamentalist. They are rational individuals whom you can intelligently engage in discussion, sans damaging Catholic faith. As a matter of fact, as opposed to damaging the Catholic faith, public deliberation could only fortify the Catholic position. I urge you, my dear anonymous editorial writer, to Google the exchange between Juergen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger or read the position held by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age. The sobriety of authentic intellectual exchange does not have the fanatical flare of ad hominem argumentation and dangerous sloganeering. I hate to say this, but we have to reckon with the fact of the growing anti-intellectualism in the University.

    This is quite unfortunate, since we have many talented people in UST, many untapped intellectual and research resources.

    It’s quite unfortunate that the communicative atmosphere is radically altered when, instead of inviting people to healthy debate, you begin with “if you speak out your mind, you might get fired”! Followed by cheerful applause! As academicians, we feel that getting fired from work is “hell” on earth.

    The warmongering and insulting words of the anonymous editorial writer are quite, unfortunately, curious and suspect:

    1. “It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems.”

    – Naïve and misguided? Dear anonymous editorial writer, have you talked to any of them? Invite one of them over coffee, and you might hear his/her sound arguments without agreeing with him/her—without gnashing your teeth.

    2. “In contrast, UST, which has the oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, has always warned about the dangerous side effects of contraceptives. UST and her physicians surely know whereof they speak. They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, this is not only ad hominem, but also appeal to authority, and a straw man argumentation. What is the basis for your conjecture that people from Ateneo and La Salle are intellectual pretenders and interlopers? Is this an inflection from a statement publicized by a well-known Dominican father that pro-RH people are “intellectual midgets”? How could you use the word “intellectual” when there’s no intellectual exchange happening to begin with? If we push this further, then we run the risk of diverting our attention from the real issue.

    3. “But what’s more appalling is that the Jesuit and Christian Brother administrations of Ateneo and La Salle didn’t reprimand their faculty members for openly defying the bishops.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, I’m pretty sure that other institutions got appalled when we tolerated the granting to the impeached CJ Corona a PhD, summa cum laude. The UST community did not bother to correct the mistake. We simply invoked “academic autonomy,” then the issue died a natural death. All eyes were upon us – but we didn’t hear ultra-nasty ad hominem words from other institutions. We got the support of CHED, but we all know that something went wrong and we failed to correct it.

    4. “Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, how are you sure that this is not happening in UST? Don’t get me started on intellectual dishonesty in UST and how the system itself seems to be oblivious to it.

    5. “We’re pretty sure Saint Ignatius would have no confusion on where to put that jesuitic Jesuit—in Heaven or Hell?—in his famous Spiritual Exercises.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, is this material intended for a learned editorial or a personal blog of teenage ranting? The Varsitarian has a long history of journalistic excellence. Could this be the beginning of the end of that tradition? STOP THE TASTELESS NAME CALLING PLEASE! We are a 400-year institution, we should be mature enough.

    6. “And as far as the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned, they’re dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, again, you used the words “dishonest” and “intellectual.” Do you honestly believe that your social science professor in UST, who doesn’t have a degree in social science, is not clinging unto his teaching position despite his academic misalignment? I think that this qualifies as academic dishonesty and a bastardization of intellectual integrity. Meanwhile, the Ateneo professors whom you accused of dishonesty and intellectual cowardice are among the crème de la crème of Ateneo. They remain in Ateneo precisely because of their honest to goodness contribution to the intellectual life of the country. Let Ateneo deal with them, Ateneo too is autonomous, and don’t preempt and dictate what their institution should do with them, regardless of your own convictions—public or private!

    7. “But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, ONCE AGAIN, REFRAIN FROM USING THE WORDS “HONESTY,” “DISHONESTY,” “INTELLECTUAL CONVICTION,” “MORAL CONVICTION”! THERE IS SO MUCH IN UST AND ITS PEOPLE THAT IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOUR MORAL HUBRIS AND RESENTFUL COMMENTS SHROUD WHAT IS TRULY THOMASIAN.

    I’M OUTRAGED! WHILE I RESPECT, AND EVEN SUPPORT, THE POSITION OF THE UNIVERSITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, I REFUSE TO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM AND DANGEROUS SLOGANEERING THAT INTEND TO UNNECESSARILY INSULT OTHER PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS!

    IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE IF THE UST ADMINISTRATION WOULD SIMPLY SHRUG OFF THE EMBARRASINGLY CRASS RHETORIC OF THIS ANONYMOUS EDITORIAL WRITER!

    UST SHOULD KNOW BETTER, THE UST COMMUNITY SHOULD RE-EVALUATE THE MEANING OF PRUDENCE AND TOLERANCE. THE PEN IS MIGHTIER (MORE VIOLENT) THAN THE SWORD—IT WILL TAKE LONG FOR THE WOUNDS INCURRED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE EDITORIAL TO HEAL.

    AS A TRUE THOMASIAN, I REFUSE TO BE REPRESENTED BY THIS EDITORIAL, BY SHEER HUBRIS!

    PLEASE STOP THIS KIND OF RHETORIC, YOU’RE NOT HELPING THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF UST AND YOU’RE MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THOMASIANS TO TRULY IDENTIFY WITH THE UNIVERSITY’S INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON THE RH-BILL AND OTHER ISSUES.

    I APPEAL TO THE VARSITARIAN ADVISER, MR. LITO ZULUETA, TO PLEASE SCREEN THE MATERIALS YOU PUBLISH.

    Thank you for your attention.

    From a concerned Thomasian

  33. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  34. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  35. The arguments are factual but it should have been said differently. UST’s stand on RH bill and the University’s conviction to it is admirable -and yes intellectual- but THE VARSITARIAN should have been more prudent in writing this kind of article… Yes, this is published as your editorial but clearly this is an abusive excercise of discretion.

    I am with UST in believing that the RH Bill in its “current” form is not neccesary but I know that my Alma Mater does not tolerate below expression of arrogance. Something has to be done against The V!

  36. I do not know if you are just trying to get the attention of everybody just to publicize your pub. Well, if my hunch is correct, then you succeeded on getting everyone’s attention. Your opinion is a clear manifestation of a biased judgement. You seems to be so frustrated about something that you began degrading other Catholic Schools’ image. Your opinion is plainly arrogant, with no sense of direction. I once admire The Varsitarian, but this opinion really makes me puke. What a complete disappointment. All I can say is this:

    Mga tuta kayo ng Administrasyon niyo. Nagpapalakas ba para sa pondo? Kung sa tingin niyo napaganda niyo ang imahe ng UST dahil dito, mag-isip-isip kayo. Mas lalo niyo lang pinahiya ang kolehiyo niyo.

    You owe ADMU and La Salle an apology. Morons.

  37. You make some good points, but as the comments here tell you, it’s completely underhanded to make them at the expense of others. I expected you to know better. You attacked not the RH bill itself (which might have been more agreeable) but on two universities’ policies…then tried to save the article by putting in some Catholic evangelical purpose blabbityblah. I’m not saying UST is wrong, but the way you presented UST’s opinion is. You do make a lot of assumptions which don’t have a basis in fact. How can you say that intellectual honesty and moral conviction are lacking in Ateneo and La Salle when you don’t seem to have them yourself? Is it honest and moral to take potshots at others? Just tell us UST’s stand and that’s it.

    P.S. I was from UST too. So please stop making us look like arrogant fools. I beg you.

  38. To the writer of this article:

    I understand that you are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that. But please have the decency to respect the opinions of other people as well. You don’t like the RH Bill. We get it. But don’t attack other people just because they don’t agree with you. That’s downright unethical. Respect is a two way street. You give respect to deserve respect. You won’t further your cause by writing such a blatantly narrow-minded piece. Calling upstanding professors and Catholic brothers “lemons” and “cowards” doesn’t help either.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It’s freedom of expression. But freedom is a double edged sword. True, we have the freedom to express ourselves in any means we know how. It’s under the constitution. But we also have the responsibility to express ourselves respectably, and without attacking others. We have the responsibility to ensure that what we say or write does not hurt or diminish others. Please remember that before you do another article.

    Thank you.

  39. Dear Editor,

    I have always valued my Thomasian Education particularly particularly its teaching on humility and truth. The above editorial clearly contradicts these values in the way it is written and the attack to other institutions. I see this editorial piece as an indicator that the University has lost its influence and credibilty to its followers thus the use of threat to make its constituent to abide.

    I really felt sad to read the above editorial as it shows that the UST has not really matured as an institution where diversity of thinking is encouraged and welcome!

    Warm regards,
    Don

  40. To the writer of this article:

    I understand that you are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that. But please have the decency to respect the opinions of other people as well. You don’t like the RH Bill. We get it. But don’t attack other people just because they don’t agree with you. That’s downright unethical. Respect is a two way street. You give respect to deserve respect. You won’t further your cause by writing such a blatantly narrow-minded piece. Calling upstanding professors and Catholic brothers “lemons” and “cowards” doesn’t help either.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It’s freedom of expression. But freedom is a double edged sword. True, we have the freedom to express ourselves in any means we know how. It’s under the constitution. But we also have the responsibility to express ourselves respectably, and without attacking others. We have the responsibility to ensure that what we say or write does not hurt or diminish others. Please remember that before you do another article.

    Thank you.

  41. I believe that the article is not about politics or social opinion.
    I believe it focuses on “faith”, being Catholic and about Jesus Christ.

    I am a Thomasian Engineer and I am disappointed with these so-called alumni who could not see the author’s point.

    To be Catholic is to uphold what Jesus Christ teaches and what His Church promulgates. If one values his/her personal opinion above what the Magisterium teaches, then he/she is no longer a Catholic. It is very basic. Are you for or against Jesus Christ?

    Ateneo and La Salle has been arrogant by opposing the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The consequence of their action is losing their Catholic nature-aside from Hellfire , of course.. They have lost their Catholic nature a long time ago.

    Being in a Catholic University, the school should uphold as a rule, all that is essentially Catholic . UST should uphold the Magisterium. If Thomasians, who have drifted away from Jesus Christ, feels that the UST is wrong, then they have no say on the matter since they personally are no longer a real Catholic.

    It has been a long time that people has taken Jesus for granted. Schools have been the avenues of temporal gains. It is about time that Catholic schools should go back to its fundamental aim – evangelize and maintain faithfulness to Jesus Christ.

    To those arrogant intellectuals and liberals- no matter what you strive for that leads people away from Jesus Christ, you will find it very painfully in the end what your sorry ass did, and what you really are up against. God’s Justice do not falter. Walang kasalanan na hindi pinagbabayaran.

    Remember, it was never the issue that Jesus loves you – it was always whether you love Him back. It will always boil down whether you are a true Catholic or not. God never send souls to Hell, the souls themselves do.

  42. I am a UST student and in the medical field. The writer of the article is just BLATANTLY IGNORANT and WORST TYPE of NAIVE (talking about naive!) This article is disrespectful to anyone who has an opinion. Youre making UST the most naive university in the Phil!! You should be ashamed! Im a thomasian! But i don’t need to bleed BLACK AND GOLD!! I bleed real blood. So should UST condone me? I dont think so. And to the Chief Editor of the Varsitarian, you are such a disappointment for printing an article like this.

  43. To the writer: Ok, that’s your own opinion.. I’m going to respect that, but to use the varsitarian as a means to show your tactlessness is clearly “unthomasian”. You should write your name on your work. Huwag mong idamay ang varsitarian and the whole thomasian community sa pagiging close-minded at pagdisrespect sa pananaw ng ibang tao. You don’t represent the thomasian community. Go leave and create your own publication. As an alumni masasabi kong nakakahiya ka.

  44. Modern birth control methods were unknown in Bible times, and the Bible is, therefore, silent on the matter. The Bible does have quite a lot to say about children, however. The Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). God sometimes blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God knows children before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15).

    Though the world might hate rebuke, and though Christians may not be comfortable with being rebuked, Christ believes the rebuke is an essential part of the Christian’s walk. The Psalmist says in 141:5, “Let the righteous strike me; It shall be a kindness. And let him rebuke me; It shall be as excellent oil; Let my head not refuse it.”

  45. lest you forget…

    ‘Every conscience, whether it is right or wrong, whether it concerns things evil in themselves or things morally indifferent, obliges us to act in such a way that he who acts against his conscience sins’ (Quodlibetum 3,27). St. Thomas Aquinas

  46. Must be the effect of the finals between ADMU & UST. Whew! What a write-up! With folks like you writing this editorial, no wonder Rizal left you for Ateneo. Outstanding editorial, I must say!

  47. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within it’s historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take not that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST have ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Were our right to express ourselves in the internet just recently became seriously endangered by the Cybercrime Law? Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard of the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremist bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His lat moments, he never fought against the false charges, or fight back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  48. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within it’s historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take not that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST have ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Were our right to express ourselves in the internet just recently became seriously endangered by the Cybercrime Law? Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard of the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremist bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His lat moments, he never fought against the false charges, or fight back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  49. These are the words comming from my mouth while reading… uhmm… this:

    Oh MY GOD! O___O

    TALAGA? O___O

    WOW LANG A! O__o

    Regardless on how offensive, authoritarian, and extremely bigoted this editorial is, I strongly agree on one thing: STAND THY GROUND. Have enough courage to stand by what you believe in. Fight for what you know is just. If any entity tries to take away your right to freedom, then, by any means, fight for it.

    I suggest, BOYCOTT UST!!

  50. First and foremost, I’m a Thomasian, like our dear anonymous editorial writer. I’m making these comments public not to denigrate the University and its administration, but, rather, to contribute to the self-understanding of the Thomasian community. I believe that this is how a true Thomasian should show his/her love to UST.

    It’s quite unfortunate that a Thomasian writer (in particular our dear anonymous editorial writer) would unwittingly engage in ad hominem arguments and dangerous sloganeering. The problem with an anonymous editorial is that it feigns the collective disposition of the institution it purports to represent, in this case UST. As a Thomasian, I have learned to love UST not only because it “was” dubbed “Catholic” and “Pontifical” by decrees of the past, but because it is in UST where I learned the value of relentless search for truth (or at least justice) and a sense of community. It is in UST where I realized the importance and beauty of reasoned debate and refined intellectual exchange.

    It’s quite unfortunate that through this anonymous editorial, the “insular” self-absorbed mentality and “fundamentalist” tendency of the writer are made public. In contrast to our dear anonymous editorial writer, most UST professors are by no means insular and ultra-fundamentalist. They are rational individuals whom you can intelligently engage in discussion, sans damaging Catholic faith. As a matter of fact, as opposed to damaging the Catholic faith, public deliberation could only fortify the Catholic position. I urge you, my dear anonymous editorial writer, to Google the exchange between Juergen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger or read the position held by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age. The sobriety of authentic intellectual exchange does not have the fanatical flare of ad hominem argumentation and dangerous sloganeering.

    I’m outraged by the embarrassing rhetoric of this editorial and it would be unfortunate if the UST community and administration will simply shrug this one off. This is a classic case of the pen being mightier (more violent) than the sword. It would take time before the wounds incurred by this editorial to heal. I urge the Thomasian community to re-evaluate the meaning of prudence and tolerance.

    I refuse to be represented by this editorial, by sheer, tasteless, hubris! Please stop this kind of rhetoric, you’re not helping the public image of UST and making it more difficult for Thomasians to identify with UST’s position on the RH-Bill and other issues. Stop the warmongering statements and insulting accusations. They don’t help at all!

    I appeal to the Varsitarian adviser, Mr. Lito Zulueta, to please screen the materials you publish.

  51. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within it’s historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take not that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST have ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Were our right to express ourselves in the internet just recently became seriously endangered by the Cybercrime Law? Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard of the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremist bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His lat moments, he never fought against the false charges, or fight back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  52. This RH Bill is not the solution to the problems our society is facing today, it is the lack in education that drags our country to poverty. If only law makers, government officials, and the media would give importance to education, then everything will follow.

  53. is this like your paraan to make resbak coz you di-nt make to 1.) top 3 on cheerdance? or 2.) you’re talo on game 1 of basketball? or 3.) the fact that you make a panget concept of carnival, Rio and mardi gras on your recent cheerdance? you guys are so like tampong-kulangot. maybe that’s it. you dont know anything. you cant even make a clear concept of anything tangible or not. now that is soooo sad. well, gotcha go!

    manong! over here! im hungry! make me tusok2x the fishball na!

  54. “[W]here the defamation is alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is essential that the statement must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to every individual in that group or class, or sufficiently specific so that each individual in the class or group can prove that the defamatory statement specifically pointed to him, so that he can bring the action separately, if need be.”
    -Newsweek, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L-63559 May 30, 1986)

    This article is therefore libelous and actionable by Atenean and Lasallian professors in a class suit. Although I doubt that they would bother, on account of this so-called “editorial.”

  55. What an arrogant article! Who are you to say that other schools lack intellectual honesty and moral conviction? A lot of alumni do not agree with what you said. If you say what you mean then say who you are. How dare you have the audacity to write something offensive and inappropriate to other people and not own it with your signature?

    Nakakahiya ka. Kung anu-ano lang sinasabi mo.

    Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

  56. IF THAT’S THE CASE, ALL UST PROFESSORS WHO USE CONDOMS/PILLS MUST RESIGN. IN THE SAME MANNER, ALL STUDENTS WHO ENGAGE IN PRE-MARITAL SEX, CHEATING, CURSING, ETC MUST DROP OUT BECAUSE UST IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION AND THOSE THINGS ARE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH. MAY MATIRA KAYA SA SKWELA NYO?

    LASTLY, TO THE AUTHOR, HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN PRE- OR EXTRA- MARITAL SEX OR HAVE USED ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES AT EVEN JUST ONE POINT IN YOUR LIFE? IF SO, THEN DROP OUT OF YOUR ESTEEMED SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST WHAT THE BISHOPS TEACH!!! YOU DON’T BELONG TO UST OR TO THE CHURCH EITHER IF WE TRY TO FOLLOW YOUR ARGUMENT.

  57. Very well said – opinion supported by facts. I am a Thomasian doctor and I do not support RH bill as well. A Catholic institution must always uphold the moral integrity of its students through its mentors, the reason why it’s called “Catholic”. The mere question to be asked, “If contraceptives will be classified as essential medicine, what disease do they cure?” If there is a single answer, it can be morally accepted. The problem faced by the country’s population is lack of discipline and corruption. Most patients giving birth who succumbed to some form of contraception did not have informed consent. They were just briefed of the benefits but were not told of the adverse effects so some were surprised to be admitted back for emerging infection and ectopic pregnancy. There is no such thing as safe and 100% contraception. HIV won’t be prevented by any contraceptive but by simply abstaining from sexual contact.

  58. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within its historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take note that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, Author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single student, professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST has ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Just recently, the infamous Cybercrime Law endangered our freedom to express ourselves thourgh the internet, and I suppose you can sympathize with that plight. Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard about the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremists bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His last moments, he never fought against the false charges, nor fought back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of the state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  59. are you really that proud of yourself and thus your school UST really stand for this kind of mentality??. I hope not because I admire your school and I wished that someday my son will be a THOMASIAN but with this kind of product I am now doubtful. I believe that every student should have a well-rounded personality, you the person who wrote this article lacks of this trait big time.
    if you have a better idea about the RH bill you do not need to bash these schools you mentioned if you truly stand on what you believe, prove it!
    WALA KANG MARARATING KUNG ANG TINGIN MO PA LANG NGAYON NA ESTUDYANTE KA PA LANG GANYAN NA!. HAYAAN MO PWEDE KA PANG MAGBAGO PERO DALIAN MO KASI PWEDE BUKAS WALA KA NA DITO SA MUNDO. ANG NAGMAMALINIS MAS MADALAS MAS MADUMI SA MGA TAONG KINUKUTYA NIYA. HINDI MASAMANG MAGPAKITA KA NA KONTING HUMILIDAD SA IBA, KASI ANG TAAS MO, NAHIYA NAMAN ANG DIYOS SAYO. KATOLIKO AKO PERO DI KLASENG NAGPAG-IISIP NA MERON KA! MAGBAGO SABAY ACKNOWLEDGE KUNG SINO KA DIBA. ANG MATAPANG KAYANG HARAPIN SINO MAN KAYA MAGPAKILALA KA!

  60. IF THAT’S THE CASE, ALL UST PROFESSORS WHO USE CONDOMS/PILLS MUST RESIGN. IN THE SAME MANNER, ALL STUDENTS WHO ENGAGE IN PRE-MARITAL SEX, CHEATING, CURSING, ETC MUST DROP OUT BECAUSE UST IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION AND THOSE THINGS ARE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH. MAY MATIRA KAYA SA SKWELA NYO?

    LASTLY, TO THE AUTHOR, HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN PRE- OR EXTRA- MARITAL SEX OR HAVE USED ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES AT EVEN JUST ONE POINT IN YOUR LIFE? IF SO, THEN DROP OUT OF YOUR ESTEEMED SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST WHAT THE BISHOPS TEACH!!! YOU DON’T BELONG TO UST OR TO THE CHURCH EITHER IF WE TRY TO FOLLOW YOUR ARGUMENT.

  61. Very well said – opinion supported by facts. I am a Thomasian doctor and I do not support RH bill as well. A Catholic institution must always uphold the moral integrity of its students through its mentors, the reason why it’s called “Catholic”. The mere question to be asked, “If contraceptives will be classified as essential medicine, what disease do they cure?” If there is a single answer, it can be morally accepted. The problem faced by the country’s population is lack of discipline and corruption. Most patients giving birth who succumbed to some form of contraception did not have informed consent. They were just briefed of the benefits but were not told of the adverse effects so some were surprised to be admitted back for emerging infection and ectopic pregnancy. There is no such thing as safe and 100% contraception. HIV won’t be prevented by any contraceptive but by simply abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact.

  62. Very well said – opinion supported by facts. I am a Thomasian doctor and I do not support RH bill as well. A Catholic institution must always uphold the moral integrity of its students through its mentors, the reason why it’s called “Catholic”. The mere question to be asked, “If contraceptives will be classified as essential medicine, what disease do they cure?” If there is a single answer, it can be morally accepted. The problem faced by the country’s population is lack of discipline and corruption. Most patients giving birth who succumbed to some form of contraception did not have informed consent. They were just briefed of the benefits but were not told of the adverse effects so some were surprised to be admitted back for emerging infection and ectopic pregnancy. There is no such thing as safe and 100% contraception. HIV won’t be prevented by any contraceptive but by simply abstaining from promiscuous sexual contact.

  63. First and foremost, I’m a Thomasian, like our dear anonymous editorial writer. I also work in UST. I’m making these comments public not to denigrate the University and its administration, but, rather, to contribute to the self-understanding of the Thomasian community. I believe that this is how a true Thomasian should show his/her love to UST.

    It’s quite unfortunate that a Thomasian writer (in particular our dear anonymous editorial writer) would unwittingly engage in ad hominem arguments and dangerous sloganeering. The problem with an anonymous editorial is that it feigns the collective disposition of the institution it purports to represent, in this case UST. As a Thomasian, I have learned to love UST not only because it “was” dubbed “Catholic” and “Pontifical” by decrees of the past, but because it is in UST where I learned the value of relentless search for truth (or at least justice) and a sense of community. It is in UST where I realized the importance and beauty of reasoned debate and refined intellectual exchange.

    It’s quite unfortunate that through this anonymous editorial, the “insular” self-absorbed mentality and “fundamentalist” tendency of the writer are made public. In contrast our dear anonymous editorial writer, most UST professors are by no means insular and ultra-fundamentalist. They are rational individuals whom you can intelligently engage in discussion, sans damaging Catholic faith. As a matter of fact, as opposed to damaging the Catholic faith, public deliberation could only fortify the Catholic position. I urge you, my dear anonymous editorial writer, to Google the exchange between Juergen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger or read the position held by Charles Taylor in his book A Secular Age. The sobriety of authentic intellectual exchange does not have the fanatical flare of ad hominem argumentation and dangerous sloganeering. I hate to say this, but we have to reckon with the fact of the growing anti-intellectualism in the University.

    This is quite unfortunate, since we have many talented people in UST, many untapped intellectual and research resources.

    It’s quite unfortunate that the communicative atmosphere is radically altered when, instead of inviting people to healthy debate, you begin with “if you speak out your mind, you might get fired”! Followed by cheerful applause! As academicians, we feel that getting fired from work is “hell” on earth.

    The warmongering and insulting words of the anonymous editorial writer are quite, unfortunately, curious and suspect:

    1. “It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems.”

    – Naïve and misguided? Dear anonymous editorial writer, have you talked to any of them? Invite one of them over coffee, and you might hear his/her sound arguments without agreeing with him/her—without gnashing your teeth.

    2. “In contrast, UST, which has the oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, has always warned about the dangerous side effects of contraceptives. UST and her physicians surely know whereof they speak. They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, this is not only ad hominem, but also appeal to authority, and a straw man argumentation. What is the basis for your conjecture that people from Ateneo and La Salle are intellectual pretenders and interlopers? Is this an inflection from a statement publicized by a well-known Dominican father that pro-RH people are “intellectual midgets”? How could you use the word “intellectual” when there’s no intellectual exchange happening to begin with? If we push this further, then we run the risk of diverting our attention from the real issue.

    3. “But what’s more appalling is that the Jesuit and Christian Brother administrations of Ateneo and La Salle didn’t reprimand their faculty members for openly defying the bishops.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, I’m pretty sure that other institutions got appalled when we tolerated the granting to the impeached CJ Corona a PhD, summa cum laude. The UST community did not bother to correct the mistake. We simply invoked “academic autonomy,” then the issue died a natural death. All eyes were upon us – but we didn’t hear ultra-nasty ad hominem words from other institutions. We got the support of CHED, but we all know that something went wrong and we failed to correct it.

    4. “Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, how are you sure that this is not happening in UST? Don’t get me started on intellectual dishonesty in UST and how the system itself seems to be oblivious to it.

    5. “We’re pretty sure Saint Ignatius would have no confusion on where to put that jesuitic Jesuit—in Heaven or Hell?—in his famous Spiritual Exercises.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, is this material intended for a learned editorial or a personal blog of teenage ranting? The Varsitarian has a long history of journalistic excellence. Could this be the beginning of the end of that tradition? STOP THE TASTELESS NAME CALLING PLEASE! We are a 400-year institution, we should be mature enough.

    6. “And as far as the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned, they’re dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, again, you used the words “dishonest” and “intellectual.” Do you honestly believe that your social science professor in UST, who doesn’t have a degree in social science, is not clinging unto his teaching position despite his academic misalignment? I think that this qualifies as academic dishonesty and a bastardization of intellectual integrity. Meanwhile, the Ateneo professors whom you accused of dishonesty and intellectual cowardice are among the crème de la crème of Ateneo. They remain in Ateneo precisely because of their honest to goodness contribution to the intellectual life of the country. Let Ateneo deal with them, Ateneo too is autonomous, and don’t preempt and dictate what their institution should do with them, regardless of your own convictions—public or private!

    7. “But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, ONCE AGAIN, REFRAIN FROM USING THE WORDS “HONESTY,” “DISHONESTY,” “INTELLECTUAL CONVICTION,” “MORAL CONVICTION”! THERE IS SO MUCH IN UST AND ITS PEOPLE THAT IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOUR MORAL HUBRIS AND RESENTFUL COMMENTS SHROUD WHAT IS TRULY THOMASIAN.

    I’M OUTRAGED! WHILE I RESPECT, AND EVEN SUPPORT, THE POSITION OF THE UNIVERSITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, I REFUSE TO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM AND DANGEROUS SLOGANEERING THAT INTEND TO UNNECESSARILY INSULT OTHER PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS!

    IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE IF THE UST ADMINISTRATION WOULD SIMPLY SHRUG OFF THE EMBARRASINGLY CRASS RHETORIC OF THIS ANONYMOUS EDITORIAL WRITER!

    UST SHOULD KNOW BETTER, THE UST COMMUNITY SHOULD RE-EVALUATE THE MEANING OF PRUDENCE AND TOLERANCE. THE PEN IS MIGHTIER (MORE VIOLENT) THAN THE SWORD—IT WILL TAKE LONG FOR THE WOUNDS INCURRED BY THIS UNFORTUNATE EDITORIAL TO HEAL.

    AS A TRUE THOMASIAN, I REFUSE TO BE REPRESENTED BY THIS EDITORIAL, BY SHEER HUBRIS!

    PLEASE STOP THIS KIND OF RHETORIC, YOU’RE NOT HELPING THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF UST AND YOU’RE MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THOMASIANS TO TRULY IDENTIFY WITH THE UNIVERSITY’S INSTITUTIONAL POSITION ON THE RH-BILL AND OTHER ISSUES.

    I APPEAL TO THE VARSITARIAN ADVISER, MR. LITO ZULUETA, TO PLEASE SCREEN THE MATERIALS YOU PUBLISH.

    Thank you for your attention.

    From a concerned Thomasian

    • Abortion is evil; it is murdering babies, just unborn
      ALL nations that legalize abortion started with an RH law
      In the US, study shows that 6 out of 10 women who go to abortion clinics are due to failed contraceptives, resulting to UNWANTED babies; logical choice? Kill their babies.. such evil!

      It is grand stupidity that you persist in supporting the RH bill when you know very well it will lead to the murdering of your future grandchildren c/o your brainwashed grown up kids, thanks to you..
      The Catholic Church exists in preaching Christ’s Truth; She perishes otherwise.
      Pro-Rh people do not have such danger; therefore they can spew lies like their evil father, the father of lies
      Again, you join perishing your soul when you take part in propagating the evil lies in pro-rh; you take part in the future blood-letting human sacrifices brought about by your complicity. God will have mercy on your soul, but you will have to equally make a concrete penance for your complicity, like a public recantation. Failing so, every woman who got convinced to abort their babies, you will have a part on them

    • Read the editorial up until the third paragraph and decided it’s not worth my time, nor is it worth any kind of emotions from me. Felt like the kid still has a lot to experience to better understand what he/she is talking about. That aside, in contrast to the editorial, I’ve read your commentary in its entirety. It’s informative, refreshing and read-worthy. Kudos to you!

    • Dear “concerned Thomasian”,

      I would like to commend your point-by-point reply to the article. I completely agree with your observations. Indeed the article is mostly sloganeering and is peppered with ad hominem arguments. It is quite unfortunate that the Varsitarian would publish such work.

    • The issue is whether their thinking is really naive and misguided. To so conclude, you need not talk to them but simply need to evaluate their arguments. Your attack thus on the editorial writer that he has not talked to any of them is an ad hominem.

      You must have forgotten your logic. What is fallacious (an argumentum ad verecundiam) is an appeal to misplaced authority.

      The UST Doctors were perfectly speaking within their competence when they spoke of the dangerous side effects of contraceptives.

      I thought you know what an ad hominem is, which your argument making a similar personal attack on UST for granting a Ph.D. on Corona most clearly is.

      Again another ad hominem (your similar personal attack on some UST professors being allegedly intellectually dishonest) The issue is not whether it is happening in UST but whether there is indeed intellectual dishonesty in the actions of the Ateneo professors.

      So you answer an alleged personal attack with another personal attack (the material being merely a personal blog of teenage ranting). Another ad hominem.

      Again another ad hominem. The issue is whether they are indeed dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction and not whether there is another alleged dishonest professor in UST.

      You refuse to indulge in ad hominem when your comments have committed ad hominem arguments wholesale. Attack the arguments and not the person. Your Logic Professor must be greatly embarrassed by your public display of what you failed to learn from him.

      • Thank you for your comments, Sir. But—you’ll have to excuse me—I’m not really sure whether it’s necessary for you to give me a lecture on logical fallacies.

        1. “The issue is whether their thinking is really naive and misguided. To so conclude, you need not talk to them but simply need to evaluate their arguments. Your attack thus on the editorial writer that he has not talked to any of them is an ad hominem.”

        – Up to now, I still don’t have an idea who our dear anonymous editorial writer is. So, I’m not really sure whether I’ve attacked or belittled him/her personally. I just thought that he/she could have had a better grasp of the points of view of the Ateneo and La Salle professors if he/she dialogued with them. Like I said, his/her disagreement with them could remain, but at least he/she could’ve avoided exacerbating the situation with hurtful and insulting words. Still, I believe, that conversing with them would reveal that their insights are by no means simply “naïve and misguided,” but are, rather, based on premises about social issues that appear to us to be in contrast to the UST position or, at least, in contrast to the facts and figures presented by the anonymous editorial writer. It’s dangerous, however, to infer from this nuance the charge of immorality, especially in an overbearing manner.

        2. “You must have forgotten your logic. What is fallacious (an argumentum ad verecundiam) is an appeal to misplaced authority. The UST Doctors were perfectly speaking within their competence when they spoke of the dangerous side effects of contraceptives.”

        – No, I have not forgotten my logic. I can guarantee you that! And logic is not everything in the tirade of our dear anonymous editorial writer. I wasn’t attacking the UST Medical Doctors. I was pointing out that our anonymous editorial writer appealed to the authority of the UST Medical Doctors and has done something more. While there’s nothing wrong with invoking the authority of experts per se, the rhetoric shifts when you begin with: “In contrast, UST, which has the oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia . . ..” I’m not sure whether the anonymous editorial writer was merely stating a fact here. Perhaps the statement is more complex. On the one hand, being “oldest” and “foremost” do not guarantee infallibility in all cases. I’m not refuting the expert claims of the UST Medical Doctors, but the anonymous editorial writer could have gained more mileage by simply informing us about the dangers of contraceptives, thereby fortifying the position of UST. On the other hand, we should not forget that the bothersome remark, “intellectual pretenders and interlopers,” is undeniably connected to the ad verb “In contrast . . ..” It’s not just about logical fallacies, but, more importantly, how language and its nuances function in complex forms.

        3. “I thought you know what an ad hominem is, which your argument making a similar personal attack on UST for granting a Ph.D. on Corona most clearly is.”

        – Personal attack on UST? Lest we forget: I prefaced my original comment with, “I’m making these comments public not to denigrate the University and its administration, but, rather, to contribute to the self-understanding of the Thomasian community.” That wasn’t a personal attack, it was to remind us of the awkwardness of the situation and our failure to speak out our true sentiments, clarify the circumstances, and possibly correct the mistake done. The misgiving, albeit hushed, of the UST community was not because the University granted a PhD to an impeached CJ, but, rather, there were questions on the legitimacy of the manner by which the academic degree was granted. It’s not an ad hominem attack. Being part of UST, it’s a gesture of self-criticism and self-correction. Now, just in case one equates this gesture with biting the hand that feeds, I’d say that that’s simply a wrongheaded assumption.

        4. “Again another ad hominem (your similar personal attack on some UST professors being allegedly intellectually dishonest) The issue is not whether it is happening in UST but whether there is indeed intellectual dishonesty in the actions of the Ateneo professors.”

        – My problem is the way the anonymous editorial writer understands the idea of “intellectual honesty,” which he/she seems to equate with “religious conviction.” Perhaps the idea of “intellectual honesty” should be clarified. How is it to be intellectually honest? Perhaps, one is intellectually honest when his/her personal convictions do not cramp the search for truth. Perhaps, one is intellectually honest when he/she does not plagiarize the work of another. Perhaps, one is intellectually honest when he/she allows dissenting opinions to take part in a dialogue. Perhaps, one is intellectually honest when one refrains from eschewing the views of others. If intellectual dishonesty is the opposite of any these, then how is the action of Ateneo and La Salle professors (specifically, declaring their support for the RH Bill) qualify as intellectual dishonesty? Clearly, the anonymous editorial writer and I have two different views on intellectual honesty. I remain with mine. Now, I mentioned the existence of intellectual dishonesty in UST, again not to malign UST and its professors, but to state a fact for comparison. Again, a gesture of self-criticism and self-correction.

        5. “So you answer an alleged personal attack with another personal attack (the material being merely a personal blog of teenage ranting). Another ad hominem. Again another ad hominem.”

        – This becomes a personal attack only when it’s taken out of context. It was a comment on the unnecessary name calling. “Jesuitic” is not only tasteless, but a warmongering term. How could this be an ad hominem attack, when I was criticizing the form or manner of expression of the statement?

        6. “The issue is whether they are indeed dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction and not whether there is another alleged dishonest professor in UST.”

        – I would repeat my response to #4 here. There should be a thin line that separates intellectual honesty and religious conviction. The two, however, could work well together.

        7. “You refuse to indulge in ad hominem when your comments have committed ad hominem arguments wholesale. Attack the arguments and not the person.”

        – I attacked the manner by which the editorial was written and presented. The arguments themselves were inscribed in, and conditioned by, the “form” of the piece. I respect your opinion, Sir, regarding my plausible “performative contradiction,” but I’m not too obsessed with the ad hominem per se. You might accuse me of it, but if you’re correct, at least it’s not ad hominem in the manner of the faux pas: “RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards.”

        8. “Your Logic Professor must be greatly embarrassed by your public display of what you failed to learn from him.”

        – Now, this just makes me smile.

        Thank you, Sir, for compelling me to re-examine and expand my points, thereby clarifying my position. I apologize if we couldn’t agree on some points. Let’s agree, then, to disagree.

        • Excellent reply Pao, and that is very instructive. It could be a model for argumentation.
          If I may add. “To talk to them” means to conduct a conversation with them (not necessarily seeing/speaking with them in person, though that would be a better situation because we their faces), which is what should inform every dialogue and argumentation. In a conversation we are open to the possibility that the other is correct and we are wrong. No one holds that truth, even the authority. More so, there is a Socratic humility of “I know nothing” which is imperative upon us especially now when it seems after we have written about something which we are so certain to be true, a deluge of refutations would immediately come our way. The best example is the Varsitarian editorial itself. Just few days after its publication, UST has already put a non-“imprimatur” on it (or at least on some portion), and Lito Zulueta has apologized that some words were “un-Christian.” If we continue to try to convince and persuade others or to reach out to them, as I suppose, we always do in a community, perhaps the best hermeneutical reminder for us is, again, Socratic: “Know thyself… that you are not gods.”

        • Excellent reply Pao, and that is very instructive. It could be a model for argumentation.
          If I may add. “To talk to them” means to conduct a conversation with them (not necessarily seeing/speaking with them in person, though that would be a better situation because we see their faces), which is what should inform every dialogue and argumentation. In a conversation we are open to the possibility that the other is correct and we are wrong. No one holds that truth, even the authority. More so, there is a Socratic humility of “I know nothing” which is imperative upon us especially now when it seems after we have written about something which we are so certain to be true, a deluge of refutations would immediately come our way. The best example is the Varsitarian editorial itself. Just few days after its publication, UST has already put a non-“imprimatur” on it (or at least on some portion), and Lito Zulueta has apologized that some words were “un-Christian.” If we continue to try to convince and persuade others or to reach out to them, as I suppose, we always do in a community, perhaps the best hermeneutical reminder for us is, again, Socratic: “Know thyself… that you are not gods.”

        • Excellent reply Pao, and that is very instructive. It could be a model for argumentation.

          If I may add.

          “To talk to them” means to conduct a conversation with them (not necessarily seeing/speaking with them in person, though that would be a better situation because we see their faces), which is what should inform every dialogue and argumentation. In a conversation we are open to the possibility that the other is correct and we are wrong. No one holds the truth, even the authority. More so, there is a Socratic humility of “I know nothing” which is imperative upon us especially now when it seems after we have written about something which we are so certain to be true, a deluge of refutations would immediately come our way. The best example is the Varsitarian editorial itself. Just few days after its publication, UST has already plastered a non-“imprimatur” on it (or at least on some portion), and Lito Zulueta has apologized that some words are “un-Christian.” Writing (or speaking) polemically is not an excuse to dispense with courtesy and politeness.

          If we continue to try to convince and persuade others or to reach out to them, as I suppose we always do in a community, perhaps the best hermeneutical reminder for us is, again, Socratic: “Know thyself… that you are not gods.”

        • People are shocked if they are called for what they truly are as the Varsitarian Editorial “RH Bill, Ateneo, and Las Salle: Of lemons and cowards” has exactly done. But what exactly could be said of institutions who have taken a stand against the RH bill yet would be so timid to condemn those among its members who favor it. They are plain and simple lemons and cowards who do not have the courage of their intellectual convictions. If indeed being anti-RH is truly the Catholic stand, one who does not share it should have the courage to give up said Catholic affiliation. Otherwise, he too is plainly and simply a lemon and a coward. Christ during his time would have said “you hypocrites”, you say one thing yet do something else. It is to this institutions and persons that the Varsitarian editorial has taken a stand against. For taking a courageous stand for what it believes in, it is now being accused (as one Enquirer columnist has done) of tyranny, arrogance or having a sense of superiority. Sadly and most evidently, she has utterly missed the point.

  64. Ikaw na ang banal. Ikaw na ang intelektwal at mas mataas sa iba.

    Ikaw na!

    Ang galing mo rin no. Kung magsulat ka, parang akala mo dapat lahat ng tao sa bansang ito ay katoliko. At bukod dun, talagang ininsulto mo pa ang Ateneo at La Salle. Ano yan pwersahan kasi dapat na mag pro RH bill? Nasaan na ang freedom dun? Siguro ka-Liga mo yung mga nagsabi na kaya matindi ang Habagat nung Agosto dahil nagagalit ang Diyos sa RH Bill.

    Umayos ka.

    Simple-minded hypocrite!

  65. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within its historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take note that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, Author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single student, professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST has ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Just recently, the infamous Cybercrime Law endangered our freedom to express ourselves thourgh the internet, and I suppose you can sympathize with that plight. Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard about the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremists bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His last moments, he never fought against the false charges, nor fought back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of the state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  66. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I myself am a proud Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within its historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take note that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, Author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single student, professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST has ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Just recently, the infamous Cybercrime Law endangered our freedom to express ourselves thourgh the internet, and I suppose you can sympathize with that plight. Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard about the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens”? The very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremists bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their belief or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His last moments, he never fought against the false charges, nor fought back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resort to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of the state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

  67. What you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  68. Seriously, I am appalled by this kid’s sorry excuse for an editorial. First of all, I myself am proud to say that I am a Thomasian. But I am NOT a Catholic. The university itself permits non-Catholics, heck even non-Christians, to study within its historic walls. But were we ever OBLIGATED to follow the religious beliefs of the university? We were invited, but were never REQUIRED to do so, nor were we persecuted to practice our own faith and beliefs. Please take note that UST is first and foremost an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and not a CHURCH. Yes, the university is under the the guidance and influence of the church, but it is still free to exercise ACADEMIC FREEDOM and EXPRESSION. The Church itself has no right to influence a person’s belief and morals, especially for non-Catholics within the university. Reality check, Author-san, Do you seriously believe that every single student, professor, lecturer, teacher, or consultant under the employ of UST are ALL Catholics? Whatever the CBCP or the Roman Catholic Church dubs as “immoral” or “evil” cannot be applied to people who are not part of their faith. And neither the CBCP, the Church, nor UST has ANY right to condemn ANYONE for what they personally believe in, may they be Catholic, Christian, or non-Christian. Or are you not familiar with freedom of speech and expression that is in our Constitution? Just recently, the infamous Cybercrime Law endangered our freedom to express ourselves through the internet, and I suppose you can sympathize with that plight. Would the Church, the CBCP, and our esteemed university follow that same path of persecution?

    A little history lesson, Author-san, have you ever heard about the Crusades and the infamous Spanish Inquisition? Was it not the same Church that committed horrendous and inhumane acts of violence and death to whoever they declare as “pagans” and “heathens” the very same Church that laid the cornerstone of our university… History speaks for itself. The Roman Catholic Church may have changed for the better in the past millenia. But should it resort to the same persecution that tainted it’s long history? Will you condone this? If you do condone such MEDIEVAL tactics, then you are no different from the religious extremists bombing innocent civilians, all for the sake of upholding what their faith believes is to be true.

    Every Christian, whether Catholic or not, should practice TRUE FAITH and not BLIND FAITH. The Church may be running a moral “crusade” to uphold what THEY believe is TRUE, but they are using the wrong means to do so. Early Christians led by EXAMPLE, not by persecution nor war. Even today TRUE Christians convert non-Christians not by telling them another person’s faith is right or wrong, but by example… True Christians don’t need to voice out their beliefs, they show others through their actions why it’s better to be a Christian. If the Church, the CBCP, or UST starts persecuting every student, alumni, member of the academe, or employee for their beliefs or stand on the RH Bill, then they are definitely not worthy of carrying the word “Christian” in their faith. Jesus Himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) In His time, Jesus NEVER boldly proclaimed He was against the Romans, Nor did He actively persecute the Pharisees and Saducees for their corruption. He acted passively. He never incited the Jews to rebellion against the Romans. Even in His last moments, he never fought against the false charges, nor struck back when he was being led to the cross to His death. To His last breath, He was passive, like a lamb being led to a slaughterhouse. Yet the institutions who profess to follow Him and His teachings have resorted to methods He was leading everyone away from… The RH Bill is an affair of the state, not of the Church. The Church’s role is to simply guide and lead by EXAMPLE, and NOT to persecute.

    A final word of advise: “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.”

    Ponder on these words deeply…

    • Kanashimono please don’t be too literal. Jesus Christ has never been passive in all His entire evangelization. He deliberately fought with the injustices of the pharasees and Sadducees. That was even the reason why He has been crusified. Try to reseach more on the history before giving your views. About the Ceasar thing. It all pertaints to taxes which is really due for the government. Is there anything in the bible that says Christ tackled one’s belief when He said that. The church do not condemn anyone unless morality is at stake.

      • Hmmm… Me not doing research on this? Oh, me thinks, I did! Yes, me thinks I did!!! Seriously? Jesus wasn’t passive? If He wasn’t, why are we still alive today? Why do we even have the concept of SALVATION if He wasn’t passive? He was passive both LITERALLY and SPIRITUALLY. Why literally? Let’s look back at history, shall we? Back in His day, Judea (the Roman name for the kingdom of Judah, not Israel) was under Roman rule. (I’d like to go all-out history buff just to prove that I DID my research and tell you the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Jews and why they aren’t referred to as ISRAELITES, but that would be too much…) There were a LOT of dissidents back then and that’s why crucifixion was such a common form of punishment. Crucifixion was then considered as the most humiliating form of capital punishment since it serves as a cruel reminder to would be criminals, and more than often criminals who were crucified were often left to rot on their crosses. Jesus never condemned the Romans, he even helped quite a few prominent ones. He even accepted a crime He was never guilty of (potentially starting a rebellion because He was referred to as the King of the Jews). He even allowed Himself to endure humiliation in front of the public and endure the worst kind of capital punishment at the time. That’s not PASSIVE? Spiritually, He sacrificed His life so every person who believes in HIM WILL BE SAVED from eternal damnation. If He wasn’t passive, then every single sinner, heck all of humanity, will feel the wrath of holy judgement for every single sin we committed. He could’ve just remained in heaven and smote every kind of evil with a snap of His fingers… But He didn’t… He chose to teach man a lesson. A lesson on humility… He shed His godhood and don a mortal existence to prove to us all that we can transcend the evil around us. Isn’t that being passive? And obviously you’re the one who took the bit about Caesar literally, referring only to one point of view. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is His…” Mind you that the story behind this quote was an actual ploy by His enemies to make Him speak against Roman rule and commit treason, NOT just taxes. Again He was passive in His reply. He made a clear statement that He doesn’t care about the petty politics of the day and that His concern was more on the spiritual salvation of the Jews (and eventually all of mankind). And the Church, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has never condemned anyone unless morality was at stake? Um, I guess you REALLY DIDN’T DO YOUR RESEARCH. The Catholic Church has condemned countless innocent lives to their deaths during the Crusades, stating that anyone who kills a Muslim will be assured complete and absolute salvation!!! The Church has raised armies and sent them to countless wars, all for the sake of FORCED CONVERSION. Isn’t that the PERFECT EXAMPLE OF BIGOTRY, followed second by Hitler’s own crusade to establish a master race of ARYANS. I KNOW MY HISTORY. You obviously had blinded yourself with Catholic beliefs and doctrines without question, never looking at the flip-side of the coin: the filth that the Church has been constantly hiding for centuries, claiming that the atrocities were done in a kind of “transition” period in its glorious and illustrious history. A moral authority no different from the corrupt Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ’s time… I did my research, and I did them well… Did you really do yours?

      • Please correct your grammar and spelling… (e.g. Pharasees?; crusified?; “He deliberately fought WITH the injustices of the pharasees and Sadducees.”– maybe you meant “against”; pertaints?; “Is there anything in the bible that says Christ tackled one’s belief when He said that.”– what a vague question that doesn’t even use proper punctuation; “The church DO not condemn…”– um, ever learned about ‘subject-verb agreement’ back in grade school?) And one final thing: You even spelled my name wrong… Please don’t shame yourself… Good day…

    • Abortion is evil; it is murdering babies, just unborn
      ALL nations that legalize abortion started with an RH law
      In the US, study shows that 6 out of 10 women who go to abortion clinics are due to failed contraceptives, resulting to UNWANTED babies; logical choice? Kill their babies.. such evil!

      It is grand stupidity that you persist in supporting the RH bill when you know very well it will lead to the murdering of your future grandchildren c/o your brainwashed grown up kids, thanks to you..
      The Catholic Church exists in preaching Christ’s Truth; She perishes otherwise.
      Pro-Rh people do not have such danger; therefore they can spew lies like their evil father, the father of lies
      Again, you join perishing your soul when you take part in propagating the evil lies in pro-rh; you take part in the future blood-letting human sacrifices brought about by your complicity. God will have mercy on your soul, but you will have to equally make a concrete penance for your complicity, like a public recantation. Failing so, every woman who got convinced to abort their babies, you will have a part on them

    • Can the affairs of the state be done without people.. can you live w/o faith? you’re like pagans..please understand that this matter can’t be reduce to intellectual reasons..

    • Yes, but don’t you think it is only proper that you RESPECT the Catholic principles of the institution, in the same manner that you would leave your shoes outside a home that you’re staying in because it’s a custom in that household?

    • Thank you for a very inspiring comment. I hope that many young Thomasian will learn from your writing and at least motivate them to know more about the inquisition and many atrocities of the catholic church “to uphold what they believe is true.”
      Among the things “they believe is true” is the Papal Infallibility and the problem in this declaration is how it was declared. In practice, the bishops (CBCP), parochial priest, and the CATHOLIC CHURCH as a whole, believe they too are infallible in their fulfillment of the Papal orders.
      I was once a very good catholic, 35 years ago I was ex-communicated because I marry a non-catholic. Now I am happy being a catholic without the sacrament of communion. I didn’t miss that piece of bread and lived more freely without bias and guilt in the morals of a christian life since I turned my back to the catholic church.

  69. Talk about responsible journalism… you make me sick man… your statements are too fascist… have you ever thought about what are the pro’s and con’s of the RH Bill? You Extremist Christian Narrow Minded Prick! Shame on you making these statements and you expect support from your fellow Thomasian’s for such barbarous words… Tapos na ang panahon ng mga Prayle… mas marurunong na mga tao ngayon! You should be more mature with what you publish and be responsible for the words you use… yes it is your freedom to express yourself but upon the time that you use such rights to transgress other peoples right, you are damn wrong…

  70. Let me just say that this article does not reflect the views of the whole Thomasian community.I am an alumnus of the university and I support the RH Bill primarily because it gives one the FREEDOM to choose what family planning method to use, or NOT to use any method at all. Whatever your religious affiliation is, and if your faith dictates that using any artificial means of contraception is morally wrong, then you don’t have to. BUT that does not give you the right to make the option of using artificial methods of contraception unavailable to others. We are all Filipinos, as much as we are united by our common heritage, we are different in the way, we respond to situations. The Varsitarian took a stand, and unfortunately, to make their point across, they had to result to mudslinging. Where’s the “lumina pandit” in this article now, Mr. Editor?

  71. It seems to me that the Varsitarian website had been compromised. And the hacker was good enough to leave a bad editorial too…

  72. Let me just say that this article does not reflect the views of the whole Thomasian community.I am an alumnus of the university and I support the RH Bill primarily because it gives one the FREEDOM to choose what family planning method to use, or NOT to use any method at all. Whatever your religious affiliation is, and if your faith dictates that using any artificial means of contraception is morally wrong, then you don’t have to. BUT that does not give you the right to make the option of using artificial methods of contraception unavailable to others. We are all Filipinos, as much as we are united by our common heritage, we are different in the way, we respond to situations. The Varsitarian took a stand, and unfortunately, to make their point across, they had to result to mudslinging. Where’s the “lumina pandit” in this article now, Mr. Editor?

  73. Congratulations to the Varsitarian for having the courage to defy popularity and political correctness. You have shown what a real editorial should show. Conviction and courage! This is not about the RH Bill. It is about being a Catholic Institution. We are all given choices, religion, education, profession, etc. If we don’t trust our church, we have the choice to leave it. Ateneo and Lasalle has shown they would sacrifice their faith and principles for profit and popularity. Shame. I am proud to have been part of the strongest Catholic University in the world! GO USTE!

  74. Congratulations to the Varsitarian for having the courage to defy popularity and political correctness. You have shown what a real editorial should show. Conviction and courage! This is not about the RH Bill. It is about being a Catholic Institution. We are all given choices, religion, education, profession, etc. If we don’t trust our church, we have the choice to leave it. Ateneo and Lasalle has shown they would sacrifice their faith and principles for profit and popularity. Shame. I am proud to have been part of the strongest Catholic University in the world! GO USTE!

  75. Dear Editorial Writer,

    I would’ve loved to post my opinion here, but your seemingly lack of openness to others’ ideas would render anything I say futile. Thanks for shouting out to the whole world how BOBO Thomasians are. (Wouldn’t want to generalize but hey, your writing is sweeping with generalizations.)

  76. I’m not from UST, not ADMU nor DLSU but I must say that this editorial is down right disrespectful. As a Journalism major, I find this very demeaning for our major. For our course. Is this how properly educated students write? Shaming the names of other universities out of frustration and arrogance? Not only did you tarnish the reputation of UST by writing this completely biased editorial, you practically dug your own grave by saying that UST would let their professors leave the job just because of religious and moral conflicts. As far as I know, UST is not a petty university. A lot of Thomasians are disappointed with this foolish writing of yours, and you shame us journalists by writing such an embarassing and biased editorial. You talk of ethics but this editorial you have written contains none of what you fight for. Very disappointing.

  77. I’m not from UST, not ADMU nor DLSU but I must say that this editorial is down right disrespectful. As a Journalism major, I find this very demeaning for our major. For our course. Is this how properly educated students write? Shaming the names of other universities out of frustration and arrogance? Not only did you tarnish the reputation of UST by writing this completely biased editorial, you practically dug your own grave by saying that UST would let their professors leave the job just because of religious and moral conflicts. As far as I know, UST is not a petty university. A lot of Thomasians are disappointed with this foolish writing of yours, and you shame us journalists by writing such an embarassing and biased editorial. You talk of ethics but this editorial you have written contains none of what you fight for. Very disappointing.

  78. First and Foremost, I am a green archer. To the anonymous writer of this article, you have only proven one thing, YOU ARE SUCH A BIG COWARD, THE BIGGEST OF EM’ ALL. I respect the fact that you are voicing out your opinion but to drag other names on this like La Salle and Ateneo and their educators, well you’ve gone too far. You are so brave to name names, yet you cannot even put your own on the article you just wrote. How dare you say that intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila, do you have proof of this? Maybe the shortage is present in España, Manila as well because of people like you. I have nothing against UST and with the principles it believes, I know that UST produces competitive students and graduates, i have a brother and 2 sisters that came from UST. Don’t embarrass your school and your fellow Thomasians with articles like this, i think you are a talented writer, you are far more better that this. Lastly, regarding religion, “IT IS NOT RELIGION THAT WILL SAVE YOU BUT IT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD THAT WILL”.

  79. Bravo! Bravo! My warmest congratulations to the editorial writer. Talk about guts and telling it like it is! This is a scintillating piece that drove the dagger right into the heart of wishy-washy Catholics and Catholic institutions. Gauging from the reactions of those lambasting the author, I can say emphatically: Nadale mo! Talab hanggang sa buto kaya nagngingitngit at nanggagalaiti sila sa galit. Name calling they say? Have they ever heard or read of Our Lord Jesus Christ turning the tables and kicking out the money changers from the temple? How about these words, “hypocrites, brood of vipers, whitewashed sepulchre?” Or “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. Matthew 10:34” No, tapos na po ang pagbibigay. No more Mr. Nice Guy and turning the other cheek. Enough is enough and one must draw the line somewhere. There is a time to go on the offensive and it is NOW!

    The author has every right to express his opinion. Demonizing someone is an old tactic used by those who want to marginalize the person concerned. What’s happening here is reminiscent of what the pro-RH crowd did to Senator Sotto. It is an effort to isolate and silence the author and to paint him as misguided even a bigot. Pero inamag na po sa takilya ang taktikang yan. Where are the vanguards of academic freedom and freedom of expression?

    UST is a Catholic institution, it must uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. If one chooses to study or teach in a Catholic institution, one must respect its mission and Catholic identity. That is the point of the editorial and rightfully so. Period.

    Again, kudos to the courage and intrepidity of the author. May Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary of La Naval de Manila help, guide and protect you always!

  80. the bishop’s denial of choice offered by the rh bill is tantamount to them stripping away the free will of the filipino people. the “free will” that i so often heard on sermons and cathecism classes during my catholic school days: that it is eventually your choice and that hopefully your decisions are guided by the holy spirit and that god gave you free will so you may discern from good and bad and that if you choose good, then you choose god.

    now, using this catholic idea as a line of argument and arguing within the catholic context, couldn’t i also reason out that by limiting or entirely removing the choice that rh bill offers (universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors), they are effectively removing the “free will” of the people to choose the so called “righteous” decision. the people, without an alternative or the choice offered by the rh bill, are forced to fall back on the things prescribed by the bishops or worse, go to the unsafe, illegal avenue. therefore, the freedom of choice is limited and the people are controlled shrewdly towards a choice or decision that’s more favorable to the bishops, like puppets on a string.

    to put things more clearly, allow me to put it in an analogy:

    a violent criminal is institutionalized and by some scientific/medical means, is rendered incapable of violence, wherein whenever he tries to commit a violent action, he experiences severe pain. and he is then released into society. now you might think, cool… but think again. and i must say, think like a catholic again.

    ~”catholic teaching on free will recognizes that god has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. the bishops at the 2nd vatican council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17)”
    ~“the education of conscience is a lifelong task.” (CCC, No. 1784)
    ~“in the formation of conscience the word of god is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. we must also examine our conscience before the lord’s cross. we are ASSISTED by the gifts of the holy spirit, AIDED by the witness or advice of others and GUIDED by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (CCC, No. 1785)
    ~“for freedom christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1)
    ~ “as long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me” (Matt. 25:40)

    so my question is this: the former violent criminal, when he stopped comitting violence, did he do it because he chose to? because he distinguished right from wrong? because he discerned that whatever he did to his neighbors, he did to god? because he had examined his conscience and came to realize what he did was wrong? because he put into effect the advice and guidance of others and the church? because he wants to go to heaven? because some priest gave him an account of what hell is like? or is it because he had no choice? or because whenever he wants to do something violent, he experiences pain? or whenever he chose something contrary to his conditioning, he receives a negative reinforcement?
    ladies and gentlemen, he has been reduced to an automaton, a puppet, a human robot, a clockwork to be winded towards a certain action.
    look at one of the famous catholic parable: the prodigal son? isn’t his return more meaningful because he became remorseful? because his consciene gnawed at him? because he came to a realization that what he did was wrong? because he CHOSE it?

    i guess what i’m trying to say, especially to the bishops, is this: if you have confidence in your evangalizing and preaching; if you believe you have planted strong seeds of faith on young minds through your esteemed catholic schools and institution; if you value, respect and dignify the faith of your followers, then what is there to fear from the rh bill? surely if the faith of the faithful are strong, they will surely choose the “right” path. i guess ateneo and lasalle are pretty confident with the faith of their flock, and trusting them to make the “right” decision. and even if they made the “wrong” decision, well then, there’s always the moral of the prodigal son to give them solace.

  81. I hope no one outside the Thomasion communty reads this… too late, it’s on the Internet.

    My lord, this is embarrassing. Please, people, please don’t judge Thomasians to be arrogant pricks who demands respect but deems they are too high and mighty to give theirs. We are not like that I swear. This anonymous coward is just an exception and not the rule.

    This editorial makes me ashamed to be Thomasian. :/

  82. If the editor firmly believes everything that s/he wrote, then s/he should have put his/her name on the article. “Of lemons and cowards” fits the person who can’t stand by his/her beliefs. Put your name on it then we MIGHT cut you some slack.

  83. It’s one thing to make a stand, it’s another to display arrogance. This piece lacks restraint and discernment. It’s full of itself, and accommodates no room for an evolving discussion. Never mind being narrow-minded, but the tone, the very sense of righteousness hinders one to even consider the possibly good points of this article. Sayang.

  84. I am from UST. A proud Thomasian.
    So to those who are trying to put ALL THOMASIANS down because of the opinion of a few, you are no different from this writer.

    We may have gone to the same university, but each of us, even those from Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, have our own belief or stand.
    Everyone learns and defies (be realistic) the teachings inside the school.
    However, the judgments and decisions we make outside the campus, come from one’s personal view point regardless of where he/she graduated.
    In this world we live in, we must be as broad-minded as possible.

    I am from UST.
    We are taught to LISTEN (really listen) and to not be judgmental.
    You say you hear people out as well.
    I am sorry, but I beg to disagree.

  85. This is too subjective. The main purpose of a newspaper is to bring in objective views from and for all. Using students’ resources to present an incoherent, irrelevant, and ignorant PERSONAL view is appalling, disgusting, and a complete waste of student funds when printed, regardless if its an opinion article. Brace yourself for more attacks if you just hide behind the desk. You are better off showing yourself to the public, show the courage that you are exhibiting as a true Thomasian.

    • That’s why it’s called editorial. It speaks up the general view of the paper, and don’t say that it’s a waste of tuition. Maybe for you, but they are just doing their job. We have our own opinions about this matter, so be professional enough to respect this. Don’t speak for the general studentry of UST if you are only speaking for yourself. I pity you.

  86. It’s one thing to make a stand, it’s another to display arrogance. This piece lacks restraint and discernment. It’s full of itself, and accommodates no room for an evolving discussion. Never mind being narrow-minded, but the tone, the very sense of righteousness hinders one to even consider the possibly good points of this article. Sayang.

  87. Each person has [his/her] own right to express [his/her] opinion. I respect yours, and I hope you respect ours, too.

    1.)
    I believe the professors who stepped up and expressed themselves should not be judged because it is their opinion alone; it should NOT be, in any way, be presented as that of Ateneo’s or La Salle’s.

    2.)
    “But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila.” —- Do you have a study/facts that will support this conclusion? This is a serious question. People from the mentioned areas may sue you, you know.. (hash-tag RA10175 HAHAHA!)

    P.S.
    “Recently, a number of professors from Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University have voiced their support for the RH bill. a closed reasding of the merasure which show it promotes abortifacients.”

    I really can’t help but point this one out: there [is/are] typo[s] and wrong punctuation in your fifth paragraph. You better check and edit that one out.

  88. Well done Varsitarian! Good to know there are still those who adhere to what is right, to what is good, to what is sound morality even when it is unpopular to do so. Well done!

  89. I actually love this article – outrageous, blunt and provocative. I view it as sort of a wake-up call for people who think the anti-RH side have no valid reason to go against such a bill – they do, even if the other side don’t share it.

    UST is in a very difficult position, supporting the unpopular side. I admire her steadfastness. This article should not be taken as an official statement from the University (even if it is posted in the official student publication), nor should it be regarded as something shameful.

    Indeed, some very strong words were used, provoking emotions to get the desired response. Nevertheless, they should not cloud the writer’s most salient point: institutions representing the Catholic faith must ensure that their stand is in line with the Catholic doctrine – as they benefit from such representation, so should they bear the responsibility. This is what the writer meant by “pretenders and interlopers”.

    I don’t think this article would have gotten so much attention if the two schools were not named, but then again, this is not some showbiz blind item.

    I agree that the writer should not have hidden his identity – after all, if they were brave enough to write something as outrageous as this, they should be brave enough to face criticism.

    To be honest, I don’t really care about the RH bill – but I do care about the freedom of expression. This is how the writer views the subject, a very strong and blunt criticism of those who the writer sees to profess the same belief but whose actions indicate otherwise.

    Speak out, Thomasians. Criticize, praise, voice out your opinions. Don’t be afraid to speak out against things you believe are wrong – as Timothy Luce said, “the brave may not live long, but the cautious don’t live at all”.

  90. “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.”
    ? Lenny Bruce

  91. Tugong-likha ko po sa editoryal na nilathala sa Varsitarian Vol. LXXXIV, No. 6, September 30, 2012, na may pamagat na, RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards

    UST kong mahal
    Ni Dr. Clarence M. Batan

    Mahal ko ang UST dahil itinuro nito sa akin
    Ang konsepto at kahulugan ng Diyos.
    Ngunit higit sa lahat, ang Diyos na buhay
    Sa bawat taong bahagi ng lipunan.

    Kung ang UST ay isang lipunan
    Batid kong ang Diyos ay nananahan.
    Subalit paano kung ang koneksyon ng
    UST at Diyos ay pinalamlam
    Ng isang editoryal?
    Kinatawan ba nito ang UST –
    Ang mga natutunan ko’t
    Mga itinuro sa akin
    Ng pamantasan kong mahal?

    Hindi po!

    Dahil sa UST, sa sosyolohiyang
    Aking natutunan –
    May lipunang nagtatampok
    Sa kapurihan ng Diyos.
    Hindi lang sa institusyon ng
    Katolikong simbahan ngunit sa bawat
    Bahagi nang mas malawak na
    Lipunan – labas at lampas sa mga kalye ng
    España, P. Noval, Lacson at Dapitan –
    Iba man ang pananampalataya,
    Oryentasyon o kredo.

    Ang Diyos na itinuro sa akin ng UST
    Ay di mayabang, di nang-uuri.
    Mapagkumbaba, may mabuting-asal,
    Mapagmahal.

  92. Seriously, I had to think think about my 4 years in Espana cos I don’t ever recalled UST asking us to conform to anything. UST embraces diversity by allowing and respecting non-Christians and non-Catholics who choose to study in the institution.

    Why can’t the editor do the same? This editorial is just wrong in so many ways. Given that the Catholic Church and the UST as an institution has a stand, the editor shouldn’t have belittled the Jesuits, the brothers, and Katipunan and Taft all at the same time.

    All I can say is, St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

  93. I am an Atenean and I feel deeply insulted.
    I have respected your university and has always admired her 400 years of quality education.

    I know Thomasians can do better than this.
    And I hope you would stop calling my professors and teacher interlopers and pretenders.

    Before you judge my university and my teachers, spend a day in our university. Sit in our classes. Then see for yourself how critical thinking is encouraged among us.

    By insulting and mudslinging, you are insulting no one but your own university.

    Long live UST. May this be an isolated case.

  94. I am a Thomasian and I’m proud to be one.. but this write-up is so disappointing.. This does not in any way reflect the spirit of a true Thomasian and goes against the University’s teachings on being one. The post should be recanted, deleted and apologies extended where it should be. This is very disrespectful.

    To Varsitarian group, since when do you allow posts like this? You have established a reputation for intellectual and informative write-ups and one like this can take you down.

  95. I’m a graduate from UST, and I’m immensely disgusted by the editorial! If the University is so into RIGHTEOUSNESS and the GOOD of the Filipinos, then stop writing crap about other schools and how they run their own university! KEEP your opinion to yourself and talk pontifical stupidity among your 400 years of hypocrisy!

  96. As an alumni of UST, this write-up I believe doesn’t necessarily represent all the hearts and minds of our alumnus, students and faculty alike. It is disgusting and shameful, written in bad taste.

    Even before when i was in UST I never did like the official publication, it has always been biased. I’d rather find entertainment in reading the spoof version “Vuisitarian” if they still have it.

    You bring shame to your school and religion by showing how narrow-minded and judge-mental you are. I feel sorry for you.

  97. I’m a graduate of UST and never have I been obliged nor required to have a standard of belief. Its sad that you think this way because it only means that you have a shallow grasp of things and of the situation. But if this is your opinion then, I’ll let you be. Maybe this is a skill that you should learn. Learn to respect others opinion because for what’s worth, we’re all entitled to it but everything has a limit. In short, it is not absolute. And if you really do love UST just like what you trying to portray, then the more reason that you shouldn’t have protected it. You should have been careful and thought this through because you might have ‘pledged’ your admiration to UST and bashed Ateneo and La Salle, you have in fact, put UST in a bad situation and all its hard work as a Catholic school down the drain. And last thought, this is just my opinion–if you think that Ateneo and La Salle are cowards, then I dare you to be the brave one. Identify yourself.

  98. I wonder what’s worse, a congressman who plagiarizes quotes from a good researcher or a disgruntled “anonymous” reactionary (not even a good writer, and to call his/her piece an editorial is to do editorials a disservice) who just spouts personal, highly unfounded positions because the team lost a basketball game. I wonder what’s worse, a disgruntled anonymous reactionary writing on the schoolpaper or the editorial board that has allowed garbage writing to pass as journalism.

  99. Talk about who is brave or coward while hiding under the veil secrecy… Yep. Very dignified. I am a Thomasian and i love my alma mater. But this “editorial” seemed like an unpublished scene from Noli or El Fili. Bolt-the-doors-I’m-starting-my-homily scenario. Shameful. Biased. I think i have to pray 3 Hail Mary’s after reading this piece.

  100. Seriously?!? This piece is appalling in exhibition of it’s narrow-mindedness. Does UST really espouse the sentiments in this article or has this unnamed author taken liberties? Being a good Catholic and having an open mind are not mutually exclusive.

  101. There are religious people and there are religious fanatics. That is the difference between the religious guy and the suicide bomber. You, my friend, are part of the latter

  102. You said that La Salle and Ateneo are of lemons and cowards, HOW HYPOCRITICAL of you the fact that you wrote this article anonymously. LOL Before saying “coward” to someone, make sure that you are not hiding as well.

  103. we may not have the same views. i personally disagree with the chruch and the varsitarian. but the issue here is not he RH bill, nor ADMU or DSLU. its a question of loyalty to the institution you represent. i think we should support the varsitarian as an institution. they committed a mistake, but as thomasians, we should not let that institution fall. disciplinahin na lang ng admin internally pero wag icondemn ng kapwa thomasians and we should not bow to other schools. same with them, pag may nagkamali sa kanila, pinagtatanggol nila. why cant we?

    if you pick at the institution you represent, its like disparaging your very self.

  104. I understand that there is no byline or even a notice of who wrote this. I think this might be the publication’s stand or their main editorial. As a whole, whether you like it or not, the damage has been done and people are getting this generalization of how Thomasians think. I hope next time we should avoid name dropping of schools. It’s such a desperate move to make a stand be heard.

  105. I’m not sure whether this is immaturity, juvenile frustration or simply stupidity. But to project an institution as branding a certain bias towards a poltical position is primarily ignorant next to stupidity. People have varied reasons why they study in a particluar school, and for many, it is not because of the vocal position of some teachers or students. For a lot of us, we respect opinions. But please, do not assume just because we come from similar institutions, that we also believe in the same cause as you do.

  106. seriously, are you a thomasian? UST definetly did ot raise me in such an arrogant and imbecile person. try to be open minded. RESPECT isi the word… i am also appalled that the university allowed the publication of this editorial… nakakahiya naman…. nkakalungkot tuloy maging tomasino…..

  107. Wittingly written but reckless, immature and arrogant. I have high regards for The Varsitarian being a Thomasian myself, but what happened is irresponsible.

  108. well i would have chosen better words but, at least he/she had the balls to say what i think at times. I believe a Catholic institution should remain Catholic, if not then the word Catholic means nothing. In a world where people bend to what is “practical” and the easiest solution, we often just change everything to get through a problem with the least amount of effort or problems even if it means sacrificing our faith and integrity. What good is it to want for the good of the country when it means destroying your beliefs which are what defines you and are in itself not wrong, i don’t want to be just another person who is swayed by the winds of popular sentiment or time or ride the easiest band wagon. If democracy be the voice of all heard even if most do not like it, then let it be that which has been written above. I would have chosen more humble words, but i thank that person for expressing some sentiments that i have, for our people hate things which get in their way especially if they are the ways of the old, for they believe that just because it is a view of religious origin or leaning that it has no right to have an opinion in the daily lives of men.

  109. To Kanashiimono: The best argument I’ve ever read.

    These people, who they call themselves “disciples” are often the one who bash the sinners. Tell them they will all rot in hell if they don’t change their ways, rather than help them become better persons. You could never push your beliefs and opinions into another person, that’s why they are called opinions. Besides, who knows the truth anyway? Who among us can actually say that we know the truth? The real faith? The real god? Nobody. We all succumb to the mysteries of world and the best thing we could do is make the most out of it, with respect, love and passion for one another.

  110. When ancient scientist Galileo Galilei claimed that the earth revolves around the sun, the Catholic Church convicted him of heresy. According to History.com, he was given a harsh penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

    It took more than 300 years for the Church to claim that Galileo is right after scientists validated his discovery.

    Recently, the editors of The Varsitarian proudly declared the University of Sto Thomas “has upheld the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) condemning the Reproductive Health (RH) bill as an anti-poor, social-engineering measure that not only denigrates the natural law but also runs roughshod over maternal health, kowtows to the contraceptive imperialism of the West…”

    The editorial articulates, “Professors who are affiliated with UST must respect the stand of the University against the RH bill as they are part of an institution which is fundamentally bound with Catholic faith and teachings.”

    By not being contented with its stand, the editorial sites 192 professors of Ateneo de Manila University and 45 La Salle professors voiced there support for RH Bill. “It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems,” furthered the editors.

    No one holds the monopoly of truth. Neither the Catholic Church nor a university like UST that has bunch of public intellectuals has the control over morals, values, and truthfulness. There’s no supposed to be a one-size-fits all opinion to influence the public.

    Talk about academic freedom, professors have the right to air their views and stands on pressing issues like the RH bill. It should not force them to change their opinion or leave the campus if the university has a different stand on a critical issue.

    A Lasallian professor once shared university means “unity in diversity”. Despite the diversity of comments, opinions, blogs, and tweets, a university is still united to advance in improving the lives of communities. Quoting DLSU President Br. Ricky Laguda: “In DLSU we believe in respecting each others’ opinions and giving different perspectives equal share without resorting to putting others on a defensive mode.”

    “In the first place, academic freedom is not absolute,” writes the editors. Ironically, The Varsitiarian has interpreted freedom of expression on its absolute sense: the Catholic opinion is the only right opinion and should be respected by its stakeholders.

    This reminds us of John F. Kennedy who declared: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

    It agonizes us to read the writings of campus editors who show off criticism not because they express their views to help shape the community but because to claim “Ours is better than your opinions and only ours matter.” Criticize not out of hate but out of love. Express opinion by ruling out what’s wrong and recommend next steps as a better alternative to the status quo.

    We don’t live in times of Galileo in which we obey and comply with one absolute stand alone. Don’t wait for the next 300 years to claim that your opinion only matters.

  111. well i would have chosen better words but, at least he had the balls to say what i think at times. I believe a Catholic institution should remain Catholic, if not then the word Catholic means nothing. In a world where people bend to what is “practical” and the easiest solution, we often just change everything to get through a problem with the least amount of effort or problems even if it means sacrificing our faith and integrity. What good is it to want for the good of the country when it means destroying your beliefs which are what defines you and are in itself not wrong, i don’t want to be just another person who is swayed by the winds of popular sentiment or time or ride the easiest band wagon. If democracy be the voice of all heard even if most do not like it, then let it be that which has been written above. I would have chosen more humble words, but i thank that person for expressing some sentiments that i have, for our people hate things which get in their way especially if they are the ways of the old, for they believe that just because it is a view of religious origin or leaning that it has no right to have an opinion in the daily lives of men.

  112. When ancient scientist Galileo Galilei claimed that the earth revolves around the sun, the Catholic Church convicted him of heresy. According to History.com, he was given a harsh penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

    It took more than 300 years for the Church to claim that Galileo is right after scientists validated his discovery.

    Recently, the editors of The Varsitarian proudly declared the University of Sto Thomas “has upheld the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) condemning the Reproductive Health (RH) bill as an anti-poor, social-engineering measure that not only denigrates the natural law but also runs roughshod over maternal health, kowtows to the contraceptive imperialism of the West…”

    The editorial articulates, “Professors who are affiliated with UST must respect the stand of the University against the RH bill as they are part of an institution which is fundamentally bound with Catholic faith and teachings.”

    By not being contented with its stand, the editorial sites 192 professors of Ateneo de Manila University and 45 La Salle professors voiced there support for RH Bill. “It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems,” furthered the editors.

    No one holds the monopoly of truth. Neither the Catholic Church nor a university like UST that has bunch of public intellectuals has the control over morals, values, and truthfulness. There’s no supposed to be a one-size-fits all opinion to influence the public.

    Talk about academic freedom, professors have the right to air their views and stands on pressing issues like the RH bill. It should not force them to change their opinion or leave the campus if the university has a different stand on a critical issue.

    A Lasallian professor once shared university means “unity in diversity”. Despite the diversity of comments, opinions, blogs, and tweets, a university is still united to advance in improving the lives of communities. Quoting DLSU President Br. Ricky Laguda: “In DLSU we believe in respecting each others’ opinions and giving different perspectives equal share without resorting to putting others on a defensive mode.”

    “In the first place, academic freedom is not absolute,” writes the editors. Ironically, The Varsitiarian has interpreted freedom of expression on its absolute sense: the Catholic opinion is the only right opinion and should be respected by its stakeholders.

    This reminds us of John F. Kennedy who declared: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

    It agonizes us to read the writings of campus editors who show off criticism not because they express their views to help shape the community but because to claim “Ours is better than your opinions and only ours matter.” Criticize not out of hate but out of love. Express opinion by ruling out what’s wrong and recommend next steps as a better alternative to the status quo.

    We don’t live in times of Galileo in which we obey and comply with one absolute stand alone. Don’t wait for the next 300 years to claim that your opinion only matters.

  113. I do not think that the writer of this editorial has thought so much of the implications of too much name calling in the article. As a Thomasian, you should exhibit humility and modesty in your actions, especially since we call ourselves Catholic. This is not how a truly Catholic writer writes! You are not likely inspired by the Holy Spirit, instead, you are sowing hatred among Catholics, and Catholic Schools.

    The “bullying” statements you have made against DLSU, ADMU, the Jesuits and the La Sallian Brothers are uncalled for. I hope you issue an apology.

    You may have a point (I do not agree with all of them), but you crossed the line with many statements you have made.

    I am, and always will be, proud of UST, of being a Thomasian, but I am not proud of how you are writing, dear writer of this editorial.

  114. With the indulgence of my relatives, friends and lovers from UST.

    Ateneo and La Salle are indeed lemons. They rank low in the top 200 schools in the world. Compared to my dear Harvard, they have indeed a long way to go. But UST belittling them? Oh no, it ranks even lower in the food chain.

    Are you referring to UST’s “established” medical program compared to the young departments of La Salle and Ateneo? Please hold your horses. The best MD’s are from PGH. The country’s poor are cured there despite the old equipments and hordes of patients.

    And now that I have stripped you of your armor of kayabangan, may I ask you to keep your catholic problems within the confines of your catholic church? And please do not use lies to propagate your cause. Aborti.. and health hazards…What?

    Look around you and you will find discarded condoms Under the Santol Tree (UST). Peep into your neighbors and you will see tons of contraceptives. My golly, your own mom, wife and mistress might even be using it. But how many miscarriages and deformed kids have come out of them?

    My darling, a lot of those unfortunate things happen to the poorest of the poor who are ignorant of RH and copulates without contraceptives even if their bodies cannot bear to conceive.

    By the way, most catholics are pro contraceptives. Take a discreet survey of the students and employees of catholic schools and you will realize that. If so, the catholic stand is PRO RH.

    You have your freedom to choose ANTI RH but leave them to their PRO RH’s opinions.

    You don’t have a monopoly of wisdom and christianity. Heck, I most probably will even find you long been waiting for me in hell, when I get there.

  115. Good job! But brace yourself. Expect people to contradict you. Always remember: as long you are in the side of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, you will never be put to shame, in the end. Be assured: God never loses battles!

  116. Why attack Ateneo and La Salle alone? A big number of faculty members and employees from many catholic insitutions are pro-RH bill…

    Piggy-backing on the popularity of the Blue and Green schools?

  117. I salute you. Sometimes it’s really hard to accept when people are telling the truth. It may sound arrogant but let’s look at it on a different perspective. The writer was honest and direct to his statement not beating around the bush. I find it so brave and straight forward!

    Keep it up! May The Lord continue to bless you!

  118. this editorial has little to do with the RH bill. the controversy was just the author’s vehicle to bash at Ateneo and La Salle. what i found particularly suspicious was how this editorial was allowed to be published in the first place.

  119. I wonder which is worse: a Congressman plagiarizing quotes from well-researched articles and passing them off as his own…or a disgruntled upstart spouting unfounded vitriol and passing off his garbage as an EDITORIAL.

  120. i am a graduate of ust ecclesiastical faculties. this editorial is an embarrassment. the arguments presented are products of of a mind that is lazy and so used to spoonfeeding. it doesn’t process ideas but simply churns rhetorics and motherhood statements. but what staggers me are the insults and namecalling. all ad hominems. the once vaunted school of journalism of ust is in its lowest ebb in this piece. let me say it again, it is an embarrassment

  121. I’m sorry, but I find it so funny that you call Ateneo and La Salle professors who support the RH bill cowards when you don’t even have the guts to reveal your own name. If you write an article as derogatory as this, the least you can do is own up to it.

  122. First of all, I would like to express my dismay upon reading this article.. Not because of the point being raised but in the way that is been written… Have you heard of RHETORICS? There are many ways to express your point in a less offensive manner. I quote Fr. Cabading in this article “Every person is given the “freedom” to choose but that freedom is not absolute.” We have the freedom to express our thoughts and expression (disregarding the cybercrime law heheheh.. :P) but it is not humane and Christian like to express it very frankly to the point that we can offend other people’s views, opinions and also their dignity as a person. I know because my friend is a PRO RH and he was gravely humiliated by his mentor in front of other people just because they have opposive sides to the issue. Being a Catholic for me is not an IMPOSED beliefs for others to see, but rather how is it felt by the believer. I agree to my ALMA MATER regarding the RH BILL because naturally it is her nature as a CATHOLIC institution and I think Fr. Cabading had expressed that quite prudently.. My overall point here is FREEDOM needs PRUDENCE!!

  123. This kid should do some major editing if you ask me. I thought my alma mater stood for RESPECT for other institutions and what those institutions stand for. This is just so embarrassing. And whoever permitted this article to be published is equally guilty. You are a poor excuse for being a Thomasian student.

  124. Calling the DLSU/Ateneo professors names and yet, remaining nameless. Very courageous. Had you lived before 1960, you would have been one of those rabidly supporting the Dominicans in their active suppression of the inclusion of Rizal’s novels in our curriculum. Had you lived in Rizal’s time, you’d have been among those who cheered when he was shot. Had you lived in Galileo’s time, you’d have been the guy/girl carrying the torture implements up to the inquisition chamber. And please! Your grammar!

  125. kung ano man ang tama, un na lang ang pagtuunan natin ng pansin. Lahat ng tao may karapatan kung ano ang gusto nilang sangayunan. kung di kayo pabor, then be it. hayaan nio sila sa gusto nila. lahat ng aksyon at desisyon may sariling kahihinatnan.

  126. First of all, I would like to express my dismay upon reading this article.. Not because of the point being raised but in the way that is been written… Have you heard of RHETORICS? There are many ways to express your point in a less offensive manner. I quote Fr. Cabading in this article “Every person is given the “freedom” to choose but that freedom is not absolute.” We have the freedom to express our thoughts and expression (disregarding the cybercrime law heheheh.. :P) but it is not humane and Christian like to express it very frankly to the point that we can offend other people’s views, opinions and also their dignity as a person. I know because my friend is a PRO RH and he was gravely humiliated by his mentor in front of other people just because they have opposive sides to the issue. Being a Catholic for me is not an IMPOSED beliefs for others to see, but rather how is it felt by the believer. I agree to my ALMA MATER regarding the RH BILL because naturally it is her nature as a CATHOLIC institution and I think Fr. Cabading had expressed that quite prudently.. My overall point here is FREEDOM needs PRUDENCE!!

  127. I respect whatever opinion people may have. I respect UST, La Salle,etc. I find this disrespectful. You have to be kidding about this crap. And I even thought that all the students of UST are respectable. You are worse than scum.

  128. I am indifferent toward religion. When I see Muslims, people with a different cultural background from mine, on TV protesting in the name of their Allah, I find it one of the most wasteful things. And sad things. Some of their sects violate women openly with religious justification. Some of their sects persecute non-Muslim cultures, intolerant as they are of others.

    But now, with an editorial like this, for the first time I realized that Christians are capable of exactly the same thing. To say, “we are Catholics so all opposition to our anti-RH stand ends here, all debate stops” — that’s got to be one of the saddest and — eventually, I think — most dangerous mindsets. And at this, Catholicism is already the largest and most powerful of the Christian denominations. And the writer takes too much pride in the method it is espousing.

    Medyo naive ka yata, anak. 🙂 I take you as a child na nagpapaka-adult. Now, look at what you’ve done. Even your fellow Thomasians are against you.

    Hay. Truly, when our starting point is ideology/religion and not common sense, all room for scholarly and calm — forget decent, gentle and “Christian” — debate ends.

    The publication of this editorial by the student paper was a sad day.

  129. kaya pala nahihiya asawa kong sabihin na grumaduate sya sa UST… buti napayagang ipublish to no at sa website pa talaga…

    e di sabihin nyo na rin na bawal ang di roman catholic sa unibersidad nyo

    bawal pala magturo ang di sumasangayon sa paniniwala ng eskewelahan nyo e

    para sa mga guro kung may respeto kayo sa sarili nyo hindi dapat kayo magturo sa isang institusyong di nirerespeto ang kapasidad nyong magisip para sa inyong mga sarili

  130. There is a clear difference between Christianity and Religious Fanaticism. I quite despise those who can’t tell the two apart. Academic freedom lets us exercise our God-given talents to their fullest extent in the service of our countrymen. To publicly attempt to stifle it is a great dishonor to both God and our country

  131. Sabi ng isang columnist ng varsitarian, hindi daw pwedeng i-reveal ang author ng editorial dahil editorial nga daw. San ka naman daw nakakita ng editorial na may byline. Tama nga naman. Pero dahil naging opinion ng buong UST community yung pinagsusulat nyo sa editorial, nahihiya na akong thomasian alumni ako dahil sa inyo.

    • They can reveal the name if they want to. The Inquirer does it. But nope, I think they fail to grasp the irony of an anonymous article accusing professors who have published their signatures to a public statement as cowards. No irony there at all. But the worst thing about this isn’t the cowardice, the fractured logic, or the self-masturbatory attitude, it’s the terrible, godawful writing. Seriously, guys. It’s one thing to have an opinion, it’s another to fling it in everyone’s faces in the words of the absolute worst writer you can find in your university.

  132. I never expected that a Catholic student could take such courage. Admirable faith and sound explanation. We need more youth like you.

    Do not let your hearts be troubled. Truth has many enemies while lie has many friends.

  133. Peace!

    It has been my honor for the past two years to be a lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University’s English Department. As part of my work for my MA, I visited your beautiful library as part of my research on the life and works of your very own Paz Latorena. Your staff were very open and helpful.

    As I did my research, poring over yearbooks and old issues of the Varsitarian, I came to admire the tact and greatness of spirit shown by your esteemed publication and by Ms. Latorena, who distinguished herself not only as a writer and teacher, but as an editor of the Varsitarian. Her faith and her work at UST defined her, and the Ateneo Library of Women’s Writings has made an effort to share her example with our students.

    For what it is worth, I offer you my assurance that it is her example, and not that of this editorial, that we will remember. Paz Latorena’s courage and kindness made me proud that my country has a university like UST. Her writings asked questions, rather than cracking whips at them. Her faith inspired, rather than seeking to dominate the will of others. Rather than implying that those who disagreed with her were going to hell, she rose above conflict by being a humble but shining example. The Varsitarian of her era was a publication that Thomasians were proud of, and for good reason.

    I offer my thanks to your community for your many shows of support. We may not always agree, but the generosity and mutual respect between our venerable institutions and their members is in keeping with the highest traditions of Christian brotherhood.

    I hope everyone keeps this in mind when we utterly demolish you in the upcoming UAAP championship. 😀

    God bless!

    Carlo Rivera

    Lecturer

    Ateneo de Manila University

    n.b. This letter represents my opinion only, and not necessarily that of the Ateneo.

  134. Peace!

    It has been my honor for the past two years to be a lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University’s English Department. As part of my work for my MA, I visited your beautiful library as part of my research on the life and works of your very own Paz Latorena. Your staff were very open and helpful.

    As I did my research, poring over yearbooks and old issues of the Varsitarian, I came to admire the tact and greatness of spirit shown by your esteemed publication and by Ms. Latorena, who distinguished herself not only as a writer and teacher, but as an editor of the Varsitarian. Her faith and her work at UST defined her, and the Ateneo Library of Women’s Writings has made an effort to share her example with our students.

    For what it is worth, I offer you my assurance that it is her example, and not that of this editorial, that we will remember. Paz Latorena’s courage and kindness made me proud that my country has a university like UST. Her writings asked questions, rather than cracking whips at them. Her faith inspired, rather than seeking to dominate the will of others. Rather than implying that those who disagreed with her were going to hell, she rose above conflict by being a humble but shining example. The Varsitarian of her era was a publication that Thomasians were proud of, and for good reason.

    I offer my thanks to your community for your many shows of support. We may not always agree, but the generosity and mutual respect between our venerable institutions and their members is in keeping with the highest traditions of Christian brotherhood.

    I hope everyone keeps this in mind when we utterly demolish you in the upcoming UAAP championship. 😀

    God bless!

    Carlo Rivera

    Lecturer

    Ateneo de Manila University

    n.b. This letter represents my opinion only, and not necessarily that of the Ateneo.

  135. I thought to myself ;I mean it had to be right? But try as I may, it became undeniable– the author of this piece is just plain ignorant. I hope he takes the time to read some of the comments posted here. Maybe you could learn a thing or to eh?

  136. What happened, Varsi? God Bless, UST! Napunta sa kahihiyan ang UST dahil lang sa isang article na ‘to na gawa ng iisang tao na hindi ko alam kung nagiisip ba siya o hindi, o baka feeling ko nakainom lang sa Espanya, Noval, Dapitan o sa Lacson kaya ganyan ang naisulat, sana sa susunod na release ng Varsi maayos na mga article at wag na ulit magsulat yung editor nang article na to kasi sobrang trending ngayon ang UST sa mga Unibersidad.

  137. I couldn’t agree more I was appalled w/ what the professors of Ateneo & La Salle did (being a La Sallian myself). Good points:

    it’s the Philippine state and its depredations—its mismanagement and appalling corruption—that are to blame

    UST is a Catholic institution — apparently supposedly is La Salle & Ateneo

    I remember when I was in La Salle taking up a Philosophy subject the professor, each and everytime, is proud to say she is an ‘agnostic’ & does nothing every session but ridicule God & try to instill her belief unto us, I was set to fail that subject, I didn’t realize how ‘religious’ I was until I had to defend my faith…she passed me on the basis of my constant ‘recitation’ as I was always arguing w/ her during class, now I realize the ‘bad situation’ I was placed in considering I was enrolled by my parents in a supposedly ‘Catholic’ institution…

    Father Cabading has also clarified that professors, “if they are to speak outside the University of anything contrary to the position of the Church, they are to do so only as private individuals and never identify themselves as faculty members of the University.” — I am somewhat against this, while you are ‘connected’ to the ‘Catholic institution’ you must NOT speak AGAINST it, if you want to, RESIGN 1st

  138. Peace!

    It has been my honor for the past two years to be a lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University’s English Department. As part of my work for my MA, I visited your beautiful library as part of my research on the life and works of your very own Paz Latorena. Your staff were very open and helpful.

    As I did my research, poring over yearbooks and old issues of the Varsitarian, I came to admire the tact and greatness of spirit shown by your esteemed publication and by Ms. Latorena, who distinguished herself not only as a writer and teacher, but as an editor of the Varsitarian. Her faith and her work at UST defined her, and the Ateneo Library of Women’s Writings has made an effort to share her example with our students.

    For what it is worth, I offer you my assurance that it is her example, and not that of this editorial, that we will remember. Paz Latorena’s courage and kindness made me proud that my country has a university like UST. Her writings asked questions, rather than cracking whips at them. Her faith inspired, rather than seeking to dominate the will of others. Rather than implying that those who disagreed with her were going to hell, she rose above conflict by being a humble but shining example. The Varsitarian of her era was a publication that Thomasians were proud of, and for good reason.

    I offer my thanks to your community for your many shows of support. We may not always agree, but the generosity and mutual respect between our venerable institutions and their members is in keeping with the highest traditions of Christian brotherhood.

    I hope everyone keeps this in mind when we utterly demolish you in the upcoming UAAP championship. 😀

    God bless!

    Carlo Rivera

    Lecturer

    Ateneo de Manila University

    n.b. This letter represents my opinion only, and not necessarily that of the Ateneo.

  139. I couldn’t agree more I was appalled w/ what the professors of Ateneo & La Salle did (being a La Sallian myself). Good points:

    it’s the Philippine state and its depredations—its mismanagement and appalling corruption—that are to blame

    UST is a Catholic institution — apparently supposedly is La Salle & Ateneo

    I remember when I was in La Salle taking up a Philosophy subject the professor, each and everytime, is proud to say she is an ‘agnostic’ & does nothing every session but ridicule God & try to instill her belief unto us, I was set to fail that subject, I didn’t realize how ‘religious’ I was until I had to defend my faith…she passed me on the basis of my constant ‘recitation’ as I was always arguing w/ her during class, now I realize the ‘bad situation’ I was placed in considering I was enrolled by my parents in a supposedly ‘Catholic’ institution…

    Father Cabading has also clarified that professors, “if they are to speak outside the University of anything contrary to the position of the Church, they are to do so only as private individuals and never identify themselves as faculty members of the University.” — I am somewhat against this, while you are ‘connected’ to the ‘Catholic institution’ you must NOT speak AGAINST it, if you want to, RESIGN 1st

  140. I respect UST’s stand about the RH bill but what I don’t get is what this kid is saying that the university should enforce that belief to everybody in the university, coz during my college years we were never forced to do something just because the school believes it. I was there during the time erap was ousted and students flocked Edsa but it wasn’t mandatory. You still have a choice! Maybe this kid didn’t listen to his/her theology professor, the first thing that they thought us is that God gave man FREE WILL. With that being said and taught in theology classes the university knows better than to dictate what a person should do and believe in. Kid, those written are mostly opinion of yours, please don’t drag the university’s name to shame by putting words in its Royal and Pontifical mouth.

  141. I couldn’t agree more I was appalled w/ what the professors of Ateneo & La Salle did (being a La Sallian myself). Good points:

    it’s the Philippine state and its depredations—its mismanagement and appalling corruption—that are to blame

    UST is a Catholic institution — apparently supposedly is La Salle & Ateneo

    I remember when I was in La Salle taking up a Philosophy subject the professor, each and everytime, is proud to say she is an ‘agnostic’ & does nothing every session but ridicule God & try to instill her belief unto us, I was set to fail that subject, I didn’t realize how ‘religious’ I was until I had to defend my faith…she passed me on the basis of my constant ‘recitation’ as I was always arguing w/ her during class, now I realize the ‘bad situation’ I was placed in considering I was enrolled by my parents in a supposedly ‘Catholic’ institution…

    Father Cabading has also clarified that professors, “if they are to speak outside the University of anything contrary to the position of the Church, they are to do so only as private individuals and never identify themselves as faculty members of the University.” — I am somewhat against this, while you are ‘connected’ to the ‘Catholic institution’ you must NOT speak AGAINST it, if you want to, RESIGN 1st

  142. Disappointed! As a freshman, nakakahiyadin mag-post dito pero gusto ko i-share yung mga thoughts ko about sa post ni anonymous writer. Ang lupit mo! You represented the whole Thomasian community through your piece. And that piece was a piece of trash! Tinitira mo yung butas ng ibang school pero sigurado ka ba na ang ust walang butas? And besides, anong alam mo RH bill? May pamilya ka na ba? Alam mo ba ang hirap pag nagkaanak ka na? Nakakairita. Intead na mag-focus ang mga estudyante sa final exam nila, pag nabasa yang ginawa mo… definitely, sakit sa ulo aabutin nila. Feel sorry for what you did. You have your entire life to say sorry for it. Reveal yourself dude. Para naman malaman namin na you’re ashamed for what you did. =)

    Cs-freshman. 🙂

  143. Lasallians do not make patol to these kinds of paratang. But instead, we focus on our beliefs and do things that would benefit all…. without stepping on others.

  144. I think the people have sufficiently exposed the flaws of this article, so i’ll keep it short and sweet.

    To summarize:
    Fallacious,
    Bigoted,
    Hypocritical,
    and
    Full of Bad Grammar. haha!

    But despite the abysmal form and substance of this article, I will still defend your right to say stupid things and embarrass yourself via cyberspace. hahaha!

    In short, I hope people don’t use this guy as a patsy (fall guy) for R.A. 10175!

  145. For one thing, I understand that the editorial contains the personal opinion of the writer (whoever he/she is). Very well researched, too, lifting statistical facts and various trivia elsewhere. But calling out the faculty members of another school like La Salle and Ateneo for their personal stand and conviction is still beyond me. Is this person trying to start a word war of some sort or is there a “shortage” of good, sensible topics to write about? One tidbit I noticed is the tone of the entire piece, it sounds like a sermon given by a certain character from a Jose Rizal novel.

    Let other people be. We live in an imperfect world. I don’t want to drag religion in this exercise (I am not a practising Catholic), but I do believe in God, and if there is one thing I learned about being Catholic is to be resilient and not to impose your teachings (or in this sense, your “ideology”) on your brethren (I think you know better). Also, have you not thought about the possibility that this editorial carries your school’s name? Have you not sensed that this piece might alienate your fellow Thomasians? I am an Atenista, and it is so sad to read something like this from an admired educational institution like UST..

  146. This is just embarrassing. Are you really a Thomasian? Where are your values? Yes, given that this is editorial, but you should learn how to give respect to others as well. Naging name-calling ang buong article mo. Nangdamay ka pa.

    What a disgrace to the whole Thomasian community.

  147. ..and the Catholic Church are the imperialists!

    The world is better off without your child-molesting sexist institution! (the church, not the university)

    I wonder why UST practises such mediaeval policies? Oh, but of course, because the Vatican is! They even practise mediaeval justice! What a very good role model!

    I do not at all regret leaving the church, but one thing I regret in life is that I was a devout Catholic.

    P.S. Congratulations on being a Pontifical University, it is so great that Universities in Britain opted out of it in the 15th century.

  148. Sheryl Coronel, if that is really your name, why are you bringing U.P. into this? What La Salle school/campus do you come from?

    I am a La Sallian from the Main Campus (Taft) and I am proud that Professors can think for themselves and exercise their rights/ intellectual freedom/ opinions or whatever you may wish to call it.

    If you aren’t happy that Professors are allowed to think for themselves, why don’t YOU and the writer of this desperate-cry-for-attention of an editorial join up and establish your own school. Why should professionals belonging to the La Sallian Community adjust for you? Did the La Sallian community ask you to enroll in La Salle? Wasn’t it YOU who applied there? If it bothers you so much, why don’t you leave La Salle and study elsewhere? Go on… no one’s stopping you.

    To both of you: “Respect” is the keyword here. Learn it. Understand it. Exercise it.

  149. di kaya si lito zulueta pasimuno nyan? remember the inquirer editorial na sinulat nya “art as terrorism” ikinahiya ko inquirer dahil dun. another thing is yung review nya sa “rizal” ni marilou diaz abaya. ikinahiya ko din ang ust dahil teacher sya dun meaning ganun ba sila mag isip talaga? dahil sya adviser ng varsitarian. clear manifestation na ito. tsk tsk prayle ass licker?

  150. I am a Thomasian and I am very proud to be one, but this article really has disappointed me.
    Yes, we are a Catholic institution and being one is an honor and a responsibility. We should have values like respect, courtesy and humility just as what our University has taught us, but this article has none of those.
    A TRUE Thomasian knows when to talk, move or whatever and when to stop. YOU DID NOT STOP.
    Fine, this is an editorial; opinions matter, but how far will you go to express it? Is it to the point you will shame the Thomasian community?

  151. Sa inyong mga hindi gusto sumunod sa Catholic teachings, magtayo kayo ng sarili nyong iskwelahan!!! I cant imagine a muslim madrasah teaching things that are contrary to Islam. It should go the same when it comes to Catholic institutions!!!

  152. Funny thing about this article, it is made to stimulate our minds to rationalizing every detail and context of the written editorial. Hence the term “editorial”. This is the writer’s position, and hopefully, well researched details. I, for one, don’t really know what the stand of the higher ups, but i do believe that we are not prosecuted for what we are believing in and advocating. As long as it encourages THINKING. This is, of course, an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, above anything else.

    Let’s see where this article leads you.

  153. Tomasino ka ba? bakit ganyan ang asal mo tungo sa mga Atenista at La Salista? Hindi tinuturo sa UST ang mangkutya at manghusga ng ibang tao.

  154. Im a proud thomasian, but not after i’ve read this. HINDI KAYO ANG NAGCOCONTROLL NG UTAK NAMIN. Di porke nagbabayad kami ng tuition ibig sabihin robot nyo na kami. Mahiya ka namang editor ka. Wag mo idanay ang buong UST!

  155. So what did Jose Rizal say about his stint at the UST? One of the loneliest moments in his academic life. And what did he say about his life at the Ateneo? One of the happiest. So, we get a glimpse of what Rizal put up with. But what amazes me is how UST prides itself in having Rizal as their alumnus. So much hype about Rizal being a Thomasian. Hubris & hypocrisy. Trademarks of the Catholic church. What kind of morality is the Catholic church espousing? The kind of morality that perpetuates the Crusades? The Inquisition? The collaboration with the Nazis? The millions of lives lost in the name of religion? The Vatican Bank dubbed as the most secret in the world? Google all of these and you will find “hubris and hypocrisy” trademarks of the Catholic church. The catholic church is the last institution that should be concerned about morality. And the biggest nail on the coffin is that they NEVER apologize for screwing up our lives! Never! Didn’t apologize to the Jews, didn’t apologize for the Inquisition, didn’t apologize for the shenanigans of the Vatican Bank, NEVER. Shame on you!!

  156. Kid,

    You need a dose of reality. A HEALTHY dose. Lumabas ka muna sa campus and TINGNAN mo ang nangyayari at mga kaganapan sa paligid. Go past the propaganda from both sides of the RH Issue and go to Baseco Compound and Welfareville.

    I am ever grateful for the quality of education I received during my years at UST- a period I cherish and thankful for. My future child will NEVER study in YOUR pontifical university if this is the kind of teaching tuition pays for these days.

    Google “Spanish Inquisition”. The drivel from this editorial carries the same thinking.

  157. It is only through this editorial that I have learned UST has taken a firm stand against the RH Bill. The policy is quite uncharacteristic of a university, I believe, because no in-depth talks have been undertaken regarding the matter. True, the school is a private institution and openly declared Catholic, but as a university enjoying the privileges extended by the State for being one, it should have observed the protocols in the academe regarding contentious issues. Among other things, the school could have sponsored extensive discussions with the proponents of the law before making a condemnation.

    While UST may have failed in observing the norms expected in a university, there is, on the other hand, something redeeming in what the Dominicans did. They laid down a clear policy in their school which effectively apprised everybody of their stand. Worse than the denial of freedom is having the appearance of it. More sinister than martial law is undeclared martial law. The Domincans established a checkpoint and said that those who dare cross the line will be shot. Others, referred to by the editorial writer as cowards and lemons, let you pass and when nobody is looking, perhaps even under the cover of darkness, shoot you at the back.

    There are lessons to be learned from this editorial, the most obvious are those regarding RH Bill and academic freedom. However, another very important truth that no one should miss is how dangerous it can be when a certain community considers you as an enemy. Why, of all times, the Varsitarian, an erstwhile ignored school paper to the snobs who attended the so-called big three, is suddenly in the center of attention during this basketball championship season? Which network tried to invite ridicule to the school? Before Thomasians tiger claw each other, examine first who’s behind the shame campaign. Learning, say, the history of the French Revolution, is incomplete without also looking into the ulterior motives of the bourgeoisie.

  158. to the editors who collaborated to make this article, please review your Journalism 101. The article doesn’t seem like an editorial at all… it sounded more like a dogmatic and bigoted blog post.

  159. FOR THE READERS: The Varsitarian, the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas, is an independent publication from the other literatures of the University. An editorial article, as far as I know, is usually a consolidated article about the opinion of either or all of the following: Editor-in-chief, managing editor, associate editor, or other editors involved in the article (if the newspaper permits it). An “editorial” expresses the opinion of a person or group of people about a specific topic, and shall not reflect the stand of the whole Varsitarian staff and the whole University of Santo Tomas community. Yes, some UST administrators, faculty members, and students made a stand against the latest and debatable RH Bill, which now I think is in the period of amendment already. It is unfair to judge UST based on one editorial article. Furthermore, The Varsitarian is not always on the side of the University; sometimes the editorial article of the publication complains to the UST administrators. We should respect the opinion of the Varsitarian writers involved in this article and stop degrading the image of the different schools. Instead, we should see it as their personal stand against an issue and it shall be counterattacked with opinions through a letter, not through this post. I know that the Varsitarian acknowledges the opinion of others by featuring supporting and contradicting opinions on the school newspaper. That is The Varsitarian. PEACE TO ALL READERS.

  160. To the ADMIN: Why are you not publishing any of my comments? Am I making a valid point? Does it hurt? I hope you publish this one…

    I am a graduate of UST; a practicing Catholic; I have been married for 26 years; I have 5 children; I have 2 grandchildren, and I am against the RH Bill… but this article reeks of arrogance, egotism and bias!!!

    How can you threaten teachers who don’t agree with you to resign? Is this what Christ would have done? He allowed himself to be crucified, didn’t He? So why are you crucifying others?

    Christ never judged anyone. He never judged St. Peter who betrayed Him. He never judged St. Paul who killed Christians. He never judged St. Augustine who committed every sin in the book. How can this writer judge teachers, who have served UST and its students, this way? Is this writer perfect?

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  161. Kid, when you were busy writing this so-called “editorial”, did you ever get word that the Anti-Cybercriminal Law was being passed? This is not freedom of speech, my dear. This is a poor excuse for being a Thomasian writer. I am very embarrassed.

  162. to the author: why do you have to exclude your name? are you afraid of the criticisms? if so, you are not standing firm on your conviction. Remember that with what you did, you degraded the whole institution. You should have thought this several times before venturing in a such choice….

  163. I’m going to leave the RH bill comments to the rest of the people you’ve enraged because of your arrogance.

    I’m just here to say that it’s people like YOU who make me feel so ashamed to be a Catholic sometimes. This isn’t “your intellect” talking — goodness, you don’t even know the first thing about being an intellectual!

    YOU are acting like some little teenager, pretending to know everything when you so obviously DON’T.

    Oh, and by the way, the CBCP isn’t even an actual representation of the Catholic Church. Seriously.

    People like you make me feel so sad. You’re one of those people who think being Christian makes you so “high up” there and that you’re better than everyone else. Guess what. YOU’RE NOT.

    YOU are the one misrepresenting not just Thomasians, but Catholics as well. CBCP has already done enough damage. Huwag ka nang dumagdag.

    Learn to humble yourself. Maybe then you’ll actually get it.

    Another thing, YOU are the coward here. You’re the one who’s talking so much about something you can’t even argue properly about, and the only reason you’re doing so is because you’re hiding behind a mask.

    Grow up.

  164. in the end, this is about respect. the varsitarian editors showed its lack of respect for their fellowmen, just because of difference in opinion. ust should re-evaluate its values education program. being a santo tomas alum, i am extremely disappointed.

  165. Strong words. Unlike you, the author, I do not hide my real identity in expressing my opinion, I do not cower in fear of getting criticized.

    You speak of moral integrity. Did it even occur to you that the reason the professors you criticized felt that it was their moral obligation to profess what they believe in? In this case, they believe that the RH should be passed. Were they wrong in issuing a statement of their belief?

    Second, unlike your Royal and Pontifical University, academic freedom is in fact exercised. They are not puppets of the bishops and the supreme pontiff, with all due respect. They will not simply bow down to Church teachings IF they do not agree to them. This is called democracy, and being a democratic country, we do not impose. Otherwise, let’s go back to the dark ages where abusive friars had total control (oh, I forgot, didn’t the Dominican order had a lot of them? I’d really like to thank Rizal for vividly immortalizing them in his novels).

    I can only assume you’re an undergraduate student. Have you even read the statements of the professors you criticized? Did even a neuron in your head attempt to understand where they are coming from? Did it even occur to you that the people you called names (which by the way was an unChristian behavior, for a Christian student which I find so ironic and unacceptable), have one to two post-graduate degrees higher than what you are only about to earn, will not teach or profess something that will make them lose their hard-earned titles of MSc, MA or Ph.D?

    Of course, you and the professors you criticize have sources to cite. But did it occur to you that you and them are coming from the opposite sides of the spectrum? That your sources may not be necessarily be correct from their perspective and vice-versa? That the truth will always be dependent on which perspective you see things from? And the better question here is, have you even tried seeing it from their perspective?

    This article, in my honest opinion, is no different from a profession of faith of a religiously fanatic man holding a C4 detonator in his hand.

  166. “if they are to speak outside the University of anything contrary to the position of the Church, they are to do so only as private individuals and never identify themselves as faculty members of the University.” Excellent legal advice. If the bishops wish to talk about current or pending legislation and still keep their tax exempt status they must do so without wearing any signs of office or use an pulpit or church. Yes very good legal advice. I do hope this site is not officially affiliated to the university. It would be a blow if its tax exempt status was also lost

  167. Those who are defending Ateneo and La Salle’s stand and freedom of expression should also take note that the editorial’s writer also has the same freedom. Perhaps the editorial, in a journalistic point of view, could have been written better but the message went across nevertheless. Let us remember what our universities stand for:

    UST:

    -the performance of their duties as members of the Church, citizens of our country, and inhabitants of this planet;
    -their persistent resolve to faithfully uphold professional, ethical, and moral standards;
    -their striving to be genuine leaders; and
    -their being courageous Christian witnesses.

    I think the writer is very courageous and should be given credit for upholding his/her stand on the issue. The comments discussed a lot on freedom and morality. We can reflect on some quotes from the Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:

    “Our Generation is witnessing, whether it knows it or not, the conflict of two radically false concepts of liberty: a liberty of indifference which gives the individual the right to ignore society, and the liberty of necessity which gives the state the right to ignore the individual by absorbing him into a race or class and thus destroying his freedom of choice. Liberty of indifference forgets society, liberty of necessity forgets man. Liberty of indifference wrecks society by defining freedom as individual license; liberty of necessity wrecks humanity by defining freedom as the necessity which gives the dictator (those in authority) the right to absorb the person (thereby defining person). A spirit of license makes a man refuse to commit himself to any standards. The right time is the way he sets his watch. The yardstick has the number of inches that he wills it to have. Liberty becomes license, and unbounded license leads to unbounded tyranny. When society reaches this stage, and there is no standard of right and wrong outside of the individual himself, then the individual is defenseless against the onslaught of cruder and more violent men who proclaim their own subjective sense of values. Once my idea of morality is just as good as your idea of morality, then the morality that is going to prevail is the morality that is stronger.”

    To Ateneo: (Light in the Lord)

    From the letter of Paul to the Ephesians, 5.8: “For you were once in darkness, now you are light in the lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness, righteousness, and truth.”

    To La Salle:

    Let us harmonize faith and life with contemporary
    knowledge to nurture a community of distinguished and
    morally upright scholars…As a resource of Church and Nation, the
    institution endeavors to form Lasallian Achievers for God
    and Country who will lead in building a just, peaceful,
    stable and progressive Filipino nation.

    LET US NOT LOSE OUR WAY.

  168. Those who are defending Ateneo and La Salle’s stand and freedom of expression should also take note that the editorial’s writer also has the same freedom. Perhaps the editorial, in a journalistic point of view, could have been written better but the message went across nevertheless. Let us remember what our universities stand for:

    UST:

    -the performance of their duties as members of the Church, citizens of our country, and inhabitants of this planet;
    -their persistent resolve to faithfully uphold professional, ethical, and moral standards;
    -their striving to be genuine leaders; and
    -their being courageous Christian witnesses.

    I think the writer is very courageous and should be given credit for upholding his/her stand on the issue. The comments discussed a lot on freedom and morality. We can reflect on some quotes from the Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:

    “Our Generation is witnessing, whether it knows it or not, the conflict of two radically false concepts of liberty: a liberty of indifference which gives the individual the right to ignore society, and the liberty of necessity which gives the state the right to ignore the individual by absorbing him into a race or class and thus destroying his freedom of choice. Liberty of indifference forgets society, liberty of necessity forgets man. Liberty of indifference wrecks society by defining freedom as individual license; liberty of necessity wrecks humanity by defining freedom as the necessity which gives the dictator (those in authority) the right to absorb the person (thereby defining person). A spirit of license makes a man refuse to commit himself to any standards. The right time is the way he sets his watch. The yardstick has the number of inches that he wills it to have. Liberty becomes license, and unbounded license leads to unbounded tyranny. When society reaches this stage, and there is no standard of right and wrong outside of the individual himself, then the individual is defenseless against the onslaught of cruder and more violent men who proclaim their own subjective sense of values. Once my idea of morality is just as good as your idea of morality, then the morality that is going to prevail is the morality that is stronger.”

    To Ateneo: (Light in the Lord)

    From the letter of Paul to the Ephesians, 5.8: “For you were once in darkness, now you are light in the lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness, righteousness, and truth.”

    To La Salle:

    Let us harmonize faith and life with contemporary
    knowledge to nurture a community of distinguished and
    morally upright scholars…As a resource of Church and Nation, the
    institution endeavors to form Lasallian Achievers for God
    and Country who will lead in building a just, peaceful,
    stable and progressive Filipino nation.

    LET US NOT LOSE OUR WAY.

  169. C’mon man. Show your name. If you have something to say to the world, say it without fear! Don’t hide in the shadows of your freakin’ school! What you did is you dragged the whole UST into your stand, not to mention, your clearly stupid, worthless, sorry excuse of an opinion about it. I can’t even think why you did this editorial. Arggggh! You are so closed-minded.

    You are a trying-hard, arrogant, think-he-is-a-good-catholic-by-writing-this, poor fellow and I pity the world to have you. I hope you are proud of yourself.

  170. WTF is this??
    is this ur personal view on RH bill and its supporters??? then go post it on your blog cause an editorial represents the view of your paper, thus of your students which means ur school.

    your insults are idiotic, by degrading others you are simply stating the obvious, you and your beliefs or delusions of grandiosity and religiosity needs to be cured. so much for pontifical, if that means judging people and classifying them as immoral and you as the righteous.

    who are you to judge, even the god your good priests believe in said he who is sinless shall cast the first stone. such irony and blasphemy this editorial board believe in, you just gave your dear pontifical alma mater a really really big and embarrassing stain . go and be the pet of the CBCP in their righteous and holy path while the rest of us burn in hell for believing in the RH bill and understanding its essence which is more than just condoms, contrary to your beliefs.

  171. While I agree that the author of this editorial had a semingly biased approach, the author did have a point that UST physicians may have indicated the presence of health risks to contraception. An example is its tendency to form emboli (dislodged clots) that can be life threatening. In that regard, you can’t say the author was biased because the aforementioned risk is a fact, not to mention other side effects of hormonal therapy for contraception. Did anyone else consider that before agreeing to handing out hormonal contraceptives to millions of women? I also feel concerned that such a thing would be taken from our taxes.

    Another thing I noticed with other people’s comments on this editorial is that they pointed out that they’re not Catholic so they have no reason to follow its moral teachings. It’s true. The UST cannot stand as your earthly masters as you have an opinion. The author was brash in his commentary, but then again, non-Catholics chose to enter and be part of a Catholic institution. Had academics been its sole concern, then they wouldn’t have bothered giving us theology classes. I may not be Catholic, but I understand where they are coming from. As history teaches, UST was built by the Church, so don’t complain if they side with the bishops or say supposedly “shameful opinions” — pretty much like what many think about the stand of their adversaries. Simply put, UST was built by priests, so do expect where its opinion might lie.

    If professors can voice out their support of RH bill, I don’t see why a student from varsitarian can’t do the same. An opinion is an opinion, and everyone’s entitled to it no matter how it seems unappealing. This is an unpopular stand, and hiding behind anonymity, albeit cowardly, is a VERY WISE decision. I applaud your courage to voice out your opinion.

  172. While I agree that the author of this editorial had a semingly biased approach, the author did have a point that UST physicians may have indicated the presence of health risks to contraception. An example is its tendency to form emboli (dislodged clots) that can be life threatening. In that regard, you can’t say the author was biased because the aforementioned risk is a fact, not to mention other side effects of hormonal therapy for contraception. Did anyone else consider that before agreeing to handing out hormonal contraceptives to millions of women? I also feel concerned that such a thing would be taken from our taxes.

    Another thing I noticed with other people’s comments on this editorial is that they pointed out that they’re not Catholic so they have no reason to follow its moral teachings. It’s true. The UST cannot stand as your earthly masters as you have an opinion. The author was brash in his commentary, but then again, non-Catholics chose to enter and be part of a Catholic institution. Had academics been its sole concern, then they wouldn’t have bothered giving us theology classes. I may not be Catholic, but I understand where they are coming from. As history teaches, UST was built by the Church, so don’t complain if they side with the bishops or say supposedly “shameful opinions” — pretty much like what many think about the stand of their adversaries. Simply put, UST was built by priests, so do expect where its opinion might lie.

    If professors can voice out their support of RH bill, I don’t see why a student from varsitarian can’t do the same. An opinion is an opinion, and everyone’s entitled to it no matter how it seems unappealing. This is an unpopular stand, and hiding behind anonymity, albeit cowardly, is a VERY WISE decision. I applaud your courage to voice out your opinion.

  173. Lets not bash the entire school of UST as well…one opinion of a person who was not guided well does not reflect the entire university. I am a Thomasian educator, proud to be one… but I am one among many others who were offended with the article. I dont believe in the statements made against Ateneo and La Salle… it was unfair and uncalled for. With that, pls dont generalize to all of us Thomasians what one person did as well. I just hope the person who wrote the article realize what he did.. that what he did was not Christ-like. A true Catholic is centered on Christ’s teaching… nothing else…

  174. Lets not bash the entire school of UST as well…one opinion of a person who was not guided well does not reflect the entire university. I am a Thomasian educator, proud to be one… but I am one among many others who were offended with the article. I dont believe in the statements made against Ateneo and La Salle… it was unfair and uncalled for. With that, pls dont generalize to all of us Thomasians what one person did as well. I just hope the person who wrote the article realize what he did.. that what he did was not Christ-like. A true Catholic is centered on Christ’s teaching… nothing else…

  175. The close-mindedness of this “editorial” is the first to make me ashamed being a Thomasian. I cannot bear being associated to whoever wrote this. God bless you.

  176. This is the 2nd time my school shames itself. I am a Thomasian, but am I really based on the standards set by this editorial? What a shame. I guess I am not anymore a Thomasian even though I love this institution. This institution must now be named The Royal and Pontifical Catholic School or Seminary of Santo Tomas. It does not anymore deserve the title of a University. Its extreme fundamentalism, blind faith, and dictatorial stance towards its faculty and students reminds me of the medieval times and the Philippine colonial times when the so called Church became the number one oppressor of the country. Is it happening all over again in the same guise of defending its faith? Shameful, really, we Filipinos should have already learned from this.

  177. Gin ergernst da grern, gin ergernst da terd, gin ergernst perperlererter servers, da Ernerverserter erf Sernt Termahs hers erpherld da sternd erf da Certherlerc Bersherps’ Cernferernc erf da Pherlerperners (cbcp) cerndermnin da Rerprerdercterv Herlth (RH) berl ers ern ernterper, sercerlinernererng mahser thert nert ernler dernergrerters da nertererl lerw bert erls rerns rerghsherd erver mahternerl herlth, kerters ter da cerntrercerpterv ermpererlersm erf da werst, ernd gernererler blermahs da per ernd ther erlergerd erverperperlertern fer da erls erf sercerter, whern erts da pherlerpern stert ernd erts derprerderternserts mahsmahnergermahnt ernd erperlin cererpternthert er ter blerm.
    ERST ers a certherlerc ernstertertern. Ert ers a pernterfercerl ernstertertern – da sercernd ter ber ser nermahd ern werld hersterer. Nerberder sherld qerstern wherther da Ernerverserter serperts da cherchs sternd ers da Gersperl erf Chrerst ers ERT’s – ernd erner Certherlerc ernstertertern’s – perler ernd ferndertern.
    Prerfersers wh er erferlerterd werth ERST mahst rersperct da sternd erf da ernerverserter ergernst da RH berl ers dey er pert erf ern ernstertertern wherch ers ferndermahnterler bernd werth Certherlerc ferth ernd terchins. Erf ERST prerfersers dernt ergrer werth da sternd erf da CBCP, thern dey herv a prerblerm. Da bersherps er da sercersers erf da Chrersts erperstlers ernd persers da Mahgerstererm, da terchin erthererter erf da Cherch.
    Erf fercerlter mermbers erf ERST ernd erther Certherlerc scherls ferl dey nerd ter ernverk ther ercerdermahc frerderm ter mahk knern ther sternd ern cernflerct werth da bersherps rergerdin da RH berl, thern ther frer ter der ser. Bert dey mahst rersergn frerm ERST. Dey mahst gerv erp ther Certherlerc ercerdermahc erferlertern. Dey mahst herv da cererg erf ther ernterlercterl cernverctern. Erpherldin ther cernscernc, dey mahst rersperct da Cherch ernd her terchins.
    Rercerntler, a nermber erf prerfersers frerm Erterner der Mahnerl Ernerverserter ernd Der Ler Serl Ernerverserter herv vercerd ther serpert fer da RH berl. A clers rerdin erf da mahser sherld sher ert prermahters erberterfercernts.

    A terterl erf 192 Erterner prerfersers serperterd da RH berl ern ther Erg. 13 stertermahnt, ergin thert da “RH berl cern herv a dercerderd ermperct ern erlervertin prersin sercerl cerncerns serch ers hergh mahternerl mahrterlerter rerter, da rers ern ternerg prergnerncers, ernd da erncrers ern da nermber erf HV/ERDS cersers, ermahng erthers.”
    Lerst Serpt. 3, 45 Ler Serl prerfersers jernerd da berndwergern, ergin thert ther ers a nerd fer erterfercerl cerntrercerptervers ers thers cern cerntrerl da grerth erf da perperlertern ernd ermprerv da qerlerter erf lerf.

    Erts qert sherckin thert Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers sherld herber nerv ernd mahsgerderd thernkin erbert herlth ernd sercerl prerblerms. Her cerld dey erger thert ern RH mahser werld ber nerderd ter lerer mahternerl mahrterlerter whern da Pherlerpern gervernmahnt nert ter lerng erg herd terld da Ernerterd Nerterns thert ert wers ern trerck ter maht da Ernersc mahlernerm derverlerpmahnt gerls ber 2015, ern erf wherch wers da lererin erf mahternerl derths? Her cerld dey erger thert erlergerd hergh mahrterlerter mahst ber cherckerd ber ern RH mahser whern prergnerncer cermplercerterns er nert ern da Terp 10 cersers erf wermahns derths? Her cerld dey erger thert cerntrercerptervers erlergerdler werth berlerns erf persers mahst ber gervern ter wermahn ter ervert prergnerncer rersks whern cerntrercerptervers herv bern knern ter cers cerderc prerblerms, wherch er da Ner. 1 cers erf derth erf Ferlerpern wermahn?

    Her cerld Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers dersmahs da mahdercerler ersterblersherd dinerers serd erfercts erf cerntrercerptervers whern dey er nert ervern phersercerns?
    Ern cerntrerst, ERST, wherch hers da erlderst ernd da ferermahst scherl erf mahdercern ern da Pherlerperners ernd Sertherst Erser, hers erlwers wernerd erbert da dinerers serd erfercts erf cerntrercerptervers. ERST ernd her phersercerns sererler kner whererf dey sperk. Ther scerntersts ernd erxperts, ernlerk da Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers wh er ernterlercterl prerternders ernd ernterlerpers!
    Bert wherts mahr erperlin ers thert da Jersert ernd Chrerstern Brerther erdmahnerstrerterns erf Erterner ernd Ler Serl derdnt rerprermahnd ther fercerlter mermbers fer erpernler derfin da bersherps. Erterner serd ert rerspercts da ercerdermahc frerderm erf erts prerfersers: ert herd nerthin ter ser erbert da ernterlercterl dershernerster erf erts fercerlter mermbers wh er terchin ern ernd rercervin hergh serlerers frerm a Certherlerc ernstertertern wh hererver chers ter bert da hernd thert ferds therm erl ern da nerm erf ercerdermahc frerderm.
    Da Eterner erdmahnerstrertern derd nert ervern clermp dern ern tw therlerger prerfersers wh sergnerd da pre-RH stertermahnt fer verlertin da mahnderterm erf da Certherlerc Cherch ern therlerger prerfersers ter erbserv ertherderxer. Perherps ervern wers, a Ferlerpern Jersert prerferser hers bern qerterd ber hers sterdernt ern da lerters Fercerberk ers scerfin ert da erlergerd thrert erf da bersherps ter rermahv Arterners Certherlerc tertl, sin thert Erterner ern erner cers ders nert herv da werd “Certherlerc” erpernderd ter erts nerm, ser wherts ther ter lers? Wer prerter ser sernt Ergnerters werld herv ner cernfersern ern wher ter pert thert jerserterc Jersert – ern Hervern er Herl? – ern hers fermahs Spererterl Erxercersers.
    Da Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers thererfer herv bern trerterd werth kerd glervers ber da Jerserts ernd da Chrerstern Brerthers. Erlthergh ther rerlergers ernd mermbers erf Certherlerc erders, da Jerserts ernd Chrerstern Brerthers herv ferlerd ter erpherld ertherderxer ernd derfernd da Cherch. Ers fer ers da RH berl ernd serpert fer ert ermahng ther fercerlter er cerncernerd, ther lermahns. Ernd ers fer ers da pre-RH Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers er cerncernerd, ther dershernerst ernd dernt herv da cererg erf ther ernterlercterl cernverctern. Cerntrerderctin da bersherps ernd derferndin da RH berl, dey herv clin ern ter ther fercerlter mermbersherp ern Certherlerc ernsterterterns. Dey wernt ter herv ther cerk ernd ert ert, ter. Ther ernterlercterl mahrcernerers, nerthin mahr, nerthin lers.

    Ert ers qert grerterfin thert ERST hers crerckerd da wherp ernd rermahnderd erts fercerlter mermbers thert ther mermbers erf a Certherlerc ernstertertern ernd sherld ter da lern.

    ERST Sercrerterer Gernererl Fr. Wernstern Cerberdin, OP. Hers sernt a lerter ter Prerf. Clerert Cererl, PHD., verc rercter fer ercerdermahc erfers ernd rerserch, ter rerferm da Ernerverserters serpert erf da bersherps ern mahters erf ferth ernd mahrerls.
    “Ern da lerght erf rercernt ervernts wher serm fercerlter mermbers erf Certherlerc Ernerverserters herv perblercler erxprerserd derserntin perserterns frerm da Certherlerc bersherps ern mahters erf ferth ernd mahrerls, wer ern da Ernerverserter werld lerk ter rerferm er ferderlerter ter da mahgerstererm erf da Cherch ers da Certherlerc Ernerverserter erf da Pherlerperners,” Cerberdin sterterd ern da lerter.
    ERST wers gervern da tertl erf “Da Certherlerc Ernerverserter erf da Pherlerperners” ern 1947 ber Perp Pers XII. Ervern erler, ern 1902, ERST herd bern derclererd a “Pernterfercerl Ernerverserter,” da sercernd ter ber ser nermahd ern hersterer ervern ererd erf Ererpern ernerverserters. Thererfer, da Ernerverserter hers ermberderd da erderls thert Certherlerc ernerverserters mahst persers, ernclerdin da Certherlerc “erdercertern” wherch da sterdernts mahst lern frerm ther prerfersers.
    Cerberdin erls sterterd ern hers lerter thert “erl fercerlter mermbers erf da Ernerverserter er ter rerfrern frerm terchin er erxprersin ther persernerl erpernerns werthern da bernds erf da Ernerverserter, ernerthin cerntrerer ter Certherlerc ferth ernd mahrerls.”

    Ers thers prerfersers herv chersern ter terch ern a Certherlerc ernerverserter, dey mahst erberd ber erts terchins ernd berlerfs. Ern da ferst plerc, da serm ers dermahnderd erf sterdernts.

    Cerberdin ermpherserzerd thert serch rerfermahtern ers “ter serfergerd da rerght erf da sterdernts ter a serlerd Certherlerc erdercertern.”
    Fercerlter mermbers er “erblergerd ter erpherld ernd sher derferernc ter ther terchin erthererter whernerver da bersherps erf da Cherch herv sperkern ern ern erser ernd herv terkern a sternd ern bererlf erf da Cherch,” da Dermahnercern Pertrerstercs scherler erxplernerd.

    Ferther Cerberdin hers erls clererferd thert prerfersers, “erf dey er ter sperk ertserd da Ernerverserter erf ernerthin cerntrerer ter da persertern erf da Cherch, dey er ter der ser ernler ers prervert ernderverderls ernd nerver erdernterfer thermserlvers ers fercerlter mermbers erf da Ernerverserter.”

    Erverer persern ers gervern da “frerderm” ter chers bert thert frerderm ers nert erbserlert.

    Prerfersers, wh er erperserd ter da Ernerverserters – ernd da bersherps – ternd, herv erlwers da cherc erf lervin da Ernerverserters perterls erf dey erderlterert da Certherlerc erdercertern thert da sterdernt ers erntertlerd ter werth ther persernerl prerferernc er persernerl persertern. Da sterdernt erf a Certherlerc scherl mahst rercerv Certherlerc terchins werthert erderlterertern, werthert derbersermahnt.

    Bert ers Ferther Cerberdins derclerertern cerntrerer ter “ercerdermahc frerderm?”
    Ern da ferst plerc, ercerdermahc frerderm ers nert erbserlert. Da Cherch ders nert ser thert a prerferser mahst erlwers terk da sternd erf da Cherch. Ern da ferst plerc, terchers ernd scherlers sherld kner thert ther erplin fer terchin perserterns ern a sercterern ernstertertern.
    Da prerfersers, berfer dey erpler fer a ernerverserter persertern, mahst kner da berckgrernd erf a ernerverserter. Ern thers cers, a Certherlerc Ernerverserter, lerk Erterner,Ler Serl ernd ERST, hers a perpers erver ernd erberv ercerdermahc frerderms: da nerter ernd fernctern erf a Certherlerc scherl er ernerxtrercerbler terd erp werth da mahnderterm gervern ber Chrerst ter da Erperstlers berfer Her erscernderd ter Hervern: “Ger yer thererfer, ernd mahk derscerplers erf erl da nerterns, berpterzin therm ernt da nerm erf da Ferther ernd erf da Sern ernd erf da Herler Sperert” (Der-Herms Berbl).

    Ern shert, erver ernd erberv ercerdermahc frerderm, da Certherlerc ernerverserter erxersts fer ervinerlercerl perpersers. Ber gin ergernst da sternd erf da bersherps, da Erterner ernd Ler Serl prerfersers er sin dey dernt ergrer werth da Cherchs mahsern. Erf ser, ther frer ter lerv. Ern ferct, dey mahst lerv. Dey mahst rersergn erf dey herv da cererg erf ther cernverctern.

    Bert erlers, ert serms ernterlercterl hernerster ernd mahrerl cernverctern er ern serch shert serpler ern Kerterpernern, Qerzern Certer ernd Terft Erverner, Mahnerl.

  178. You are obviously anti RH Bill and you are not really interested in knowing why Ateneo and La Salle professors are for the RH Bill. Have you ever asked yourself if you are the one who is blinded? Reason means nothing to the fanatic.

  179. Such a STUPID ARTICLE. Reason means nothing to the fanatic. This article is more akin to the Taliban’s way of thinking. If you cannot present your arguments in a reasonable and respectable manner, you should not insult. Because it makes you look more STUPID.

  180. I understand if some of the readers are angered by this post. But how many of you have read the whole article? I am sure, some did not even bother to GIVE IT A CHANCE. I am sure some labeled it as “IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM and SHAMEFUL” when they saw the words COWARD, INTERLOPERS, INTELLECTUAL PRETENDERS, ETC. being pointed at Ateneo and La Salle.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTE that it is not REFERRING to the whole ATENEO community. PLEASE TAKE NOTE that it is not referring to the whole LA SALLE COMMUNITY.

    It isn’t even insulting anyone!

    It is condemning and voicing out how disappointed the writer was to the professors of Ateneo and La Salle who has expressed their support to the RH Bill to think that both schools are Catholic Institutions.

    What the article was trying to say is BLOOD SHOULD ALWAYS BE THICKER THAN WATER. Since these professors CHOSE to be a part and TEACH at a Catholic Institution, it should BELIEVE what the institution BELIEVES no matter what. It is as if YOU SHOULD ALWAYS DO WHAT YOUR MOM HAS TOLD YOU TO DO… BECAUSE SHE IS YOUR MOM.

    We have different opinions regarding this.
    And the discussion and debates wont end.

    But all I am asking is give this article a CHANCE.

    All Im asking is for some to TEACH themselves how to READ.

    What is written in newspapers, in magazines, etc WONT ALWAYS BE ON YOUR SIDE, IT WONT ALWAYS BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT YOU THINK, AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

    But that is the beauty of it!

    You can REACT.
    But please WAG NYONG PEPERSONALIN.

    P.S: Mothers know best.

  181. Maybe the anonymous editorial writer harbors deep ill feelings towards Ateneo and La Salle (or even UP) for he/she failed to get accepted in these institutions. And the writer is calling Ateneo and La Salle intellectual pretenders and interlopers? Yet, the whole article reeks of gross pretentiousness and desperate attempt for a scholarly piece of writing. At the very least, I would fault the Varsitarian adviser for not putting a disclaimer that the article is just an opinion of student not the entire university. After all, he/she is just a kid who is delusionally thinking he/she is an intellectual. I would even put 2 editorials – pro and con pieces to balance it.

  182. I understand if some of the readers are angered by this post. But how many of you have read the whole article? I am sure, some did not even bother to GIVE IT A CHANCE. I am sure some labeled it as “IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM and SHAMEFUL” when they saw the words COWARD, INTERLOPERS, INTELLECTUAL PRETENDERS, ETC. being pointed at Ateneo and La Salle.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTE that it is not REFERRING to the whole ATENEO community. PLEASE TAKE NOTE that it is not referring to the whole LA SALLE COMMUNITY.

    It isn’t even insulting anyone!

    It is condemning and voicing out how disappointed the writer was to the professors of Ateneo and La Salle who has expressed their support to the RH Bill to think that both schools are Catholic Institutions.

    What the article was trying to say is BLOOD SHOULD ALWAYS BE THICKER THAN WATER. Since these professors CHOSE to be a part and TEACH at a Catholic Institution, it should BELIEVE what the institution BELIEVES no matter what. It is as if YOU SHOULD ALWAYS DO WHAT YOUR MOM HAS TOLD YOU TO DO… BECAUSE SHE IS YOUR MOM.

    We have different opinions regarding this.
    And the discussion and debates wont end.

    But all I am asking is give this article a CHANCE.

    All Im asking is for some to TEACH themselves how to READ.

    What is written in newspapers, in magazines, etc WONT ALWAYS BE ON YOUR SIDE, IT WONT ALWAYS BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT YOU THINK, AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

    But that is the beauty of it!

    You can REACT.
    But please WAG NYONG PEPERSONALIN.

    P.S: Mothers know best.

  183. Dear Varsitarian,
    I am an almunus of UST and I can’t help myself from commenting on this very controversial article. The content of this editorial is very disturbing. The arguments were not evidence based and the generalizations were biased. What’s even worse was that fallacies on contraception and academic freedom were used throughout the article. It shows irresponsible journalism on the part of the writer and the publication as well. The name of the school and the members of the Thomasian community were dragged to shame on this article. The Varsitarian is suppose to showcase the intellectualism of the Thomasians but this article made a misrepresentation of UST. I hope the Varsitarian does something to reverse the statements here to redeem UST’s name. We carry the name of our alma mater and we cannot afford to lose the institution’s pride and dignity with just this column.

  184. I am a proud Thomasian and I am very much disappointed with what I just read. Honestly, I do not believe you really uphold what being a Thomasian is all about. A Thomasian is humble, understanding, sensible and respects other people’s opinions and beliefs without forcing what he/she believes in. A Thomasian is also compassionate and doesn’t belitte others.

    Whoever you are, you are definitely not learning enough from UST, that I’m certain of. Also, you are using my Alma Matter’s reputation to throw mud to the other well-known universities. You should be ashamed of yourself because I’m not the only one who’s ashamed.

    To the Varsitarian: I suggest you put this editorial down. I expected better from you and I always loved reading the news you printed when I was still studying at UST, but is this writing appropriate and does it really reflect what UST really stands for? I think not.

    Good night.

  185. If not for your arrogant and insulting tone, you wouldn’t have alienated yourself from the community you thought you were representing. Now you’re on your own, some young student with a pen.

  186. If not for your arrogant and insulting tone, you wouldn’t have alienated yourself from the community you thought you were representing. Now you’re on your own, some young student with a pen.

  187. If not for your arrogant and insulting tone, you wouldn’t have alienated yourself from the community you thought you were representing. Now you’re on your own, some young student with a pen.

  188. apat lang ba ang eskwelahan dito sa pilipinas? (3 schools, regarding the skirmish caused by this article). itigil na ang kaguluhang ‘yan. hindi lang boses n’yo ang dapat pakinggan. karamihan sa mga squatters e di naman nakakapag-aral, lalo na ang makapasok sa big 4.

  189. apat lang ba ang eskwelahan dito sa pilipinas? (3 schools, regarding the skirmish caused by this article). itigil na ang kaguluhang ‘yan. hindi lang boses n’yo ang dapat pakinggan. karamihan sa mga squatters e di naman nakakapag-aral, lalo na ang makapasok sa big 4.

  190. apat lang ba ang eskwelahan dito sa pilipinas? (3 schools, regarding the skirmish caused by this article). itigil na ang kaguluhang ‘yan. hindi lang boses n’yo ang dapat pakinggan. karamihan sa mga squatters e di naman nakakapag-aral, lalo na ang makapasok sa big 4.

  191. The message of Jesus in the gospel, “I came not for peace but division” applies well to the stand of UST in opposition to the RH Bill. Truth hurts for Ateneo and La Salle. But come to think of this: Will New Era University, an Iglesia ni Cristo academic institution allow their professors to teach that eating “dinuguan” is perfectly alright or Jesus is true God and not just man? Hell, no! INC will be appalled. But how about academic freedom? New Era University is INC university. INC is above New Era. Same argument. ATENEO, LA SALLE & UST are Catholic Universities. The Catholic Church is above Catholic Universities. It is hight time that we stand not as lame Catholics but as advocates of the truth, no matter what it cost. If professors of La Salle and Ateneo cannot follow the Magisterium, they should apply to New Era University who openly supports the RH Bill. Dun kayo kumita! Ingrates! KUDOS TO THIS ANONYMOUS WRITER AND TO THE COURAGE OF UST Priests and VARSITARIAN

  192. The message of Jesus in the gospel, “I came not for peace but division” applies well to the stand of UST in opposition to the RH Bill. Truth hurts for Ateneo and La Salle. But come to think of this: Will New Era University, an Iglesia ni Cristo academic institution allow their professors to teach that eating “dinuguan” is perfectly alright or Jesus is true God and not just man? Hell, no! INC will be appalled. But how about academic freedom? New Era University is INC university. INC is above New Era. Same argument. ATENEO, LA SALLE & UST are Catholic Universities. The Catholic Church is above Catholic Universities. It is hight time that we stand not as lame Catholics but as advocates of the truth, no matter what it cost. If professors of La Salle and Ateneo cannot follow the Magisterium, they should apply to New Era University who openly supports the RH Bill. Dun kayo kumita! Ingrates! KUDOS TO THIS ANONYMOUS WRITER AND TO THE COURAGE OF UST Priests and VARSITARIAN

  193. My gosh, I can’t even bring myself to read the rest of the article. I think the Varsitarian SHOULD TAKE THIS ARTICLE DOWN in the hopes of erasing records of these very shameful claims.

  194. This piece is a typical writing of a cyber-bully; one who arrogantly flashes intellectual arrogance, makes sweeping statements, impugns the credibility of people/institutions, but cowardly hides behind an “editorial wall”. It is just unfortunate that you carry the colors of this prestigious institution. Tsk tsk tsk… true, little knowledge is dangerous!

  195. This is really very wrong. I hoped you checked all your statistical data before you posted that it is not one of the leading causes. As a tip from a fellow Thomasian, check it first before trying to be a know it all .

  196. Respect the house that feeds you. If institution is established to teach Catholic view on things, let it be. Do not enter a Muslim Mosque telling or preaching you dont agree with Mohammed. If you feel that your conscience is telling that to you, then share it in neutral ground. Do not enter the house and shout outside “I dont like how this house is organized and I will arrange it.” That is one form of respect that DLSU or ADMU professors forgot, delikadeza. The writer just used a literary form that is commonly used by journalists which is acceptable for OPINION: “patama”. Opinion is opinion.

  197. I don’t know what the furor is all about. This editorial is effing hilarious! Try reading it again, this time aloud. LMAO! I swear it’s a material for stand up comics! The first clue is the silly opening line “Going against the grain, going against the tide, going against popularity surveys”. If I did not know any better, I think this was a writing exercise in a freshman composition class.

    Here are my favorite quotable quotes:

    1. If UST professors don’t agree with the stand of the CBCP, then they have a problem. – Ok, disagreeing UST profs, do you know you have a problem? Or, as the editorial would go on to imply, you are the problem?

    2. The bishops are the successors of the Christ’s apostles and possess the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. – Some bishops are implicated in sex scandals and illegal ivory trade. Fantastic apostleship and teaching credibility!

    3. If faculty members of UST and other Catholic schools feel they need to invoke their academic freedom to make known their stand in conflict with the bishops regarding the RH bill, then they’re free to do so. But they must resign from UST. They must give up their Catholic academic affiliation. – Excuse me? Is this the way of the cross?

    4. How could they argue that alleged high mortality must be checked by an RH measure when pregnancy complications are not in the Top 10 causes of women’s deaths? – Did you want a top 20 or top 40 list? Not enough for you that pregnancy complications can be fatal?

    5. UST and her physicians surely know whereof they speak. They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers! – LMAO! That would make you an intellectual hyena, laughable and seriously fugly.

    6. We’re pretty sure Saint Ignatius would have no confusion on where to put that jesuitic Jesuit—in Heaven or Hell?—in his famous Spiritual Exercises. – We’re pretty sure we’ll see you there! LOL!

    7. As far as the RH bill and support for it among their faculty are concerned, they’re lemons… They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less. – Composition 101: Do not mix metaphors, unless you were talking about a mercenary baker preparing a cake.

    8. Even earlier, in 1902, UST had been declared a “Pontifical University,” the second to be so named in history even ahead of European universities. Therefore, the University has embodied the ideals that Catholic universities must possess, including the Catholic “education” which the students must learn from their professors. – Tsk, tsk! How sad you pander “Pontifical University” too much to the detriment of your beloved institution. Sadly, many people hide behind titles to mask their own weaknesses.

    9. By going against the stand of the bishops, the Ateneo and La Salle professors are saying they don’t agree with the Church’s mission. If so, they’re free to leave. In fact, they must leave. – Hey, cocky writer/s, they don’t owe you anything for you to demand that from them. They have probably produced more decent and charitable human beings than you could ever fathom. What have you recently done for others to make this a better world to live in?

    10. But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila. – I suppose any courage and decency you have left to stick your name out for this writeup were ran over in España.

  198. A pathetic, immature, arrogant, fallacy Ad hominem-filled excuse for an editorial written by an equally childish and heavily indoctrinated, narrow-minded writer. I had to put up with all the stupid trash I had been reading in the Varsitarian about this RH bill for far too long. I have had enough. Next time I pick a varsitarian, I am gonna use it to wipe my ass every time I go to the latrine.

  199. I would, wave this off as a juvenile attempt to be an editorial column; I hold the Varsitarian with high respect to acknowledge the fact that the Editor-In-Chief let this get published. This is either 1) A paid-for (or perhaps coerced) column from the CBCP, the Rector, or any of the administrators whose friaristic principles shine clearer than the gold-faced sun of UST in the author’s words, or 2) The work of a 1st Year student from any college in the university, who has yet to take his English 102 or Philo2 /Logic. You can recognise the cheap, under-researched, fallacious way the whole, lengthy blabber of a column was made.

    Of course, the saddest part here is how the administration condones this kind of petty columnists, this person who tries so hard but fails (so hard) to sound intellectually sound. It’s also sad that we’re getting this kind of thoughtless, reckless columns in the future, as this person may very well be the next person on print media — all because this was allowed to be published.

    So, people, we can all calm down now. This isn’t shaping anybody’s mind after all — unless they are dastardly brainless to follow this column’s reasoning. Dismiss this as a blog entry you read on a website: It’s his/her opinion, you’re not meant to take it all in, and if it does not agree with you, just close the page.

    But alas, intellectuality seems to be in short supply at a certain cubicle at Room 105, Tan Yan Kee Student Center Building, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila.

    I hope the author reads this. Read this, and all the comments above… and realize what it feels like on the other end of your-level-of-logic arguments.

  200. Mr. Writer, i feel so sorry for you. you had one shining moment…and that was the moment your editorial was posted…and even made it to Philippine Media. Are you happy?

    That was a perfect display of English proficiency plus arrogance. If you really want to write this way…buy a diary and write whatever you want to your heart’s content.

    To the writer and to (whoever did the screening of the editorial before it was posted) “it seems your intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply”.

  201. I can’t find the right words to describe everything you just blabbered. As a UST alumna myself (and having friends from V before), I can’t remember my alma mater ever imposing anything like this. This is too arrogant, this is not responsible journalism, this is not the way UST has taught us to be.

  202. “Every person is given the “freedom” to choose but that freedom is not absolute. “

    So are you saying that we have freedom, but it is not absolute because it can easily be eclipsed by a single command of the Church? I am a Catholic, and I am for the RH Bill. Believing in a religion which centers on love and compassion entails looking out for the welfare of the community. It is not a matter of blindly following the stand of the Church, especially since we all know that some people in the Catholic institution (perhaps all) are sinners, and hence, are imperfect like us. Not all their views are purely of divine influence. I’d rather go against the Church and support the bill, so long as I know that I am pushing for the betterment of the lives of my fellow Filipinos (which is really what God wants).

    On a sidenote, I would gladly let you strip De La Salle’s title as a Catholic University, because I firmly believe that we don’t need titles just to let the world know we are Catholic. I am contented with the fact that within the Lasallian community, we continue to act and think like true Catholics by serving others (be it simple or grand) and by fighting for what is right and just for everyone.

  203. The backlash surrounding this piece has proven that freedom of speech is indeed under threat. Just because the writer’s opinion is incongruent with yours, dear reader, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he/she is wrong. Please remember that this is an OPINION piece.

    Furthermore, the writer makes well-written and valid arguments. Your violent refusal, dear reader, to acknowledge his/her points is your attempt to suppress your urge to say, “touché,” methinks.

  204. The backlash surrounding this piece has proven that freedom of speech is indeed under threat. Just because the writer’s opinion is incongruent with yours, dear reader, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he/she is wrong. Please remember that this is an OPINION piece.

    Furthermore, the writer makes well-written and valid arguments. Your violent refusal, dear reader, to acknowledge his/her points is your attempt to suppress your urge to say, “touché,” methinks.

  205. This editorial is very accusative. Even though the institution upholds the right to express, the author should have carefully researched everything before making any statement. I hope that the author had also consider that he/she is writing in behalf of UST. Was the university in congruence with the author’s thinking? I could not even feel any religiosity in the article. Don’t preach dear author, you don’t even know what your talking.

  206. “How could they argue that an RH measure would be needed to lower maternal mortality when the Philippine government not too long ago had told the United Nations that it was on track to meet the Unesco millennium development goals by 2015, one of which was the lowering of maternal deaths?”

    WOW all along I thought UN stood for United Nations. I was wrong pala. I mean, how could the all-knowing & righteous The Varsitarian ever be so wrong. I’m so sure they checked all their sources and facts first before posting such awesome editorial.

  207. I imagine that the editors of a student paper have some kind of collective “say” over editorials. If not, you should probably form such an overseer committee. You have caused significant damage to your school’s academic image. If I didn’t know better, I’d now assume that young minds wither & die at UST. Further, I suggest that you lay out 1-2 specific objectives for editorials. If your objective was to rally support against the RH bill, then you’ve accomplished the opposite: a divisive effect– by vidtue of citing UST decisions to confront specific Catholic schools. Even UST alumni are now divided. Horrible job. More’s the pity.

  208. Appalling Journalism

    “There are three constants in life… change, choice and principles.” (Stephen Covey)

    Change is inevitable. But change doesn’t mean “banishment or death”. It means the enhancement of the old to make it better.
    Choice is a right and choice is a necessity. Everyone is entitled to make a choice based on independent thinking, informed opinion and sound judgment. The most pathetic kinds of people are those that only go with the crowd. We become worthy when we form opinions and make decisions on issues affecting us, be it social, political, spiritual, moral, and the like. We are our own judge!
    Principles are the crux of decency. Without them we lose civility. We show our principles, not just in words or in a mission-vision statement but through our actions. Those who dare not speak or do nothing suffer—they lose their liberty, loves and lives!
    I will never give up my faith in Christ or God but I will NEVER submit myself to rigid conformity to a closed system of logic. I will think, I will question, I will evaluate, and I will trust my feelings. I will think and decide whatever is kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of the many -flesh and blood both real and imaginary, now and beyond.

  209. But I would like to remind you that we exist in a democratic state, not a quasi-communist one run by Catholic Priests… And no, if the Vatican says I’m a frog, I won’t say “ribbit”…

  210. Appalling Journalism

    “There are three constants in life… change, choice and principles.” (Stephen Covey)

    Change is inevitable. But change doesn’t mean “banishment or death”. It means the enhancement of the old to make it better.
    Choice is a right and choice is a necessity. Everyone is entitled to make a choice based on independent thinking, informed opinion and sound judgment. The most pathetic kinds of people are those that only go with the crowd. We become worthy when we form opinions and make decisions on issues affecting us, be it social, political, spiritual, moral, and the like. We are our own judge!
    Principles are the crux of decency. Without them we lose civility. We show our principles, not just in words or in a mission-vision statement but through our actions. Those who dare not speak or do nothing suffer—they lose their liberty, loves and lives!
    I will never give up my faith in Christ or God but I will NEVER submit myself to rigid conformity to a closed system of logic. I will think, I will question, I will evaluate, and I will trust my feelings. I will think and decide whatever is kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of the many -flesh and blood both real and imaginary, now and beyond.

  211. I am sure a lot of people would appreciate knowing the name of the author of this editorial, who had so foully judged entire institutions and its herd, why even entire streets and avenues, with so narrow an understanding of the situation, and even narrower concept of what constitutes honesty and morality. There’s something truly quite funny in encountering an article exemplify that very thing which it criticizes! This blatant, by your own reasoning, misuse of academic freedom as cloak for a defective moral backbone is a dishonor to the Catholic University of the Philippines. Having recently released the statement, ‘Thus, the opinion expressed in the Varsitarian Opinion-Editorial insofar as it supposedly called the pro-RH Bill professors of the Ateneo de Manila University and the De La Salle University as “intellectual pretenders and interlopers” does not bear the University’s imprimatur,’ you must then, condemn, with ‘courage of your own conviction,’ UST who had nothing to say of the intellectual dishonesty of the many claims of this article against the institutions and its constituents. Lest, I charge you by the same sentence of your claim, ” dishonest and don’t have the courage of… intellectual conviction.” Judge not lest ye be judged as the Lord says!

  212. Almost all of my siblings (including me) have studied in UST and when the news leaked out of this editorial, the first reaction came from my father (a Philosophy major and a devout Catholic). He said and I quote: “bakit ganun yung statements nila? parang walang ethics.” From this simple pronunciation of an opinion, we may reflect on the content of the article. Truly, the Varsitarian has all the rights to air out the opinion of the entire Thomasian community being its voice and all, however, why put other schools such as La Salle and The Ateneo in bad light? You have your own opinions, you have your own facts, you have your own publication, you have your own clientele, why hit derogatory statements to an unconscious opposition? Is there something to prove about being the best Catholic school in the country? We get it, UST is the champion catholic university that’s why I enrolled here. But by this editorial that clearly was not thoroughly brainstormed by the editorial board, it is depressing to be a Thomasian. The Catholic faith of this country has been shaken by far worse scenarios aside from this bill (disintegration of family values, corruption and scandal in the clergy) but it has stood strong because it has done things to shed better light, alternatives and solutions to the issues. One cannot simply win a debate just by simply showing that the opposition is wrong. You first need to have something solid to hold on to and say: this is my stand. We have thought about it, we’ve set aside opinions of others and with world view understanding of things have tackled the topic.

    PS Your facts are all jumbled up. Further research is needed.

  213. ..and the Catholic Church are the imperialists!

    The world is better off without your child-molesting sexist institution! (the church, not the university)

    I wonder why UST practises such mediaeval policies? Oh, but of course, because the Vatican is! They even practise mediaeval justice! What a very good role model!

    I do not at all regret leaving the church, but one thing I regret in life is that I was a devout Catholic.

    P.S. Congratulations on being a Pontifical University, it is so great that Universities in Britain opted out of it in the 15th century.

  214. The University has spoken and it says there that though it is one with the Varsitarian in its opposition to the RH-bill, it does not condone the opinion and manner by which the cowardly writer who insists to be anonymous has written its editorial. Mr. anonymous writer, I do hope that you have already realized what you did. You have angered a lot of alumni and the Thomasian community both pro and anti RH bill alike. You have sparked outrage and misrepresented the Thomasian community and by this have also put Thomasians vulnerable and targets of hate campaigns/attacks. As an aluminus of UST, I am sickened by how you wrote the editorial. Tell us, was this written to inform or to impress? Nevertheless, it has failed in both. Remember that no secrets could be kept forever and you cannot remain anonymous forever. The community already knows who you are… You are a Thomasian and you should well know by now how news spreads like wildfire in the campus. Be brave enough to stand up and be known if you have the courage to call others cowards! You are not worthy to be in the Varsitarian! you have tarnished not only the publication but the name of the university as well… If you have but the smallest ounce of dignity and palabra de honor in you, I say to you: “RESIGN NOW!”

  215. The University has spoken and it says there that though it is one with the Varsitarian in its opposition to the RH-bill, it does not condone the opinion and manner by which the cowardly writer who insists to be anonymous has written its editorial. Mr. anonymous writer, I do hope that you have already realized what you did. You have angered a lot of alumni and the Thomasian community both pro and anti RH bill alike. You have sparked outrage and misrepresented the Thomasian community and by this have also put Thomasians vulnerable and targets of hate campaigns/attacks. As an aluminus of UST, I am sickened by how you wrote the editorial. Tell us, was this written to inform or to impress? Nevertheless, it has failed in both. Remember that no secrets could be kept forever and you cannot remain anonymous forever. The community already knows who you are… You are a Thomasian and you should well know by now how news spreads like wildfire in the campus. Be brave enough to stand up and be known if you have the courage to call others cowards! You are not worthy to be in the Varsitarian! you have tarnished not only the publication but the name of the university as well… If you have but the smallest ounce of dignity and palabra de honor in you, I say to you: “RESIGN NOW!”

  216. “teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom” – so ibig sabihin, libre tuition sa catholic universities at simbahan at nagpapasweldo sa mga proffesors nyo? galing naman pala..

  217. “teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom” – so ibig sabihin, libre tuition sa catholic universities at simbahan at nagpapasweldo sa mga proffesors nyo? galing naman pala..

  218. Is UST ready to feed all the hungry people and give free education simply because couples were not given choices? Can UST put food on the table of each family living in poverty because their meager income is not enough to feed 12 children because the family was not given a choice and means to control and plan their family? Is CBCP, the catholic church and UST being a dictator, trying to dictate what each of us must think and there is no choice but to follow their way? Is the author suggesting that every catholic who has a different opinion than the church leave the faith and convert to another religion? Is the author suggesting that every catholic individual who has a different opinion than the church and CBCP are intellectual pretenders and interlopers, in short morons? I believed that Christ himself is not jugdemental. All those who are studying in UST who do not agree with its school’s stand should then transfer to another school or you will be the target of insults and bullying. Kudos to ADMU and LaSalle for not reprimanding their faculty members who have a different stand than CBCP. That is true democracy. As for UST, it seems stuck in the era of Padre Damaso where anyone who has a different opinion than the church is considered heretic so that it can continue to leave the filipinos in the dark and uninformed.

  219. Is the university really being consistent? I have not been updated on the response of the university or a broad proportion of it’s alumni to defend one of it’s architect alumnus, Felino Palafox against the Filipino Government collaboration with forces of environmental destruction in the country. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know, U.S.T. and the broad alumni except for a small loosely organized group were so detached and indifferent from the lonely battle to defend the environment of life waged by this outstanding architect.

    This time however, the university has involved itself in another level of environmental battle- environment of the foundation of life. There are two conflict forces in this battle:

    1)Anti-Natural Reproductive Health Forces: They tamper with the cycle of life as provided by nature to reduce reproduction of life resulting from sexual indulgences, with the objective of preserving life as directed by man.
    2)Pro-Natural Reproductive Health Forces: They defend the cycle of life as provided by nature to preserve reproduction of life resulting from discipline and self-control out of love with the objective of openness to life as directed by nature.

    This time, the university has committed itself in defense of the environment of life. I just hope this institution would be more consistent. But just for this, I am inclined but with reservation to believe that the University of Santo Tomas is: “Where the Last Academic Line of Defense for Life is Being Held!”

  220. We get the point.. You support the RH Bill.. But you didn’t have to go way overboard by insulting and putting to shame not just yourself but the whole university! I’m an AB student in UST. And what i have just read was nothing like what we are taught within our four walls!

  221. Is the university really being consistent? I have not been updated on the response of the university or a broad proportion of it’s alumni to defend one of it’s architect alumnus, Felino Palafox against the Filipino Government collaboration with forces of environmental destruction in the country. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know, U.S.T. and the broad alumni except for a small loosely organized group were so detached and indifferent from the lonely battle to defend the environment of life waged by this outstanding architect.

    This time however, the university has involved itself in another level of environmental battle- environment of the foundation of life. There are two conflicting forces in this battle:

    1)Anti-Natural Reproductive Health Forces: They tamper with, the natural cycle of life as provided by our ultimate source of nature; their objective is to reduce reproduction of life resulting from sexual indulgences so that life according to their direction is preserved.

    2)Pro-Natural Reproductive Health Forces: They defend the natural cycle of life as provided by our ultimate source of nature; their objective is to preserve the reproduction of life as a result of a disciplined and temperate sexual activity based on love, so that there is openness to life with the involvement and direction of the ultimate source of nature.

    This time, the university has committed itself in defense of the environment of life. I just hope this institution would be more consistent. But just for this, I am inclined but with reservation to believe that the University of Santo Tomas is: “Where the last academic line of defense for life is being held.”

  222. It is commendable to have such conviction regarding the RH bill as you and UST have shown. But I do not think you’re in any position to speak so poorly about others as you did with other university and your own university professors. You’ve ranted about professors supporting the RH Bill who know nothing about medicine, I may suggest that you pause evaluate yourself. Are you in any position to defame members of the academe and even the name of other Catholic universities?

    If UST wishes to pacify its community then so be it, but just because they did it does not mean other Catholic universities would have to do the same. Supporting the RH Bill does not make a person any less Catholic. Besides what is academic freedom, or freedom simply put, if there are limitations set. Also, the opinions of professors does not embody the whole university’s opinion on the matter. What proof do you have other than your defamatory words?

    Going over your article you’ve made multiple contradicting statements. What you wrote is not even worth calling an article. It is a form of abuse of power.

    If UST is so high and mighty because they’re against the RH Bill and imposes her students and professors to do the same, then good for you. But leave other universities slander-free.

    I do sincerely hope that you can see the ramifications of your action.

  223. 1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
    2 The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
    3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.
    4 The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
    5 A fool spurns his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.
    6 The house of the righteous contains great treasure, but the income of the wicked brings them trouble.
    7 The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so the hearts of fools.
    8 The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.
    9 The LORD detests the way of the wicked but he loves those who pursue righteousness.
    10 Stern discipline awaits him who leaves the path; he who hates correction will die.
    11 Death and Destruction lie open before the LORD– how much more the hearts of men!
    12 A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise.
    31 He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise.
    32 He who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever heeds correction gains understanding.
    33 The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor.

  224. As a Thomasian alumni, I believe in the freedom of speech and truly respect the writer’s opinion. But somehow, we don’t need to criticize the whole school publicly based from an individual’s stand. I have siblings who’ve studied in Ateneo & La Salle and they didn’t grew up unChristian. In order for your voice to be heard, kindly give a little respect on one’s beliefs as we also respect yours. Let’s leave to the 3 schools cooperate & uplhold the Christian faith and not let them fight one another.

  225. More than a tirade against those herein named, the editorial is an insult to its readers, studentry and even its alumni. To be sure, a publication can be assertive of its stance in pressing issues, but it is a form of artistry in the field journalism to be assertive yet graceful, to be combative yet diplomatic. An art which i guess is yet to be learned by the writer.

  226. More than a tirade against those herein named, the editorial is an insult to its readers, studentry and even its alumni. To be sure, a publication can be assertive of its stance in pressing issues, but it is a form of artistry in the field journalism to be assertive yet graceful, to be combative yet diplomatic. An art which i guess is yet to be learned by the writer.

  227. There is no way that this Editorial represents the general sentiment and position of the Thomasian Community. And there is no way that this article could be written by a genuine Thomasian no matter how hard he or she pretends to be.

    A true Thomasian is honest, respectful and truthful, one who truly follows the example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Writing with firm conviction does not mean expressing correct views; hitting people and institutions below the belt and putting them in bad light is not respectful; relying on hearsay and not substantiating one’s statements is not at all truthful.

    St. Thomas, whom we admire, is honest, respectful and truthful.
    He is honest at least in saying that he cannot know everything, that he cannot have full understanding of certain issues, that despite his numerous writings, he admits that all that he has written are nothing but “straw.” Hence a Thomasian cannot pretend to be all knowing, that he possesses the entire truth, that he has the monopoly of the truth about certain issues (RH Bill included) St. Thomas may be right in writing his opinions but he had deep respect for the opinions of others, often engaging his critics in a rational discussion and being open to the objections of others. Hence a Thomasian cannot simply set aside the opinions of others, even if he thinks these opinions are baseless or worthless. There are always two sides of one and the same coin. He must engage in an open and free exchange of ideas. Needless to say that a Thomasian university while standing on its values and tradition must be like an agora for free thinking where ideas can circulate freely and responsibly. After all, that is what a university stands for. St. Thomas was truthful in his presentations. He substantiated his arguments, considered many sources of information including those that are deemed heretical during his time. A Thomasian therefore must be truthful in his propositions as he fights for what he believes is true.

    Catholic does not uniformity and blind conformism. This term has been abused so much. For one, being “catholic” does not mean infallible; it does not mean that if one is catholic he or she is always right. While the term “catholic” refers to being whole or universal it does not mean uniformity of opinions and convictions. The Church admits and respects different convictions; and in the history of the Church we have seen changes in its positions including those considered to be “catholic.” Didn’t John Paul II apologize for the mistakes of the Church against science?

    Needless to say that a Catholic university must respect diversity of opinions and convictions, after all, that is what promotes intellectual growth and maturity.

    Catholic is not blind conformism and adherence. The Catholic Church while it teaches its doctrines and dogmas, respects individual conscience. No less than John Paul II stressed that freedom of conscience is a basic right. Of course it must be an informed conscience. There is nothing wrong with genuine opposition, an opposition that is respectful and contributes for the common good. John Paul II writing as Karol Wojtyla listed this as one of the genuine attitudes of active participation in a community. Blind conformism is the opposite of genuine opposition.

    A Catholic university then, while being true to its calling of being a defender of the Catholic faith, must respect individual conscience and promote genuine opposition. These are values promoted by no less than John Paul II.

    On a personal note I am happy with the different comments about this article. For me it shows that UST after all is a vibrant community of rational thinkers capable of self-criticism and self-evaluation. These comments show that we are a community who will not simply support any opinion just because it was aired or ventilated by a “Thomasian.” This show of dissenting opinions means that we value honesty, respect and truthfulness.

  228. There is no way that this Editorial represents the general sentiment and position of the Thomasian Community. And there is no way that this article could be written by a genuine Thomasian no matter how hard he or she pretends to be.

    A true Thomasian is honest, respectful and truthful, one who truly follows the example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Writing with firm conviction does not mean expressing correct views; hitting people and institutions below the belt and putting them in bad light is not respectful; relying on hearsay and not substantiating one’s statements is not at all truthful.

    St. Thomas, whom we admire, is honest, respectful and truthful.
    He is honest at least in saying that he cannot know everything, that he cannot have full understanding of certain issues, that despite his numerous writings, he admits that all that he has written are nothing but “straw.” Hence a Thomasian cannot pretend to be all knowing, that he possesses the entire truth, that he has the monopoly of the truth about certain issues (RH Bill included) St. Thomas may be right in writing his opinions but he had deep respect for the opinions of others, often engaging his critics in a rational discussion and being open to the objections of others. Hence a Thomasian cannot simply set aside the opinions of others, even if he thinks these opinions are baseless or worthless. There are always two sides of one and the same coin. He must engage in an open and free exchange of ideas. Needless to say that a Thomasian university while standing on its values and tradition must be like an agora for free thinking where ideas can circulate freely and responsibly. After all, that is what a university stands for. St. Thomas was truthful in his presentations. He substantiated his arguments, considered many sources of information including those that are deemed heretical during his time. A Thomasian therefore must be truthful in his propositions as he fights for what he believes is true.

    Catholic does not uniformity and blind conformism. This term has been abused so much. For one, being “catholic” does not mean infallible; it does not mean that if one is catholic he or she is always right. While the term “catholic” refers to being whole or universal it does not mean uniformity of opinions and convictions. The Church admits and respects different convictions; and in the history of the Church we have seen changes in its positions including those considered to be “catholic.” Didn’t John Paul II apologize for the mistakes of the Church against science?

    Needless to say that a Catholic university must respect diversity of opinions and convictions, after all, that is what promotes intellectual growth and maturity.

    Catholic is not blind conformism and adherence. The Catholic Church while it teaches its doctrines and dogmas, respects individual conscience. No less than John Paul II stressed that freedom of conscience is a basic right. Of course it must be an informed conscience. There is nothing wrong with genuine opposition, an opposition that is respectful and contributes for the common good. John Paul II writing as Karol Wojtyla listed this as one of the genuine attitudes of active participation in a community. Blind conformism is the opposite of genuine opposition.

    A Catholic university then, while being true to its calling of being a defender of the Catholic faith, must respect individual conscience and promote genuine opposition. These are values promoted by no less than John Paul II.

    On a personal note I am happy with the different comments about this article. For me it shows that UST after all is a vibrant community of rational thinkers capable of self-criticism and self-evaluation. These comments show that we are a community who will not simply support any opinion just because it was aired or ventilated by a “Thomasian.” This show of dissenting opinions means that we value honesty, respect and truthfulness.

  229. first, i’d like to tell everyone and MR author that in the rh bill debacle, i am leaning on the side of “anti” simply for the government’s lack of execution. nothing else. had the government been good at it, you should be in jail by now for 235 counts of libel. see my point? it would have been an easier argument instead of religious bigotry.

    second, you should have created your own blog instead. that way you can be anonymous and be free enough to speak your mind. but hiding in the shadows of an institution – a 400-year-old bastion of learning in the philippines — and getting away with it by removing your name and face (yes i have seen the article when your face was still shown) is an insult to your university and your fellow students. if you are that brave enough to justify your opinions — and stand up for your religion — stop hiding. as what the previous poster said, only cowards condemn their enemies. double the gravity with your anonimity. moreover, the people you are condemning are the pillars of learning in those universities you have mentioned. i am an alumnae of one of them and one of my professors is a thomasian. do you condemn him too? STOP GENERALIZING!

    third, ust may have been catholic ever since the spanish occupation but never did it close its doors to students and professors seeking for quality education regardless of beliefs, gender, color and nationality. the truth is, when you educate, your assist people how to cope up with the realities of life as the exit the four walls of the classroom. education will never be indoctrination! if the university’s purpose of being catholic is to indoctrinate all students to submit to catholicism, most of the students would have been gone. when ust released it’s stance on rh bill, were the pros — students, staff and professors alike — were condemned? no. actually, one of my professors in history is a thomasian. a GAY thomasian. yet he is lauded by YOUR university and OUR university for his acamedic prowess. he alone is a great example to prove to you that, despite being a catholic institution, education freedom is exercised in ust.

    fourth, if you’re calling yourself a thomasian, forget it and drop the ego of being one. reality check — you haven’t graduated yet; ergo, not a full-blooded thomasian. you could still fail, change schools, or perhaps be kicked out for the libelous “editorial” you have done. only your god knows what future lies ahead of you but as of the moment while you are still JUST a student of university of sto tomas, you have no right to lambast anyone especially professors! if you don’t know the meaning of intellectual modesty, just shut up.

  230. This editorial should not have been published at all. It’s the embodiment of arrogance and utter lack of respect for others.

  231. I’m a thomasian and I admire the bravery that UST and The Varsitarian showed me with this editorial. I believe that UST only stands on what we, as Christians should stand for, to abide with what our Mother Church teaches us. I think the simple logic on what this article is all about is this: If you’re a Christian, you have to live and believe in Christian teachings. And the bishops, which has given the authority to guide us Christians should follow them. So if you don’t like to believe and follow the bishops (or any other person in authority) then you are not becoming part of the community you belong to. As what Jesus said in Luke 11:23, “Whoever is not with me is against me..” and like the popular saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans”. If you’re in a Catholic Institution, then you should act and live your life according to what that Institution believes in. And this is probably the one thing that causes chaos in any community/country, we are living in a place with rules and guiding law, but we do not comply, so the result is chaos. So to The Varsitarian, stand firm, there are people who still believe and will protect what we have in our faith. God Bless UST, God Bless the Varsitarian.

  232. That is what I am expected to happen. I know that this could lead to an everlasting fight between the people. So better not anymore speak because the fact that we have concern regarding this issue is not anymore taken into consideration, where every poor people in the country uses artificial contraceptives even before the passage of the bill, so it is a normal practice for many to have their children smitten to death. ONLY GOD KNOWS WHO IS JUST IN THIS WORLD, WHO ABIDES TO HIS DIVINE LAW , AND WHO DOES IT CORRECTLY WILL BE REWARD IN THE DAY OF THE JUDGMENT so better not say anything anymore about it. Whether they are pro-RH its up to them, but me as a THOMASIAN AND A CATHOLIC ADVOCATE AGAINST RH BILL, I choose not to speak because evil thoughts are coming in our country. LET THEM REALIZE IN THE FUTURE THAT THEY ARE WRONG. HAYAAN NA LAMANG NATIN SILA. BASTA TAYO TOMASINO, ANTI-RH BILL NA TOTOO. 🙂

  233. There is no way that this Editorial represents the general sentiment and position of the Thomasian Community. And there is no way that this article could be written by a genuine Thomasian no matter how hard he or she pretends to be.

    A true Thomasian is honest, respectful and truthful, one who truly follows the example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Writing with firm conviction does not mean expressing correct views; hitting people and institutions below the belt and putting them in bad light is not respectful; relying on hearsay and not substantiating one’s statements is not at all truthful.

    St. Thomas, whom we admire, is honest, respectful and truthful.
    He is honest at least in saying that he cannot know everything, that he cannot have full understanding of certain issues, that despite his numerous writings, he admits that all that he has written are nothing but “straw.” Hence a Thomasian cannot pretend to be all knowing, that he possesses the entire truth, that he has the monopoly of the truth about certain issues (RH Bill included) St. Thomas may be right in writing his opinions but he had deep respect for the opinions of others, often engaging his critics in a rational discussion and being open to the objections of others. Hence a Thomasian cannot simply set aside the opinions of others, even if he thinks these opinions are baseless or worthless. There are always two sides of one and the same coin. He must engage in an open and free exchange of ideas. Needless to say that a Thomasian university while standing on its values and tradition must be like an agora for free thinking where ideas can circulate freely and responsibly. After all, that is what a university stands for. St. Thomas was truthful in his presentations. He substantiated his arguments, considered many sources of information including those that are deemed heretical during his time. A Thomasian therefore must be truthful in his propositions as he fights for what he believes is true.

    Catholic does not uniformity and blind conformism. This term has been abused so much. For one, being “catholic” does not mean infallible; it does not mean that if one is catholic he or she is always right. While the term “catholic” refers to being whole or universal it does not mean uniformity of opinions and convictions. The Church admits and respects different convictions; and in the history of the Church we have seen changes in its positions including those considered to be “catholic.” Didn’t John Paul II apologize for the mistakes of the Church against science? Needless to say that a Catholic university must respect diversity of opinions and convictions, after all, that is what promotes intellectual growth and maturity.

    Catholic is not blind conformism and adherence. The Catholic Church while it teaches its doctrines and dogmas, respects individual conscience. No less than John Paul II stressed that freedom of conscience is a basic right. Of course it must be an informed conscience. There is nothing wrong with genuine opposition, an opposition that is respectful and contributes for the common good. John Paul II writing as Karol Wojtyla listed this as one of the genuine attitudes of active participation in a community. Blind conformism is the opposite of genuine opposition. A Catholic university then, while being true to its calling of being a defender of the Catholic faith, must respect individual conscience and promote genuine opposition. These are values promoted by no less than John Paul II.

    On a personal note I am happy with the different comments about this article. For me it shows that UST after all is a vibrant community of rational thinkers capable of self-criticism and self-evaluation. These comments show that we are a community who will not simply support any opinion just because it was aired or ventilated by a “Thomasian.” This show of dissenting opinions means that we value honesty, respect and truthfulness.

  234. Usually i never cared about these university wars of any form but judging by the words used to describe the other universities and its professors, this can lead to a suite. Shame on these tigers! This gives me a reason to root for the eagles in the upcoming game haha!

  235. They won’t reveal the author since cyber crime law was given a tro, hence he can be a subject of cyber bullying lol.

    All articles are screened and reviewed before it is published, correct?

  236. This article says that the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers didn’t do anything to reprimand or “guide” the professors about their stand on the RH bill. That is because they respect individual judgement, critical thinking and reasoning. After all, that is what education is all about: laying down the cards on students and letting them adhere to what they think is right based on the principles they have learned.

    In the same light, i’m appaled that UST ignored this article, knowing that this article is libelous in nature and based on purely imagined truth. Is this the kind of journalism and education UST gives? And is this the kind of university UST is? Where is the respect, the reasoning and the intellectual discourse on this article?

    Really, the varsitarian? Is this how you do things now? This used to be a respected school publication. With this kind of writing, it has become no less than a glorified tabloid.

  237. This article says that the Jesuits and the Christian Brothers didn’t do anything to reprimand or “guide” the professors about their stand on the RH bill. That is because they respect individual judgement, critical thinking and reasoning. After all, that is what education is all about: laying down the cards on students and letting them adhere to what they think is right based on the principles they have learned.

    In the same light, i’m appaled that UST ignored this article, knowing that this article is libelous in nature and based on purely imagined truth. Is this the kind of journalism and education UST gives? And is this the kind of university UST is? Where is the respect, the reasoning and the intellectual discourse on this article?

    Really, the varsitarian? Is this how you do things now? This used to be a respected school publication. With this kind of writing, it has become no less than a glorified tabloid.

  238. hypocrisy |hi?päkris?|
    noun ( pl. -sies)
    the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense

  239. 1. “It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems.”

    – Naïve and misguided? Dear anonymous editorial writer, have you talked to any of them? Invite one of them over coffee, and you might hear his/her sound arguments without agreeing with him/her—without gnashing your teeth.
    Reply: The issue is whether their thinking is really naive and misguided. To so conclude, you need not talk to them but simply need to evaluate their arguments. Your attack thus on the editorial writer that he has not talked to any of them is an ad hominem.

    2. “In contrast, UST, which has the oldest and the foremost school of medicine in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, has always warned about the dangerous side effects of contraceptives. UST and her physicians surely know whereof they speak. They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, this is not only ad hominem, but also appeal to authority, and a straw man argumentation. What is the basis for your conjecture that people from Ateneo and La Salle are intellectual pretenders and interlopers? Is this an inflection from a statement publicized by a well-known Dominican father that pro-RH people are “intellectual midgets”? How could you use the word “intellectual” when there’s no intellectual exchange happening to begin with? If we push this further, then we run the risk of diverting our attention from the real issue.
    Reply: You must have forgotten your logic. What is fallacious (an argumentum ad verecundiam) is an appeal to misplaced authority. The UST Doctors were perfectly speaking within their competence when they spoke of the dangerous side effects of contraceptives.
    3. “But what’s more appalling is that the Jesuit and Christian Brother administrations of Ateneo and La Salle didn’t reprimand their faculty members for openly defying the bishops.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, I’m pretty sure that other institutions got appalled when we tolerated the granting to the impeached CJ Corona a PhD, summa cum laude. The UST community did not bother to correct the mistake. We simply invoked “academic autonomy,” then the issue died a natural death. All eyes were upon us – but we didn’t hear ultra-nasty ad hominem words from other institutions. We got the support of CHED, but we all know that something went wrong and we failed to correct it.
    Reply: I thought you know what an ad hominem is, which your argument most clearly is.
    4. “Ateneo said it respects the academic freedom of its professors: it had nothing to say about the intellectual dishonesty of its faculty members who are teaching in and receiving high salaries from a Catholic institution who however chose to bite the hand that feeds them all in the name of academic freedom.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, how are you sure that this is not happening in UST? Don’t get me started on intellectual dishonesty in UST and how the system itself seems to be oblivious to it.
    Reply: Again another ad hominem. The issue is not whether it is happening in UST but whether there is indeed intellectual dishonesty.

    5. “We’re pretty sure Saint Ignatius would have no confusion on where to put that jesuitic Jesuit—in Heaven or Hell?—in his famous Spiritual Exercises.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, is this material intended for a learned editorial or a personal blog of teenage ranting? The Varsitarian has a long history of journalistic excellence. Could this be the beginning of the end of that tradition? STOP THE TASTELESS NAME CALLING PLEASE! We are a 400-year institution, we should be mature enough.
    Reply: So you answer an alleged personal attack with another personal attack. Another ad hominem.

    6. “And as far as the Pro-RH Ateneo and La Salle professors are concerned, they’re dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. Contradicting the bishops and defending the RH bill, they have clung on to their faculty membership in Catholic institutions. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’re intellectual mercenaries, nothing more, nothing less.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, again, you used the words “dishonest” and “intellectual.” Do you honestly believe that your social science professor in UST, who doesn’t have a degree in social science, is not clinging unto his teaching position despite his academic misalignment? I think that this qualifies as academic dishonesty and a bastardization of intellectual integrity. Meanwhile, the Ateneo professors whom you accused of dishonesty and intellectual cowardice are among the crème de la crème of Ateneo. They remain in Ateneo precisely because of their honest to goodness contribution to the intellectual life of the country. Let Ateneo deal with them, Ateneo too is autonomous, and don’t preempt and dictate what their institution should do with them, regardless of your own convictions—public or private!
    Rejoinder: Again another ad hominem. The issue is whether they are indeed dishonest and don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction and not whether there is another alleged dishonest professor in UST.

    7. “But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila.”

    – Dear anonymous editorial writer, ONCE AGAIN, REFRAIN FROM USING THE WORDS “HONESTY,” “DISHONESTY,” “INTELLECTUAL CONVICTION,” “MORAL CONVICTION”! THERE IS SO MUCH IN UST AND ITS PEOPLE THAT IS ADMIRABLE, BUT YOUR MORAL HUBRIS AND RESENTFUL COMMENTS SHROUD WHAT IS TRULY THOMASIAN.

    I’M OUTRAGED! WHILE I RESPECT, AND EVEN SUPPORT, THE POSITION OF THE UNIVERSITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, I REFUSE TO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM AND DANGEROUS SLOGANEERING THAT INTEND TO UNNECESSARILY INSULT OTHER PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS!
    Reply: You refuse to indulge in ad hominem when your comments have committed ad hominem arguments wholesale. Attack the arguments and not the person. Your Logic Professor must be greatly embarrassed by your public display of what you failed to learn from him.

  240. Jeremiah 50:32
    “The ARROGANT one will stumble and fall
    With no one to raise him up…and I will set fire to his cities
    And it will devour all his environs.”

    May the Lord save our Alma Mater from the likes of this Arrogant Anonymous. God bless UST.

  241. I don’t see anything wrong with this, words are just too stern. Sadly, the narrow-minded fail to understand the convictions being expressed here. We can’t blame the writer for giving a Ratzinger-like statement, expressing how conservative they are.

    Too bad, Liberals whine and turn bad-mouthed when apprehended.

  242. “unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”

    sounds like libel to me. sakto kakapasa lang ng cybercrime law. sana may magdemanda sa author nito. lol.

    sabi mo “freedom of expression is not absolute”. sana inapply mo sa pagsulat ng article na to.

  243. Mr. Editor, I would like to stress out the irresponsibility of your editorial. I get your point but your hypocrisy is killing me. Also, did your EIC checked your article? There are grammar lapses, unparalleled sentences and wrong word usages in it. If you want a strong and controversial write-up please fix you grammar basics.

    Facts you’ve presented are contradicting. You’ve presented these in a way that made it sound like inferences. Please, study basic newswriting. I understand the opinionated approach since this is an editorial but let’s observe responsible journalism.

    Media -TV, Radio, Online and other emerging Platforms- is a powerful weapon. Thus, care, tact and respect should be observed. You crossed the line by naming Catholic Academic Institutions who didn’t do what you’ve expected them to do. I understand the frustration but the way your adjectives and metaphors describe them is so uncatholic.

    Why impose resignation on their faculty when they’ve actually promoted a healthy intellectual discourse on the issue? A good and noble instructor does not impose and spoonfeed ideas to his students.

    Another point. Democracy. The reason you were not stopped from publishing this substandard piece of ideas is because democracy -freedom of speech. Why banter their healthy exercise of basic rights as Filipinos?

    You and your school remind me very much of Spanish Friars and Colonizers. Greedy of power and praise, Imposing and Reckless. Instead on focusing on imposing their stand on their faculty and students, why not fix your perennial drainage and flooding problems.

    Dear editor, if you were one of my editors back in college, this won’t be published. I came from a subversive student publication but we observe RESPECT. We value RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM and we are not PUPPETS. You have free will, you have intellect. Please use it. You are the future of this nation and this piece of lackluster, below mediocre, unethical and substandard article makes me worried if the future of the Philippines will be bright or bleak.

  244. wow.. view mo yan. para kang yun sumuntok sa free for all sabay takbo. pero ayus lang kasi lahat tao d naman pare-pareho ang pananaw sa buhay.

    just don’t ram your view with others. masyado magaling pagkakaturo sayo.

  245. Reading the comments here makes me laugh, in an effort to defend their stand that the RH bill is an all encompassing, all perfect, unquestionable solution to poverty, people will say things like we actually have absolute freedom. If we have absolute freedom, then what are laws for? Do I have the absolute freedom to kill you?

    The only reason that you can’t accept the opinion of the author being that professors of catholic schools should follow the stand of the catholic church is because you all want to blindly attack the church in any way shape or form, but put the situation on a non religious context, for example the military academy. What if PMA instructors teaches their trainees that communism is the way to go, that rebellion is the way to go? Can you even imagine how long it will take for them to be crucified by the media?

    Furthermore, you lambast the author for criticizing the stand of other schools. What’s the difference in what he did with what every editorial is doing in criticizing government officials who does dumb things?

    • So you are defending the sorry excuse for an article that shouldn’t have been published at all? I can’t expect you to understand since from the looks of it you aren’t even an alumni of UST. What’s wrong is how the author wrote the article. If you cared to read most of the comments, most were not just to attack the church or the RH bill. And obviously you’re being biased by shooting down the side of the people who are against the bill. We all have rights. It’s how we exercise those rights that cause the problems. Just like how this naive kid never considered “ethics” in his article and just blindly threw his opinion without respecting the view of others. Your comment is pretty much the same as the kid. You just identified another set of problems that will further cause conflict, never giving a solution to the problem. In short, you just ranted and merely stomped on others opinions by saying they are wrong in an obviously arrogant manner. There is such as thing as RESPONSIBLE writing, and you and the kid obviously lack such quality. Think before you write…

      • How does being an alumni makes me understand what? Are you implying that I have to be a UST alumni, to understand your view? May I in turn imply that you need to have at least half my IQ to even qualify to question my view?

        How did I shoot down people who are against the bill? When I was clearly also against it? Or did you make a typo where, instead of “bill” you actually wanted to write “article”? Why does this article shouldnt have been published?

        And lastly again, why is this unethical? When everyday, media people criticizes decisions made by popular personalities? What difference did the editor make that makes this piece unethical, besides opposing your view on the RH bill?

        • An arrogant reply… You may claim to have a “high” IQ, but it clearly shows in your comment how you don’t know the meaning of RESPECT. You can’t understand how we alumni feel being shamed by one of our own. We are not covering up the guy’s mistake, we are simply saying that it could’ve been done in a respectful manner. People will agree with me that what you just wrote displays how big of an ego you have and how judgmental you are when it comes to other people’s point of view. And is it ethical to call people who have a different view “cowards”, as how the author of the editorial had obviously mentioned? IQ? Please? You don’t even display having a decent one if you don’t know how to practice ethics in your writing. Your comments are just RANTS, an obvious way to catch people’s attention just so you can show them you can write with what you decently can manage as proper English… You’re turning out to be even worse than the author with your obvious display of arrogance. There is a difference between wisdom and intellect. You may have a high IQ (or so you claim), but no wisdom at all… Just full of hot air… (My apologies to the readers, but this prick had it coming…) Please feel free to comment sensibly next time. I suppose after this unfortunate incident, everyone has had enough of wannabe writers who think they can write. (e.g. “Why does this article SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED?” “When everyday, media people criticizeS decisions made by popular personalities? What difference did the editor make that MAKES this piece unethical, besides opposing your view on the RH bill?”– I took the liberty of highlighting in upper case letters your obvious mistakes in your supposedly “HIGH IQ” English. A high IQ person who can’t even write in straight and grammatically correct English? Go back to college, or even grade school, and fix your grammar… Laughable!)

          • Arrogance you say? Back read please and tell me who said that I do not have the capacity to understand since im not an alumni? And you didnt even get the part that I used the IQ part as a retaliation for the statement that I do not understand the situation. I thought that was clear, I guess I didn’t dumb it down enough to your level, my mistake.
            Also, you say that you are ashamed because you are an alumni? Well your alma mater should be ashamed of you as well.
            Ok so instead of answering the question on why this is unethical, you went on the grammar nazi route? Now that is laughable, ask your debate club what it means if you attack the grammar of your opponent and not his point.
            Also, I do not engage in the practice of sugar coating, I do not see the point of sugar coating posts on internet discussion. If I say your logic is dumb it’s because it is.

          • Grammar Nazi? Um, why comment if you can’t write straight? The reason we practice good grammar (and even correct spelling) is to prevent confusion and misunderstanding… I’ve already made my point and others have agreed to it. Obviously, your all-expanding ego just couldn’t take it… Enough said and good day…

          • In case you thuoght I was insulting you on the first reply, well I wasn’t. YOU were the one who misunderstood my statement and thought I was hitting your omnipotent EGO when I said, and quote, “You can’t understand how we alumni feel being shamed by one of our own.” Clearly others understood my statement correctly, and you didn’t. You thought, again I quote, “I do not have the capacity to understand since im not an alumni?”, was directed against your stand on the RH Bill issue or your opinion on this article. What this REALLY meant is that reading this article shames the pride we hold as alumni of UST. Again I quote from my previous comment, ” We are not covering up the guy’s mistake, we are simply saying that it could’ve been done in a respectful manner. ” Lack of logic you say? I guess your concept of logic only encompasses the borders of your bloated ego. No sense of humility at all, and full of arrogance… A shame to be even making a comment, just to show the whole world how brilliant YOU think YOU are. Ashamed? One of my former professors already reacted to your comment about your “High IQ”. And my debate club, by the way, won’t even let YOU join if your ENGLISH and logic is as flawed as yours. Learn the basics, kiddo. You’re shaming yourself the more you react.

      • I definitely agree. 🙂 For the past few days, I’ve been going back to this article (I’ve even bookmarked it.) because of the comments. I’ve read them all and I know for a fact that most were indignant not because of their RH bill stance but because of the lack of respect in this editorial. This editorial has been receiving a lot of flak recently not because it’s pro-RH bill but because of the way it was worded. The stand could have been presented in a more organized, respectful and responsible manner. After all, that’s what we all at least expect from any student publication.

  246. i’m glad i’m not a thomasian. in fact, i’m surprised that there is a comment section at all. reading from this editorial, it is apparent that there is no freedom of thought within ust. you can either swallow it all without critical thinking, or leave the university!

  247. i’m glad i’m not a thomasian. in fact, i’m surprised that there is a comment section at all. reading from this editorial, it is apparent that there is no freedom of thought within ust. you can either swallow it all without critical thinking, or leave the university!

  248. Catholics are sometimes non-Christianic in views and actions, like this one. If you really are a Catholic, live the Christian way – not judgmental.

  249. “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth”

    I salute UST for taking a clear and solid stand against RH Bill.

    The US and UK have a great RH law BUT they still have a high abortion and early pregnancy on their teens

    The US and UK have a great “AIDS/HIV” and condom use awarenes BUT they have high AIDS/HIV cases

    UNITED STATES

    Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
    Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

    Who’s having abortions (age)?
    52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

    RH Bill is not the solution.

    We need to stop corruption first, else no solution will be sufficient.

    UST keep it up!

    • Hahaha talo, and the last time I checked di naipapamalas sa talas ng dila at sa mapanlait na salita ang katalinuhan at katatagan ng kalooban. Just because those professors chose to take a stand, sasabihan mo na sila na wala silang kwenta? Eh anong tawag mo sa sarili mo hunghang na manunulat? pumipili ka din naman ng stand ah? at just because you published something on the internet lamang ka na? Saka magpakilala ka na kung matapang ka talaga kaw and by the way mali ata yung usage niyo ng word na “survive” sa bago niyong article. Mukhang kayo di man lang nagsurvive, patay sa lahat ng game haha (oh eto na since wala naman kwenta pinagsusulat mo sa article mo eto na rin mga walang kainteintelehente kong hirit na bagay sa mga tulad mo) supot at olats ka boy! Iyak ka na nalang wag mo na idamay ibang matitinong mga tiga UST! I suggest you end your life, and the other’s like you. Tama ka naman hindi naman talaga RH bill lang ang sagot sa overpopulation and other social problems eh, mga taong katulad mo rin kailangan wakasan ang buhay so do our country, ehemm, THE WORLD a favor and end your life now, kthnxbye! 😉

    • Hahaha talo, and the last time I checked di naipapamalas sa talas ng dila at sa mapanlait na salita ang katalinuhan at katatagan ng kalooban. Just because those professors chose to take a stand, sasabihan mo na sila na wala silang kwenta? Eh anong tawag mo sa sarili mo hunghang na manunulat? pumipili ka din naman ng stand ah? at just because you published something on the internet lamang ka na? Saka magpakilala ka na kung matapang ka talaga kaw and by the way mali ata yung usage niyo ng word na “survive” sa bago niyong article. Mukhang kayo di man lang nagsurvive, patay sa lahat ng game haha (oh eto na since wala naman kwenta pinagsusulat mo sa article mo eto na rin mga walang kainteintelehente kong hirit na bagay sa mga tulad mo) supot at olats ka boy! Iyak ka na nalang wag mo na idamay ibang matitinong mga tiga UST! I suggest you end your life, and the other’s like you. Tama ka naman hindi naman talaga RH bill lang ang sagot sa overpopulation and other social problems eh, mga taong katulad mo rin kailangan wakasan ang buhay so do our country, ehemm, THE WORLD a favor and end your life now, kthnxbye! 😉

    • …..that’s why your school was oh-so-portrayed correctly in Rizal’s books.

      Stopping intelectuals to voice out their opinions? Probably you lack some from your end.

      I respect the stand of each side, and the reasons behind it, but to curtail the voice of others just because ‘one of the oldest institution” dictates it?

      I had higher hopes for you people. Tsk tsk tsk….

  250. Read the whole article.. It has good argument that leads to call those people “intellectual pretender and interloper”. It’s an editorial and it’s opinion based. Nothing is wrong with the article. The problem here is the reader who cannot swallow its message. You who are affected cannot swallow its message because it proved its statements and gave good points… Actually, you can see no holes here. Now, to get even with this article, you result to bashing the author. funneh eh? And it’s even more funny to read the comments of Thomasians here..just to join the bandwagon you you condemn your fellow Thomasian. If you are so shameful and embarrassed, then look for another school.

    KUDOS!

  251. 1. Bashing the author just to get even with the article!
    2. Condemning your fellow Thomasian just to join the bandwagon of the “affected”.

  252. All i can say is…. This editorial is so un-catholic…so un-christian. Even Jesus Christ never criticized Pontius Pilate just to stregthen his image. There may be some truth to what he points out… But it was drowned out by the negative statements. Its like saying…. Im a really good person and i adhere to catholic teachings in contrast to my neighbor who is evil….. By his negative comments on the other institutions…. He has demonstrated his lack of understanding of what a it is to be truly Catholic

  253. I am an Atenean, a Catholic and I am Pro RH-Bill. I am surprised that this unwittingly written article got published. Taking a stand for what one believes in is not cowardice.
    I will not just swallow everything that is given to me by whoever be it the government or the Church. I will question, I will argue, I will reason and I will take a stand.
    The arrogance, the insults, the name callings and the narrow-mindedness in this article are so unChristlike (for someone calling himself/herself a Catholic). It’s a shame that the banters and rantings of this poor kid made its way into the school’s publication.
    Exercise prudence next time and be respectful to others.
    Cheers!

  254. I have read and studied the bill for the reason that i need to be prepared for a debate either pro or against the bill, and I respect everyone’s opinion about it but reading this article from a VERY RESPECTABLE PUBLICATION (BEFORE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN); it made me realize that PRO RH has their GUTS with RESPECT proclaiming what they think is right, but this editorial REPRESENTING the whole community of UST?? too arrogant, unprofessional, unethical and disappointing.

  255. Why do you think that by stepping on the heads of other people you have made yourself and your school taller than others? You seem to believe you are holier than many of the people who choose to respect your own ideas. I hope it brings you closer to Heaven but you ought to rethink your strategy because it is actually counterproductive.

    I think that when you outlaw free thinking in an educational institution you limit education. By sticking to one perspective and not considering other points of view you are doing an injustice to your own students. If you continue on this path, it will also be a reflection on how society views your students – that because they study in a rigid and inflexible environment they must also be rigid and inflexible people. That may be why so many people, including your own alumni, are against your thoughts. Maybe you assume too much that because you are able to write your editorial that you represent all that is the best of UST. Be careful please. Your intentions may be good but you may have just demonstrated poor character and alienated a lot of good people in the process.

  256. It is really unfortunate that UST, my beloved alma mater is again at the middle of another controversy. As a Thomasian I feel sorry for the irresponsible statements of the anonymous writer of the Varsitarian Editorial against Ateneo and La Salle, institutions that I truly respect.

    There is no way that the UST Varsitarian Editorial, “RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards” represents the general sentiment and position of the Thomasian Community. And there is no way that this article could be written by a genuine Thomasian no matter how hard he or she pretends to be.

    A true Thomasian is honest, respectful and truthful, one who truly follows the example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Writing with firm conviction does not mean expressing correct views; hitting people and institutions below the belt and putting them in bad light is not respectful; relying on hearsay and not substantiating one’s statements is not at all truthful.

    St. Thomas, whom we admire, is honest, respectful and truthful.
    He is honest at least in saying that he cannot know everything, that he cannot have full understanding of certain issues, that despite his numerous writings, he admits that all that he has written are nothing but “straw.” Hence a Thomasian cannot pretend to be all knowing, that he possesses the entire truth, that he has the monopoly of the truth about certain issues (RH Bill included) St. Thomas may be right in writing his opinions but he had deep respect for the opinions of others, often engaging his critics in a rational discussion and being open to the objections of others. Hence a Thomasian cannot simply set aside the opinions of others, even if he thinks these opinions are baseless or worthless. There are always two sides of one and the same coin. He must engage in an open and free exchange of ideas. Needless to say that a Thomasian university while standing on its values and tradition must be like an agora for free thinking where ideas can circulate freely and responsibly. After all, that is what a university stands for. St. Thomas was truthful in his presentations. He substantiated his arguments, considered many sources of information including those that are deemed heretical during his time. A Thomasian therefore must be truthful in his propositions as he fights for what he believes is true.

    Catholic does not mean uniformity and blind conformism. This term has been abused so much. For one, being “catholic” does not mean infallible; it does not mean that if one is catholic he or she is always right. While the term “catholic” refers to being whole or universal it does not mean uniformity of opinions and convictions. The Church admits and respects different convictions; and in the history of the Church we have seen changes in its positions including those considered to be “catholic.” Didn’t John Paul II apologize for the mistakes of the Church against science? Needless to say that a Catholic university must respect diversity of opinions and convictions, after all, that is what promotes intellectual growth and maturity.

    Catholic is not blind conformism and adherence. The Catholic Church while it teaches its doctrines and dogmas, respects individual conscience. No less than John Paul II stressed that freedom of conscience is a basic right. Of course it must be an informed conscience. There is nothing wrong with genuine opposition, an opposition that is respectful and contributes for the common good. John Paul II writing as Karol Wojtyla listed this as one of the genuine attitudes of active participation in a community. Blind conformism is the opposite of genuine opposition. A Catholic university then, while being true to its calling of being a defender of the Catholic faith, must respect individual conscience and promote genuine opposition. These are values promoted by no less than John Paul II.

    On a personal note I am happy with the different comments about this article. For me it shows that UST after all is a vibrant community of rational thinkers capable of self-criticism and self-evaluation. These comments show that we are a community who will not simply support any opinion just because it was aired or ventilated by a “Thomasian.” This show of dissenting opinions means that we value honesty, respect and truthfulness.

  257. dont be confused of interchanging “catholics” to “Christians”- catholics are not Christians and Christians are not catholics

  258. It is really unfortunate that UST, my beloved alma mater is again at the middle of another controversy. As a Thomasian I feel sorry for some irresponsible statements of the anonymous writer of the Varsitarian Editorial against Ateneo and La Salle, institutions that I truly respect.

    There is no way that the UST Varsitarian Editorial, “RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards” represents the general sentiment and position of the Thomasian Community. And there is no way that this article could be written by a genuine Thomasian no matter how hard he or she pretends to be.

    A true Thomasian is honest, respectful and truthful, one who truly follows the example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Writing with firm conviction does not mean expressing correct views; hitting people and institutions below the belt and putting them in bad light is not respectful; relying on hearsay and not substantiating one’s statements is not at all truthful.

    St. Thomas, whom we admire, is honest, respectful and truthful.
    He is honest at least in saying that he cannot know everything, that he cannot have full understanding of certain issues, that despite his numerous writings, he admits that all that he has written are nothing but “straw.” Hence a Thomasian cannot pretend to be all knowing, that he possesses the entire truth, that he has the monopoly of the truth about certain issues (RH Bill included) St. Thomas may be right in writing his opinions but he had deep respect for the opinions of others, often engaging his critics in a rational discussion and being open to the objections of others. Hence a Thomasian cannot simply set aside the opinions of others, even if he thinks these opinions are baseless or worthless. There are always two sides of one and the same coin. He must engage in an open and free exchange of ideas. Needless to say that a Thomasian university while standing on its values and tradition must be like an agora for free thinking where ideas can circulate freely and responsibly. After all, that is what a university stands for. St. Thomas was truthful in his presentations. He substantiated his arguments, considered many sources of information including those that are deemed heretical during his time. A Thomasian therefore must be truthful in his propositions as he fights for what he believes is true.

    Catholic does not mean uniformity and blind conformism. This term has been abused so much. For one, being “catholic” does not mean infallible; it does not mean that if one is catholic he or she is always right. While the term “catholic” refers to being whole or universal it does not mean uniformity of opinions and convictions. The Church admits and respects different convictions; and in the history of the Church we have seen changes in its positions including those considered to be “catholic.” Didn’t John Paul II apologize for the mistakes of the Church against science? Needless to say that a Catholic university must respect diversity of opinions and convictions, after all, that is what promotes intellectual growth and maturity.

    Catholic is not blind conformism and adherence. The Catholic Church while it teaches its doctrines and dogmas, respects individual conscience. No less than John Paul II stressed that freedom of conscience is a basic right. Of course it must be an informed conscience. There is nothing wrong with genuine opposition, an opposition that is respectful and contributes for the common good. John Paul II writing as Karol Wojtyla listed this as one of the genuine attitudes of active participation in a community. Blind conformism is the opposite of genuine opposition. A Catholic university then, while being true to its calling of being a defender of the Catholic faith, must respect individual conscience and promote genuine opposition. These are values promoted by no less than John Paul II.

    On a personal note I am happy with the different comments about this article. For me it shows that UST after all is a vibrant community of rational thinkers capable of self-criticism and self-evaluation. These comments show that we are a community who will not simply support any opinion just because it was aired or ventilated by a “Thomasian.” This show of dissenting opinions means that we value honesty, respect and truthfulness.

  259. I am disappointed to say the least in reading this Article. So young, and yet so arrogant. What is worse, however, is that it ostensibly mirrors the sentiments of UST and its student population, which, I am glad, the UST Administration, as well as many UST students and Alumni have categorically denied. To be candid, the article sounded like a bishop talking straight from the Dark Ages. Thankfully, we have more enlightened clerics nowadays. And what of cowards? Perhaps the editorial writer can publish his name so that he can put his foot where his mouth is.

  260. Although I may not agree with the harshness of this editorial’s note in some of its parts, I do fully agree with its basic point that a Catholic university must be faithful to its mission and not be ambiguous, especially in controversial issues concerning faith and morals because those are precisely the issues wherein its students and the public in general will look to the university for a clear stand, a guiding light.

    The editorial is right: teachers of Catholic universities who express opinions dissenting or contrary to Catholic faith cannot have their cake and eat it too. Spelling it out, they have no right to use their title and position as teachers of a Catholic institution when publicly expressing their opinions that are contrary to Catholic teaching.

    It is just the ethical thing to do. Even in business, it is unethical for an employee working for company X to identify himself as such WHILE speaking against the products or services of company X AND staying on in the company. If he does not believe in his company’s products/services, then he should be brave and honest enough to resign and go where his convictions lead him.

    If he wants to stay on, then he should bring up his critical observations privately and directly to the persons who have the
    competency to address these. It’s either one or the other.

    When teachers apply in a Catholic university to teach, they know the mission of the institution to teach the Catholic faith under the authority and guidance of the Catholic Church. So if these teachers, when already employed, do not agree with what
    the Catholic faith officially teaches, they should do either one of the following:
    – not say anything about the issue; or,
    – state it as any private individual exercising his right to expression but without using their position and title as teachers of that catholic university; or,
    – leave the university and then publicly state their convictions.

    To act as the concerned teachers of Ateneo and Lasalle have done is to misuse their connection to the Catholic university – they did it, whether deliberately or unwittingly, in order to attract attention to their viewpoint. Let’s face it, if they had not identified themselves as teachers of these catholic universities, who would have cared about what they said?

    And as for the management of Catholic universities whose teachers publicly express opinions contrary to Catholic teaching, this is definitely not the time to play safe. By being lenient and ambiguous, they betray on an even more serious level their school’s and their own Catholic identity. Again, a brave, honest choice has to be made: either be faithful to their Catholic mission or give up their claim to being Catholic.

    UST may not be the most prestigious university. But courage and honesty are more noble than prestige. And so I thank UST, her management, her faculty, the Varsitarian and all UST students for their courage and honesty – for being true to their Catholic identity in these pressured times of political correctness. As a UST graduate, you make me proud!

  261. As people under such Sectarian Institution, we should show respect to the views and stand of certain people in our community towards morality. We should live a life of Christianity. Yes! We should abide by the Canon law which merely oblige us of living a Christian life. But a part of it, is the respect of other party’s “free will.” If we are to judge people as to how they approach and move things, then we are the ones who seem to have a short supply of such intellectual honesty and moral conviction. Think. Respect. But never judge. I’m a Thomasian. And I know my conviction.

  262. “They’re scientists and experts, unlike the Ateneo and La Salle professors who are intellectual pretenders and interlopers!” You’re not experts. You’re hypocrites. Close minded – people who don’t think and view the issue in other perspectives. Are you even sure that your beloved university, the one who speak – highly of, and each one student truly is against the RH Bill?? Ateneo and Lasalle profs should be regarded because of their courage to speak out their opinions and beliefs regarding the issue. They did so without publishing stupid editorials, spreading wrong things about other schools. What a hypocrite. Is that what your so called “pontifical and royal catholic school” teaches you? Stupidity at its finest.

  263. Yung iba dito pinagmamalaki ang IQ nila at sabi pa ng isa,”you should have at least half of my IQ sabay diretso sa kanyang pang aalipusta ng article na ito. I wonder, does high IQ really help our countrymen to get out of this economic muck most of them are in right now? Kahit pa mataas ang IQ mo ko’ng para lang naman sa iyo ito wala ka pa ring silbi sa amin o sa iyong bayan. It is good that UST is even reminding us that the real solution to most if not all problems is the eradication of corruption. Of course this is going to be difficult. Kaya nga mas gusto nyo pa population control nalang kaysa eradication of poverty kasi nga ko’ng corrupt ka, mas convenient para ma-deflect ang attention ng mga tao away from corruption. Don’t mislead us, many Pro RH in the government are supporting RH Bill kasi nga they are telling us that it is always population and not their corruption that is causing our countrymen to become poorer by all these corruption they have been doing all along. Pero ko’ng maloloko nila mga tao into thinking na ang population ang nakakapigil sa pag angat ng kabuhayan ng mga Pilipino, lusot pa tuloy sila. I guess kakutsaba nila ang makikinabang nga mga contraceptives na ito. Kikita na naman sila ng malaki sa panloloko. Marami naman din silang naloloko kasi nga ang gagaling din naman manlinlang.

  264. I just wonder where the framer of the Varsitarian editorial is coming from. I will not deal anymore with the fallacies, ignorance, and hypocrisies the anonymous writer has committed. All I want to say is that it went beyond the fabric of journalism ethics and good taste. Sad times for campus journalism.

  265. Packed with facts and wits pero nawalan ng preno at masyadong judgmental ‘yung article. Tomasino ako at sigurado akong hindi lahat ng Thomasian ay Anti-RH Bill. Sayang lang at nadumihan ang 84-year brilliance ng The Varsitarian sa artikulong ito. Pero, saludo pa rin ako sa katapangang ginawa ng official UST publication. Mabuhay!

  266. Before this gets blown out of proportion we have to remember it is a student writer who wrote this article. And young people are young people. What some would term the exuberance or better still the brazenness of youth would be an apt description for this misfortune. But if it were a professor who wrote this then, that will be alarming indeed. It is unimaginable that this would be penned by a priest or a bishop of the Catholic faith. Now if there is a professor behind this young student writer who is gloating over all the negative attention and humiliation UST and the Varsitarian are getting from this article that professor more than anyone else should in all honesty reflect and have remorse for all the damage and hurt he has caused. If he thinks the article is doing a great service to the Anti-RH Bill cause, eh kailangan mag-isip isip at gumising gising siya. You never win an opponent’s vote by insulting and humiliating your opponent. And should we remind our editorial writer about the important lesson found throughout the Catholic Church’s history in this part of the world? Votes here are won perhaps more than by the force of reason and evidence, by the goodwill and trust generated by one’s honest effort.

  267. Wow, I’m appalled at how Varsitarian is so adept at pointing fingers to those who don’t share the same stand with their institution. (Like the people who tried to stone Magdalene?) Nonetheless, I believe you are so blessed to propagate this bill that I can already see you guys being welcomed by Jesus in heaven with open arms.

    If every man in this country could only think like this (or these) Varsitarian writer/s, I am very sure that all Filipinos will go to heaven.

    Again, cheers for your honesty, moral conviction and your fervor for evangelism.

    Btw, I am NOT a Catholic and this article added to the assurance that I’ve made the right decision to be an atheist.

  268. Marami sa ating tumatahimik lang sa gitna ng mga kontrobersyal na usaping kinakaharap natin. Ako masasabi kong ganun ako. Apathetic kumbaga o kaya at least man lang, passive, na halos parang wala nang pakealam. Pa’no nga ba mareresolba ang mga isyu kung walang nageere ng kanilang sentimiento. Alam ko hindi ko gusto ang laman ng article na ito pero ganun pa man, masaya ako para sa kanya na meron syang opinyon at panig. Sabi nga nila, ang hindi pagpanig ay parang pagpanig na rin sa mas nakararami. Kung gusto mong marinig, sabihin mo. Kung nakakasakit man para sa iba ang article na ‘to, sus, para namang wala na tayong pinagkaiba. Naiintindihan ko sya, at kung kontra man ako sa iniisip nya, di ako nasaktan. Dahil hindi nya rin ako naiintindihan. At ang sulusyong nakikita ko ay turuan ang taong ito at hindi lang punahin sa “pagkakasabi” ng opinyon nya.

    At bakit kailangan magpayabangan ng comment? Haay nako. Pero at least, dito naguumpisa ang mga tao na makealam at hindi lang palampasin ang mga isyung kailangang resolbahin.

    If I made a point or not, if i made a decent comment or not, sige judge me. Then again, think about what I said (try to understand kung magulo man sya). Ang mas nakakaintindi ang syang dapat magpasensya.

  269. Great piece! This editorial articulates the feelings of Catholics betrayed by fellow Catholics. It stands to reason that Catholics should not call themselves Catholics if they are unwilling to abide by the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    • I’m a traditional Catholic. That group of die hard out of touch with modern world Catholics. My two cents comment is that ignorance is the biggest enemy of our religion today. These so called educated professors and teachers of a Catholic institution are Novus Ordo Catholics
      So called because they follow Vaticcan 11.
      So it’s not surpising that they would have the courage to challenge the Bishops. Many probably would not even understand what I am talking about.
      In any case, this is not intellectual dishonesty, it’s pure ignorance and no real belief in God and it shows. God has provided us with everything we need to survive not the laws made by the government. The more of our freedoms we surrender to the government, the higher the likelihood that we will become their slaves. This subject is not a matter for the government to decide but a matter for our conscience to decide.
      Stop following the liberal world and start following your conscience that God gave us so we can have an orderly world.
      How many of those teachers/professors actually still pray a daily rosary? If they cannot honestly say that they do, then they have no business commenting on our religious convictions.
      PS I am a La Sallite and I have always admired Sto tomas and Ateneo. Just my 2 centavos.

    • I’d like to ask everyone who will read this. Is there anyone among you who have never sinned? If so, then I will agree that you have every right to condemn sinners like me, not just for this particular issue but for every other mistake you can list down. If not, then it will be best that criticisms are done constructively and realities considered. Enough of the rhetorics. Real life is far from how most people would paint it. Unless you have immersed yourself among the poorest of the poor, then the least we can do is tackle issues with respect towards opposing views, regardless of whether it is Catholic or not. The RH Bill is not solely a Catholic issue. It is the concern even of atheists. So, if you want to bring Christ closer to people, especially the faithful, come not like a brazen judge ready to spit fire from your ass to consume the sinners that we all are. Do you know the difference between Christ, the saints, and hypocrites. Christ and the saints converted people out of true compassion and love. They gave them options, but all done in the humblest of manners. Everything would be the opposite for hypocrites. As Sir Lito puts it, “it is un-Christian.”

  270. Observing emergence of “intellectual pretenders and interlopers”, “Jesuitic” and “lack of supply of ……….” the UST Varsitarian came out with an editorial: “RH Bill, Ateneo and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards.”

    Who is to be blamed? Answer: The INTELLECTUAL MERCHANTS/PROFESSORS OF CONTRACEPTIVES. The so-called academic freedom lovers/professors, who definitely have ascendancy over their students with no genuine opposition to their advocacy for RH bill, cannot escape liability for CONVERTING, wittingly or unwittingly, the blue and green universities into INSTITUTIONS OF CONDOMS and IUDs. This is UNFAIR. Objectively, mindful of the plight of their fellow students, the UST Varsitarian must have in mind the protection of Ateneo and La Salle students from such tirade emanating from professorial imprudence.

    A person who dislikes having been born in this world is most likely an adherent of RH bill. Expectedly, because of cheerless and unhappy childhood days, he passes on his hatred, becomes an agent of death of sperm/egg cells only of those inadequate families whom he conveniently calls as “poor”, then shouts academic freedom on funded RH bill for undeserved attention to display uncooperative muscle to the Catholic Church, the true source of strength of the poor.

    Ang mga anti-RH ay galing sa mga masasayang pamilya. Mabuhay red circle! Mabuhay University of the East!

  271. My OPINION about this is it’s not even about the RH bill. It’s about uplifting the school. If you truly want to show you’re against the RH Bill, why hit on Ateneo or La Salle only? They are just considered bulk supporters of the bill. Why not hit on the people who are trying to pass the bill in congress? Like Miriam Defensor Santiago? I don’t know if people get my drift here, and it’s really just my opinion, which I think every Filipino is entitled of, just as long as you do it right. I’m not a student of one of the schools, I’m a graduate residing outside of Manila, specifically Baguio. To me, right from the start of this article it just screams “Hey choose UST! We know what’s right and we know what to teach, we’re an expert at that! Compared to those pea- brained Ateneo and La Salle profs!”
    Makes sense right? RH wasn’t even mentioned but still matches most of the articles statements.
    Mr/Ms Editor, I respect your views, but please, either you’re trying to uplift your school or if you really just want to show you’re against something, at least be decent enough to leave the hurtful loathings out of your job.

  272. “But alas, it seems intellectual honesty and moral conviction are in such short supply in Katipunan, Quezon City and Taft Avenue, Manila”…. eh nasaan kaya??? nasa espanya na laging lubog??? I was looking for Christ humility…. walang wala… parang si padre damaso ang nakikita ko…. please, don’t boast that you’re a pontifical university… after this article??? parang it’s not reflective of the thinking of the pontiff…. this is really holier than thou… parang gustong maki-compete sa la salle and ateneo… hwag na lang… focus on the issue huwag ng manira ng iba… di naman kayo pinakikialaman… sila nga nagsasalita para sa kanilang mga sarili… ganun na lang… huwag ng mandawit ng iba…

  273. All I can say is; ‘what a completely fallacious article.’ Don’t get me wrong. I respect your right to express your opinion – yes, I respect it even if it means I have to fight for your right to exude fallacious thoughts. But, as a point of caution, for your own sake, next time you decide to be aggressive in writing, please, mind your logic. It would do your reputation good if you ‘argue’ and not ‘rant.’ Great opinions are always supported by good arguments and not by fallacies. Yours is supported by the latter. Thus, I am morally and rationally banned to admire your article.

    • You allege that the article is completely fallacious, but could not even point out what fallacies the article has committed. Good opinions are indeed supported by good arguments. I hope you practice what you preach and not make unsubstantiated allegations.

  274. Intellectual Merchants

    Observing emergence of “intellectual pretenders and interlopers”, “jesuitic” and “intellectual honesty and moral conviction short supply ……….”, the UST Varsitarian came out with an editorial: “RH Bill, Ateneo and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards.”

    Who is to be blamed? Answer: The INTELLECTUAL MERCHANTS OF CONTRACEPTIVES. Professors cannot use “academic freedom” to abuse their ascendancy especially over their helpless students who could not offer opposition to their RH bill advocacy without certainly getting fair grades. Now, for CONVERTING, wittingly or unwittingly, the blue and green universities into INSTITUTIONS OF CONDOMS and IUDs, the intellectual merchants’ liability cannot simply go unchecked. Objectively, mindful of the plight of their fellow students who are entitled to genuine Catholic education in a catholic-run schools, the UST Varsitarian (as it did to UST professors) must have in mind the social obligation to protect Ateneo and La Salle students from such unfair conversion or label emanating from professorial imprudence, inadequate medical knowledge and
    or/ lack of expertise.

    A person who dislikes having been born in this world is most likely an adherent of RH bill. Expectedly, because of cheerless childhood days, he passes on his hatred, becomes an agent of death of sperm/egg cells targeting those inadequate families whom he just conveniently categorizes as “poor,” exempts the few rich, then shouts academic freedom to justify his task for the well-oiled RH bill. While a professor in a catholic school may have the privilege to display an uncooperative muscle to the Catholic Church, he cannot imprudently use the very catholic institution where he gets his bread to advertise, directly or indirectly, the condoms and IUDs against which the teachings of the Catholic Church are directed. The recourse is for him to resign, make media mileage, freely display his self importance, then establish his own school of condoms and IUDs that can even accomote non-catholics.

    Observable fact: Ang mga “anti-RH” ay galing sa mga masasayang pamilya (“functional families”). Sana ganoon din sa mga pro.

    Prof. Arm Morayta
    Sociologist , Bicol

    • Gasp! So I guess even people with respected titles like “professors” and “sociologists” can be VERY subjective. First of all, look at your last statement, (Ang mga “anti-RH” ay galing sa mga masasayang pamilya (“functional families”). Sana ganoon din sa mga pro.), does not befit your supposed title. Plus how you GENERALIZE that RH bill supporters are unhappy people? It’s like saying that Catholicism is the only way for people to be happy? Mind you that, as I have said before, not EVERYONE in UST are Catholics. And not all Catholics disagree nor agree with the RH Bill. Yes, UST is a Catholic university, and it is highly influenced by Catholic doctrines. BUT the university is FIRST and FOREMOST an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IT IS NOT JUST A SEMINARY!!! I graduated from UST, and I am NOT Catholic. I studied Asian Studies. We were TAUGHT about philosophies that were not always compliant with Catholic teaching (Indian Philosophy, Chinese Philosophy, etc). Though we weren’t encouraged to turn from our beliefs to understand those philosophies, they still have points that were (and are) completely valid and CONTRADICT Catholic beliefs. If that is the case, then WHY does UST still allow and promote these studies? Again because IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION! As a professor, you DON’T have to BE a Catholic to become a good one, nor should you practice the “supposed” perfect Catholic life. As an educator and a sociologist, you SHOULD know the number of Catholics around the world who are NOT living the supposed perfect lives you claim they have. Look at South America. Almost all the countries in that continent are Catholics, but do they show a majority that live the happy life that you are professing? I studied history, and liked the subject so much that I took up my course in UST. I learned of the woes and triumphs of different peoples, civilizations and faiths. History has proven more than once that the Roman Catholic “way” had proved to be more disastrous than beneficial. Don’t deny that, that’s in the books. Times may have changed, and so has the Catholic Church, but there are still some things that don’t change. And those same mistakes are rearing it’s ugly head again. I admit that the RH Bill is NOT perfect. But just like the infamous Cybercrime Law, it can be amended. Labeling something to be completely evil, even if it still has good intentions, is just not the reasonable thing to do. As I said before, “The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.” Please think OBJECTIVELY. Aren’t educators and civilized people supposed to think that way?

  275. For me, I don’t care if you are PRO or ANTI RH BILL as long as
    1.) you read the bill
    2.) you understood the bill
    3.) you made your own decision regarding the bill — hindi yung nakikiride lang sa majority

    There’s nothing wrong with being anti rh, it’s just that the way this article was written is very close minded. I get it that it’s your opinion and this is your editorial but you also have to acknowledge that there is always another side to the issue and that you should respect their stand as well.

    • “For me, I don’t care if you are PRO or ANTI RH BILL as long as
      1.) you read the bill
      2.) you understood the bill
      3.) you made your own decision regarding the bill — hindi yung nakikiride lang sa majority” -Unless you are to ask the author directly, how else would you know that? Your argument is invalid.

  276. I am proud to be a Thomasian, ready to defend its faith and conviction . It must only be the wisdom from above that allows us to clearly see the will of God in matters that deal with the culture of life.
    If only we think simply about obedience to God’s natural laws,
    guided by the church’s teachings, it is not difficult to comprehend why this RH bill is so full of deception and ignorance. It is not difficult to comprehend why and how the artificial contraceptives can cause abortion and other medical complications.
    I am an obstetrician and I proudly stand side by side with UST’s anti-RH view. Thank you for your firm
    foundation!

    • I agree with you totally. To stand with Christ is to stand for LIFE. Let us all learn from other countries. There was a time in the US and other european countries where abortion was abhorable. Now, millions of babies aborted every year and it all started with the seemingly harmless planned parenthood program.

  277. Once again I am so proud to be a Thomasian. Good job to the writer of this article – Logical, straightforward, makes sense, courageous and most of all, truthful. God bless you for defending the Catholic Church… especially it’s unpopular stand against the RH bill.

    • Wow. How stupid can you get. ganyan ba ang mga students ng UST? I dont usually resort to calling names, but there are no other words to describe you people.

  278. You should be careful of what you say. Not all Thomasians are Catholics, and not all Catholics are against the RH Bill. As of the anti-RH catholics, binababoy mo ang image nila. Sinisira mo ang pangalan ng UST. Sana man lang pinag-isipan mo lang muna kung ano dapat isulat mo. Mag-ingat ka sa mga pinagsasabi mo, marami kang makakaaway. Pati Simbahan, makakaaway mo.

  279. To the Ateneo and DLSU Professors who dare bite the institution that feed them, here’s a good advice for you (Elbert Green Hubbard):

    If you work for a man, in heaven’s name work for him,
    speak well of him and stand by the institution he represents.

    Remember, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.

    If you must growl, condemn and eternally find fault,
    why, resign your position.

    And then when you are outside, damn to your heart’s content.

    But as long as you are a part of that institution, do not condemn it.

    For if you do, the first high wind that comes along
    will blow you away, and probably you will never know why.

  280. and here’s another reason why i’m not proud to be a thomasian, why i am so ashamed to admit that i’ve earned my medical degree from such a backward institution.

  281. Where is it? As a writer, I understand the need to argue on editorials such as these. But judging on one’s mental capability in an abrupt manner is hitting below the belt. We can pick our own nose, but of others is another thing. As a Thomasian, you must know that what makes St. Thomas wise is his humility. So bragging UST’s titles and status on the medical field is not a portrayal of the said virtue. As you point out, you entered this university. you are free to leave the confines of this institution if you refuse to practice its virtues.

    • Humility in according to St. Thomas Aquinas, “humility properly regards the subjection of man to God.” So the foundation where this argument is standing collapsed on it’s own when you point out the missing Thomasian virtue on the article that is humility.

  282. Dear unnamed Varsitarian editor,

    I’m interested by your comments! Let’s dissect it!

    Let’s base it on the theory of relativity!

    If CBCP=Catholic Church
    and Catholic Church=God
    So… God=CBCP

    Hmm. Weird argument.

    ADMU and DLSU support for RH Bill = Naive! They’re not physicians!
    “Contraceptives are dangerous!” – unsourced claim from the ‘UST community’
    UST is the Medical University in the Philippines. We are right! They are wrong!

    Hmm. Weird(er) argument.

    ADMU and DLSU didn’t reprimant their faculty for going against CBCP/Church/GOD!
    Shocking!
    At least UST told their faculty to support GOD!
    Why? Because WE provide a TRUE Catholic Education!
    Ateneo and La Salle don’t because their professors are against GOD!
    They should resign!

    Hmm. Weirdest argument.

    Thanks,
    A student from DLSU.
    Basically I’m a lemon. 🙂

    • “Hmm. Weird argument.” It’s definitely weird because your syllogisms are beyond wrong. CBCP = Catholic Church? What? That did not even made sense. Based from what is written here, anyone could infer that you did not understand what you have read. The only thing that I could agree on this comment is that you are a lemon.
      (P.S. read this well, you might misunderstood it.)

  283. its as simple as that. the editorial spoke of the naked truth, it felt like a dagger to the people concerned, hence the exagerated violent reactions! congrats to varsitarian of ust- always a chronicler of the truth.these people bashing the varsi editorial are just not used to campus papers who straight forwardly telll the truth. sanay sila sa sugar coating at media hype. be objective and truthful- it will set you free. kudos varsitarian. you are indeed a cut above other student publications. carry on

  284. its as simple as that. the editorial spoke of the naked truth, it felt like a dagger to the people concerned, hence the exagerated violent reactions! congrats to varsitarian of ust- always a chronicler of the truth.these people bashing the varsi editorial are just not used to campus papers who straight forwardly telll the truth. sanay sila sa sugar coating at media hype. be objective and truthful- it will set you free. kudos varsitarian. you are indeed a cut above other student publications. carry on

  285. Even though I am an Atenean, I laud you for this fearless and bold act that you have committed. As a true Catholic, I appreciated your view to defend and let morality prevail. I loved what you did, because as a paper of a Catholic institution, you have refracted the principles of your institution, unlike Ateneo and La Salle who did not uphold true courage by just pouring out minds without hearts unto what they write, not minding that they are carrying the name of Ateneo and La Salle. I want to help you spread the word by sharing and reposting your editorials, as an editorial writer myself and as a faithful Catholic. Keep up!

    • Yes, our school’s (Ateneo) also a Catholic institution yet however, we’re (I think I’d exclude you on that we’re) trained to think critically and challenge what has been instilled on one’s instilled knowledge as to how they’ve been perceived. If you review the history of the Jesuit fathers, they have been known to be critical and radical rather than just bluntly repeating everything that the Vatican says. Sure, the Vatican guides us to religious morality yet our human nature would devoid us of such capability to perfectly guide the Church. Jesuits teach us how to think. Ateneo teaches how to think. I’ll loosely quote a vandal I saw in UP Diliman which says, “If one would want to know the absolute truth, one must wrestle with God.” God’s perfect. The Vatican’s word is not God’s. It’s just a product of mere judgment after putting their shoes and pretending to be God. One can act and try to be God but one shall never possess the wisdom of God. I don’t claim any stand on RH whatsoever but I am appalled at how you denied Jesuit pedagogy.

  286. You didn’t have to bash both schools I came from. You don’t see the Ateneo’s Guidon publishing any articles about how RH Bill supporters are disillusioned by a false, narrow, compensative sense of morality. You must be as sinless as Jesus to entitle yourself such a high horse.

    And as far as I’m concerned, you did a hell of a good job bringing attention to your school newspaper. What bothers me is if your conviction is as strong as your golden and perfect catholic education, you shouldn’t have published this anonymously.

  287. I just wanna say that I don’t agree with the part of this article saying that those pro- RH Bill professors of Ateneo and La Salle are dishonest and don’t have the courage for their intellectual conviction. Well, for the fact that they go pro with the RH Bill, then doesn’t it simply imply that they are very honest with what they want and therefore, upon declaring themselves as part of the RH supporters, they have this so-called intellectual “conviction”? Ok, alright, I understand that UST is quite known for applying what the Catholic Church wants and they’ve been with it for over many decades, and I won’t even wonder if they want to continue the tradition, I respect them for that. I respect if they are against the RH Bill because that’s what they want to follow. What I am only pointing out here is that the author, you seem to be intellectual( I guess), but not courageous enough for publishing yourself as anonymous. Well, you know you should be honest and courageous to stand on your so-called “Intellectual CONVICTION”! Wonder if you even know that…=))

  288. Benedict XVI to Educators: I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the Church would obstruct or even betray the university’s identity and mission

  289. Putting all of the poisoning of wells and hasty generalizations aside, I would like to counter 2 points.
    First, you assert that the professors who promote the passage of the RH bill should resign because they have taken a stand that is directly against that of the Catholic Church. I must disagree with the flow of your thinking. Though there might be some merit in saying that the professors shouldn’t impose their academic freedom unto their universities by opposing the view of the Catholic Church and that the professors should express their personal opinions outside of their roles as professors of their respective universities, the professors shouldn’t have to repress their own opinions. As with any other issue, they shouldn’t solely teach what the Catholic Church has to say about the RH Bill because as much as these universities are Catholic institutions, UST, Ateneo, and La Salle are also educational institutions. As much as professors should be fully aware that they are employed at universities that undertake evangelical missions, professors should also be aware that their role is to expose students to all perspectives on a certain issue. In the case of the RH Bill, professors should present to their students both the Catholic and the scientific view on the bill; they should present both how the RH bill is beneficial and detrimental for the Philippine population. You say that professors should respect the Catholic position of their universities, but ultimately, their goal is to educate students, and holding from them a holistic view on a national issue is not the correct way to do so. Every thinking person has the right to their own stand. Universities -even catholic ones, are there to cultivate intelligent thought and discourse. NOT to be channels for indoctrination.

    Second, on a more technical note, you say that contraceptives cause cardiac problems and that these are unnecessary since the Philippines will achieve its public health goals anyway. I must point out that cardiac problems are side effects. Treating side effects as main effects is flawed thinking. Surgery has negative side effects. Medicine has negative side effects. Sterilization has negative side effects. But until it is proven that the rewards as worth more than the risks involved, we should not shun these things. I must also point out that efficiency in achieving our goals doesn’t imply that it has no room or no necessity for improvement. Yes, you may believe that we are on the right track, and if ever this holds any truth, any additional laws which are proven to be beneficial for our country should not be vetoed on the basis that existing laws are already effective.

    (Dr. Abrea is a group of Ateneo High School students who is doing an English assignment on logical arguments, and this comment is a result of this assignment.)

  290. Greetings! We are students from the Ateneo De Manila High School. As part of an English requirement for the third term of SY 2014-2015, our teacher, Ms.Caroline C. Laforteza requested that all of us, in groups of three, comment on the article, “RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards” posted last September 30,2012.

    After reading this article, we agreed that there are relevant points in its argument which we feel need to be thought about more. First of all, please do not attack the Ateneo and La Salle professors. We can see that with the words and the emotion directed towards the professors that the Varsitarian is not keen on those who support the R.H Bill. Calling these people lemons, cowards, dishonest and bandwagon riders in order to pass the claim of UST as more viable and acceptable.

    Along with that, praising UST and its accomplishments will not garner more followers in the rally against the R.H Bill. UST is a pontifical institute which does uphold Catholic values, but it is not the standard. UST is not the only Catholic institution in the Philippines, and highlighting its stands opposing the bill does not give more credit to their position because their stand is not necessarily deemed as right/the best by all.

    The article is also guilty of appealing to the traditions of the masses by playing the Christ card. UST is passing itself off as the university which serves God’s mission, as the one with the sole duty of evangelizing. This is a poor attempt to catch the emotions of many, not only because it appeals to tradition, but because not all readers of the article are Catholic/Christian and are not sold on its teachings.

    In what we read, we saw that the author bashes on the Ateneo and La Salle for not dealing with the supporters of the R.H. Bill in a more serious manner. He acknowledges that the professors have the freedom to speak but also the obligation to remove themselves from the Catholic university in which they work. The Ateneo and La Salle may be institutions that have a code of conduct based and centered on Catholicism, but that does not mean that they require all to follow this way of thinking. Ateneo and La Salle are open to the opinions and voices of all and are not in any way against their right to speak freely. In the end of it all, the universities, not the author, decides whether what the professors did was acceptable or not.

    This article claims that UST’s basis and foundation is the Gospel of Christ. Therefore, it falsely claims that the very act of lambasting the professors of Ateneo and La Salle is in accordance with Christianity. How can the Varsitarian discount the intellect of the two universities on the basis of personal statements which are not at all reflective of the stand of the schools in their entirety? In the first place, even UST has students and faculty who oppose the RH Bill.

    Most of the words in the article are spent in highlighting how as a whole, UST adheres to the Church while Ateneo and La Salle do not, without even dissecting the said bill and examining it part-by-part. What’s worse, when the bill was actually discussed, the arguments were invalid. For pregnancy complications not to belong in the Top 10 causes of women’s death is not enough reason for it not to be addressed. Likewise, the association of contraceptives to cardiac diseases cannot be universally accepted by all medical professionals, especially when the patients follow the advice of the doctors fully.

    Lastly, for UST to expect their professors and students to abide by the Church’s teachings without giving them the opportunity to formulate their own thoughts regarding the issue denies these citizens of their right to education and free expression. Yes, UST is a Catholic university, but not even the Church itself can impose a religion on others.

  291. For one of our tasks, our English teacher told us to comment on this article.
    To be able to explain the experience of reading this article, I will compare it to ordering a set of large fries and receiving some ketchup sachets along with it. With the proper proportion of ketchup to fries, the two make an amazing combination. The saltiness of the fries is complimented by the sweetness of the ketchup. Just like this, a proper argument must have the appropriate proofs and explanations to be able to present a good point. This article on the other hand felt like ordering large fries, but receiving a bucket of ketchup and a few potato peelings instead. The arguments presented by the author were focused mainly on attacking the opinions of people who supported the RH bill. Instead of presenting legitimate proofs, the article focused on using criticisms towards others and positive descriptions of those who were against the RH bill to try and persuade its readers. The author gave blatantly biased and opinionated points while discussing the issue. He mentioned only the negative extremes of the RH Bill to make those who agree with it sound like evil people. Furthermore, he claims that teaching at a Catholic institution forces one to believe in and support the school’s ideals without question. Although that being part of a Catholic school means that you are expected to abide by the ideals and the morals that the Church upholds, it does not allow any opinion or stand to be forced onto an individual who has the right to have and defend his/her own opinion. The author’s attack on the Atenean and Lasallian professors is extremely uncalled for. The author called them intellectually dishonest and cowardly for going against their school’s grain. These people didn’t go-pro RH just to go against their school’s stand or to flaunt their academic freedom. These people are thinkers who made their decision based on what they see in the RH Bill and what they believe to be best for the people. The article never gave ideas that actually back up UST’s stand against the RH bill, just some insights from people in the church saying that all those part of catholic institutions must live by the church’s stand and its belief. That’s it. In the end, it left us feeling sick and drowned in a sea of ketchup and potato peelings. Maybe it’s time to dial 8-6236 for another (hopefully better) order and to file a complaint to the manager. THANK YOU

  292. Greetings!

    We would like to begin this by stating that we are students from the Ateneo de Manila High School. Our English teacher showed us this article and asked that we comment on it.

    We found this article interesting because we cannot seem to determine whether this article is an example of the misuse of logic, the complete lack of logic, or a very, very, very convincing satire.

    Let’s look at the text.

    Nobody should question whether the University supports the Church’s stand as the Gospel of Christ is UST’s—and any Catholic institution’s—pillar and foundation.

    I suppose we cannot question that kind of dedication. Whether or not an institution for education should be more loyal to the principles of academia or the principles of its founders is a debate for another day. What we do want to question is simple. What is the stand of the Church on the RH Bill?

    It sounds like a stupid question, but forgive us. We are only Atenean high school seniors, worlds away from the intelligence of the UST faculty. But even so, isn’t it just a bit confusing? We all know that the CBCP is very vocal in their opposition towards the RH Bill, saying things like “Contraception is Corruption.” However, even as early as 2010, the Pope himself was willing to admit that contraceptives were acceptable in certain scenarios. So, if you put yourself against the RH Bill, are you standing with the Church, or with the CBCP?

    Recently, a number of professors from Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University have voiced their support for the RH bill. A close reading of the measure should show it promotes abortifacients.

    “While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.”

    Abortifacients, or substances that induce abortion, are in no way promoted by the RH Bill, at least according to the text of the bill itself. In fact, it makes a point of reiterating that abortion is a crime, and that anyone who suffers harm due to it should be treated in a humane manner. Therefore, the RH bill does not in itself condone abortion but rather states that we should treat those suffering from “post-abortion complications” with respect and dignity.

    If faculty members of UST and other Catholic schools feel they need to invoke their academic freedom to make known their stand in conflict with the bishops regarding the RH bill, then they’re free to do so. But they must resign from UST.

    Do they? Academic freedom is defined as the ability for faculty to inquire about and express thoughts and ideas to students, colleagues and others, without fear of reprimand or censorship. So if you admit that UST faculty members should be able to establish their stance on the RH Bill, you must also admit that they can do so without getting fired. That’s what academic freedom means. Not doing so is actually in violation of human freedom.

    However, let us take this article for what it has turned out to be: an argument against having RH bill supporters. The writer completely overlooks any proposed benefits the RH bill has and proceeds directly to speaking out against anyone who supports it. The fact stands. There is a need for reproductive health, and the only question is how the state will implement it. Concededly, the RH bill itself is not perfect. Hardly anything is. However, this is where we see the value of having two sides to a discussion. The fact that you have proponents and opponents for a bill means there will be countless intelligent discussions about it. People get involved socio-politically and speak out for or against the bill in question. With the help of informed discussions and opinions coming from multiple demographics, compromises and improvements are made in the construction of the bill. In this way, the bill can be pushed to its best form both in terms of the morals it challenges and the problem it hopes to address. Concededly, lawmakers cannot please everyone, but they can try. This form of discourse and feedback is the best way to do so. Hindering this kind of discussion can actually alter the intention of these discussions from intelligent debates to uninformed bashing.

    In conclusion, one cannot be so close-minded as to shut anything new out, especially in a fairly progressive society. Rather, it is much better to educate oneself about the issues he or she is experiencing and join into intelligent discussions about these issues to be part of the process in solving societal problems such as reproductive health. Commenting on national issues without information can only do more harm.

  293. “You can’t handle the truth.”
    Although harsh, this article is well-written. That’s why its called an “editorial”. Don’t get your panties in a twist. Let’s respect his/her opinion. This is a pretty brave thing to do. You deserve a high five. And btw, to that high school teacher who told her students to comment on this….wow… just wow. Awesome professionalism mate.

LEAVE A REPLY