Intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice

126
3248

vorpalIT TAKES guts to be a Catholic nowadays.

Many Filipinos are abandoning religion; they no longer see Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, as something relevant today. They have become “superior beings” who ungratefully attack the Catholic Church, claiming it hinders prosperity.

Such phenomenon is evident in the debate over the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill, which seeks billions in public funds for a massive contraception and population control program in the guise of reproductive health.

The debate has piqued the interest of many Filipinos, particularly the youth.Unfortunately, it also attracted bandwagon riders, who have nothing but poor rhetorics and fake hero-capes to boost their ego in the guise of contributing to the debate. They don’t bother to analyze the bill as long as they side with the popular, the charismatic, and the “enlightened” such as the Jose Rizal-wannabe Carlos Celdran whose idea of heroism is to make a scene in the middle of a Mass in the Manila Cathedral

When the Varsitarian released its fourth issue bannering the headline “Kontrasepsiyon ay Korupsiyon,” it drew the ire of many, especially those from UST (students and alumni alike).

One Thomasian Facebook user even commented on the Varsitarian’s front page photo online, saying “another biased article from the Varsitarian. Puro literary at opinion lang. Thomasians for RH!” His profile cover photo shows him smirking at UST’s pro-life poster and blatantly mocking it with a caption: “How come there wasn’t any survey conducted to get the side of the Thomasian Community?”

Such arrogance! He, along with other UST students and alumni who are attacking their Alma Mater for its stand on the RH bill, has no right to call themselves full-blooded Thomasians. How can you laud something that is proven harmful? Fool-blooded Thomasians would be more fitting.

Meanwhile, professors from Ateneo de Manila and La Salle recently threw their support behind the RH bill in separate position papers. What purpose, I wonder, does this action of them serve—aside, of course, from publicity and scandal? These professors wanted nothing more but to flaunt their “bravery” by supporting something the Catholic Church heavily opposes.

And when these professors finally got the attention they were desperately seeking—from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines who reminded them that they are teaching in Catholic institutions and should thus not use their Catholic credentials to contradict the Church—they protested their “persecution.” The cry-babies invoked their academic freedom, which merely betrayed their intellectual dishonesty: they showed that they had applied for teaching positions in high-tuition-charging elite universities in order to earn high salaries, nothing more, nothing less, without regard for the nature and function of Catholic education.

The Ateneo and La Salle faculty cheering squad for RH didn’t have any awareness that teaching in a Catholic institution goes with it the responsibility to uphold Catholic teachings that are espoused by the bishops, who are the magisterium or the successors of Christ’s apostles and therefore the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They seem oblivious to the fact that over and beyond academic freedom, which they invoke for self-serving ends, the Catholic school exists for evangelical purposes, and if they don’t agree with these, then they’re free to leave.

By supporting the RH bill and attacking the Church—and by staying put in their faculty positions, clinging to them like leeches—the Ateneo and La Salle professors don’t have the courage of their intellectual conviction. They’re cowards.

So what are these professors teaching their students? That it is OK to bite the hands that feed you and get away with it? Why do these professors even have the gumption to walk in the hallowed groves of the Catholic academe with their poses to mask their intellectual pretensions and moral cowardice?

Church law mandates universities vested with Catholic titles not only to adhere to Church teachings but also ensure that its teachers do the same, so that gives university administration to dismiss them.

There was nothing wrong (as far as freedom of expression is concerned) with their individual support for the bill. But it was a different story when they maliciously used the name of Ateneo and La Salle for their foolish crusade, deluding people into assuming that these Catholic institutions are actually for RH bill.

The 190 Ateneo professors claim that artificial contraception is the solution to “high maternal mortality ratio, rise in teenage pregnancies, and increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases,” while the 45 professors from La Salle said artificial contraceptives are needed to deal with population growth “to improve the quality of life.”

What is more upsetting is that these students and professors belong to respected universities, but they are promoting either stupidity or malice as seen in their separate statements.

Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases; curbing population may halt the country’s economic growth; and existing laws already cover family planning programs and maternal health.

But no amount of explanation will ever convince RH lobbyists, for they are either stupid (for not knowing the harm RH bill will bring) or malicious (for being aware of the harm but still supports the bill to satisfy their selfish interests).

It’s simple really. If they feel like they are being shackled and constrained, they should leave their institution as soon as possible.

Indeed, it’s hard to be a Catholic today. You’re always seen as old-fashioned—someone who hinders prosperity. To remain a Catholic, one must have the courage and the inner strength to endure criticisms and stand against the intellectually pretentious and the morally bankrupt.

126 COMMENTS

  1. So they are either stupid or malicious? 190 Ateneo professors and 45 DLSU professors. All either stupid or malicious. Have you talked to any of them? Have you ever tried to get their side of the matter?

    Cowards?

    Ateneo professors already had a stand way before the declaration of the 190.

    Intellectual dishonesty? Maybe you should post links and facts when you say “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases; curbing population may halt the country’s economic growth; and existing laws already cover family planning programs and maternal health. ”

    • No, really, it is.

      First of all, your premise is unfounded and poorly thought out. Is it really hard to be Catholic in the Philippines? I would argue that it isn’t at all. This article is written in such a way that it seems to present an image of Catholic persecution and widespread oppression. However, the Philippines remains a country that is largely Catholic, and it is still the most accepted and practiced belief. In other words; you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, sir. Just because the Catholic faith is being challenged doesn’t mean that it is being persecuted. 80% of the population shares the same beliefs as you, and by that virtue alone, you are safe. There is no courage required here, not in the largest Catholic country in Asia. I understand that it is one of the few times the Catholic faith has been challenged, and I understand that you are not used to criticism or opposition. However, like we should have been taught, it is important to remember that opposition does not equal oppression, and criticism is not persecution. Other people gaining does not mean you are losing.

      Secondly, what right does the Catholic church have to interfere with the affairs of the state? They are wholly separate in their ideals and ends. The Catholic church is an institution that ensures the well-being of people in the after-life. The state ensures the well-being of its citizens in the here and now. The Catholic church is not concerned with political science and economic principles; it does not concern itself with population figures and economic projections. It is wholly concerned with the morality of human life. The problem with this concern is that it is widely subjective. How do we define the moral? Is it moral to allow families living in poverty to grow? Is political meddling moral? Are contraceptives immoral? Who knows? Certainly neither you nor I do. At least, not in any absolute sense.

      Thirdly, as the above poster mentions, this is a poor article based on both logic and style. A quick Wikipedia search without citations does not allow you to generalise (yes, you can spell that with an “s”) and make sweeping statements on the nature of the bill. You fail to inform the reader of both sides of the argument, brazenly advocating your own. You attack people personally. Intellectual pretension and moral cowardice, really? It’d be just as easy to call you morally pretentious and intellectually cowardly. You also make several mistakes in grammar, though that could be considered nitpicking at this point. What it does show, however, is a failure to edit and to cite; laziness in writing is the bane of educated discussion.

      Indeed, laziness in this article is blatantly obvious. You fail to form a coherent opinion, you fail to back up that opinion with logical and meaningful arguments, and you fail to cite and edit your work. Yes, this is an editorial, and it is meant to be informal. That does not excuse you from being smart.

    • If there’s someone who’s stupid here, it is the author of the trash article. Cannot even give substantial justifications and arguments to his claims.

  2. i pity the author of this article. He is throwing accusations to other people that he himself is guilty of. This article has no class at all. Very cheap!!!

  3. This article reeks of arrogance, as expected of a classic Varsitarian opinion article.

    It’s just funny that you try and disowned one of your own for being a supporter of the controversial bill. Calling them arrogant is hilarious. I cracked up when you called them fool-blooded. It’s so sad that an arrogant writer would even try to call others arrogant while trying to emphasize how holy you are. The Ateneo-La Salle cheering squad was really nice too. That made me chuckle.

    What made me laugh the most is the article itself. I understand that an opinion article needs to have a stand, and taking a stand might take a form of arrogance, so it’s perfectly fine for an opinion article to have a certain amount of “swagger.” However, Mr. Gayya, I believe that your article’s arrogance is a bit too much. You’re trying a bit too hard to be a Conrado de Quiros. de Quiros is an arrogant chap, but he backs it up with facts. Hard, solid facts, with actual names and articles/journals/documents, unlike youre ambiguous “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers” and all that unnecessary jazz. The next time you’re going to write about a sensitive topic and you’re going to bring your arrogance to the table, please back it up with facts. Even Tito Sotto does that (he plagiarized, though).

    One more thing. I can’t help but be moved by your opening sentence. It is indeed hard to be a Catholic nowadays. Carlos Celdran (who you awesomely described, btw) definitely contemplated on the implications of barging inside the Church, in the middle of the service, to hold up a sign that says “DAMASO.” The 192 who signed in the document, some of them my professors, took into mind that they will be lambasted by the Church and by people like you. For them to be branded as cowards by someone like you is oxymoronic and disgusting. I bet that there are people among them who can write better opinion articles than you. The times are changing, and this is definitely not 1527. With the consistent change of society, an organization as stable and as constant as the Catholic Church is definitely going to have a hard time in this post-modern world. What the 192, along with the 45, did was to try incorporating their conscience, religion, and knowledge as one while tackling this issue, and that’s the stand they took up. If you hate their opinion, then it’s fine. But never use the pen to lambast any individual whose views are contrary to yours.

    The pen is a powerful tool. It’s such a shame that you’re letting your emotions run over your rational mind and you let your hand write this foolishness. Please think before you write, Mr. Gayya.

  4. Oh, Varsitarian. You’ve been publishing so much bullshit lately.

    Have some basis for what you’re writing. You sound like a preschooler who got ‘pikon’ and just started throwing nonsensical stuff just for the sake of saying something.

    Have you ever wondered why Catholics are turning their backs from Catholicism? It’s because of people like YOU. You shove your beliefs down people’s throats. Let them think for themselves. You can’t tell them what to believe in. And don’t assume that every Thomasian ought to share the same crappy belief. Thomasians are smart enough to know that they don’t need to do everything that the Church tells them to do.

    What annoys the crap out of me is that you, *some* Catholics, think that anyone who opposes you is on the bad side. So you think that pro-RH people are stupid. You think that non-Catholics need to be ‘saved’. Did it ever cross your mind that YOU might be the stupid one? That YOU might be the one who needs rescue? How come you always assume that you’re the RIGHT one?

    And abour that part where you said that Ateneo and La Salle are cowards… since when was standing up for what they believe in called cowardice? It makes me wonder if you’re actually thinking about the things that you write.

    “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases; curbing population may halt the country’s economic growth; and existing laws already cover family planning programs and maternal health.” — THIS IS BULLSHIT. Especially that part about the economic growth. Set your facts straight, for the love of God. (Here’s a good read: http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=1282)

    “But no amount of explanation will ever convince RH lobbyists, for they are either stupid (for not knowing the harm RH bill will bring) or malicious (for being aware of the harm but still supports the bill to satisfy their selfish interests).” — My thoughts on this one: no amount of UNEDUCATED explanation will ever convince an educated mind to believe bullshit. And on the other hand, YOU Catholics who refuse to listen to anyone will never get your peace of mind.

  5. I am a Thomasian, a Commerce Alumni and a former San Lorenzo Ruiz Scholar (4 Years). I owe my education to UST but I support RH bill – but that doesn’t mean that I am less a Thomasian than you are. PLEASE STOP as YOUR OPINION is giving UST an ugly picture. No matter how you look at it, this article is biased, stupid, irresponsible and most of all, OFFENSIVE. How can you judge other members of the UST community of being a “Fool-blooded Thomasian “simply because they have different take on an issue? How can you say that UST students are mocking their school if they ask legitimate questions such as How come there wasn’t any survey conducted to get the side of the Thomasian Community?
    It is EXTREMELY ARROGANT OF YOU to say that “Ateneo and La Salle professors harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems.” These people attained their positions because they are learned individuals who clearly have more experience, education and knowledge than you are! You even question the action of the administration of these universities who choose to respect the opinion of their members.
    UST may not support RH bill as it is within their right to do so, but to bash the opinion of other people for whatever position they choose to stand, whether or not they are working on a catholic institution, goes beyond rational thinking, good manners and IS VERY UN-CHATHOLIC!!!
    To the commentators and readers, Please keep in mind that what is written here is just the OPINION of the WRITER. Please do not judge other UST students and alumni based on this.

  6. Dear sir. May I first point out that your first line is a disgusting over-generalization. For you to say that anyone who disagrees with you can no longer be considered catholic is close-minded and does not adhere to your faith. I’ve always believed that the Catholic faith was founded on understanding, of looking at all points of view without judging. Something you obviously are not practicing. Though I will agree that there are those who attack the Christian religion when it comes to this debate, for you to dismiss every person who falls under the pro-RH side is just indescribable. You throw words around like “coward” and “intellectual dishonesty”, but you fail to give weight behind them. Where are your sources? You are as bad as the people you criticize. You think you’re in the right because you are in the minority, but you follow your own trend as opposed to deeply held personal beliefs. Otherwise, it would have been evident in your writing. You fall on the same category as the people you write about. Think before you speak. Once again. Don’t generalize. Generalization is the mark of an idiot, and I’d like to believe that the Varsitarian has not given such editorial power to an idiot. I personally am not entirely pro or anti the RH bill. I see the point in both sides. I would like to see educated arguments and not passionate tantrums by someone who fails to put himself in the shoes of others.

  7. UST students and alumni are not attacking the stand of the school against the RH Bill, that is only the indirect result of what writers like you are doing. Arrogant? Are you not arrogant yourself by saying that RH lobbyist are either stupid or malicious? Is that what your Alma Mater taught you?

    The professors of Ateneo and DLSU have all the right to express their stand on the issue – that is enshrined in our Constitution. They didn’t claim that it is the stand of the Universities they are working on. I don’t think that they should resign, why don’t the school just fire them if they think the teacher’s have done wrong.

    Actually, all your arguments here are already addressed. It is the likes of you who peddles poor rhetoric and unfounded and outdated arguments against the RH Bill. You have wasted this space just to bash those professors who happen to be on the other side of the fence. No substance whatsoever.

  8. Mr. Gayya, some words of advice regarding your article:

    “A bigot, even if he uses the most flowery words, is still a bigot.”

    Kindly pass on the same message to whoever wrote the editorial. Thank you.

  9. It’s amazing you would use jose rizal as the basis for your argument. Jose rizal wanted to be a part of Spain, but minus the agression. You regard him, with your lack of education, as a standard for a good pinoy

    Also, teachers are not sustained by the church. They are still individuals. As a writer, you should know about freedom of speech. How are they cowards, openly voicing their opinions? People get killed for that.

    Foolish crusade? Do you know when the last time “crusade” was used by the church? The church killed a lot of people because of that crusade.

    Their opinion is not malice, it is a point of view. You, however, have no room for opinion, any opinion other than yours is malice.

  10. You are the attention seeker riding on this “hot topic”. You got mine for the time it took to read your mediocre essay. Your opinions are irrelevant and thankfully will have little impact on my life or others.

  11. The sense of irony is weak on this writer. Write with facts, not emotions and ad hominem. Just friendly advice.

    Way to rise above everyone, Sir.

  12. Hey, i come from astudent group for the rhbill. Lets set it up in your school: a debate. Our debate groups versus the varsitarian. You may email me.

  13. No, really, it is.

    First of all, your premise is unfounded and poorly thought out. Is it really hard to be Catholic in the Philippines? I would argue that it isn’t at all. This article is written in such a way that it seems to present an image of Catholic persecution and widespread oppression. However, the Philippines remains a country that is largely Catholic, and it is still the most accepted and practiced belief. In other words; you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, sir. Just because the Catholic faith is being challenged doesn’t mean that it is being persecuted. 80% of the population shares the same beliefs as you, and by that virtue alone, you are safe. There is no courage required here, not in the largest Catholic country in Asia. I understand that it is one of the few times the Catholic faith has been challenged, and I understand that you are not used to criticism or opposition. However, like we should have been taught, it is important to remember that opposition does not equal oppression, and criticism is not persecution. Other people gaining does not mean you are losing.

    Secondly, what right does the Catholic church have to interfere with the affairs of the state? They are wholly separate in their ideals and ends. The Catholic church is an institution that ensures the well-being of people in the after-life. The state ensures the well-being of its citizens in the here and now. The Catholic church is not concerned with political science and economic principles; it does not concern itself with population figures and economic projections. It is wholly concerned with the morality of human life. The problem with this concern is that it is widely subjective. How do we define the moral? Is it moral to allow families living in poverty to grow? Is political meddling moral? Are contraceptives immoral? Who knows? Certainly neither you nor I do. At least, not in any absolute sense.

    Thirdly, as the above poster mentions, this is a poor article based on both logic and style. A quick Wikipedia search without citations does not allow you to generalise (yes, you can spell that with an “s”) and make sweeping statements on the nature of the bill. You fail to inform the reader of both sides of the argument, brazenly advocating your own. You attack people personally. Intellectual pretension and moral cowardice, really? It’d be just as easy to call you morally pretentious and intellectually cowardly. You also make several mistakes in grammar, though that could be considered nitpicking at this point. What it does show, however, is a failure to edit and to cite; laziness in writing is the bane of educated discussion.

    Indeed, laziness in this article is blatantly obvious. You fail to form a coherent opinion, you fail to back up that opinion with logical and meaningful arguments, and you fail to cite and edit your work. Yes, this is an editorial, and it is meant to be informal. That does not excuse you from being smart.

  14. No, really, it is.

    First of all, your premise is unfounded and poorly thought out. Is it really hard to be Catholic in the Philippines? I would argue that it isn’t at all. This article is written in such a way that it seems to present an image of Catholic persecution and widespread oppression. However, the Philippines remains a country that is largely Catholic, and it is still the most accepted and practiced belief. In other words; you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, sir. Just because the Catholic faith is being challenged doesn’t mean that it is being persecuted. 80% of the population shares the same beliefs as you, and by that virtue alone, you are safe. There is no courage required here, not in the largest Catholic country in Asia. I understand that it is one of the few times the Catholic faith has been challenged, and I understand that you are not used to criticism or opposition. However, like we should have been taught, it is important to remember that opposition does not equal oppression, and criticism is not persecution. Other people gaining does not mean you are losing.

    Secondly, what right does the Catholic church have to interfere with the affairs of the state? They are wholly separate in their ideals and ends. The Catholic church is an institution that ensures the well-being of people in the after-life. The state ensures the well-being of its citizens in the here and now. The Catholic church is not concerned with political science and economic principles; it does not concern itself with population figures and economic projections. It is wholly concerned with the morality of human life. The problem with this concern is that it is widely subjective. How do we define the moral? Is it moral to allow families living in poverty to grow? Is political meddling moral? Are contraceptives immoral? Who knows? Certainly neither you nor I do. At least, not in any absolute sense.

    Thirdly, as the above poster mentions, this is a poor article based on both logic and style. A quick Wikipedia search without citations does not allow you to generalise (yes, you can spell that with an “s”) and make sweeping statements on the nature of the bill. You fail to inform the reader of both sides of the argument, brazenly advocating your own. You attack people personally. Intellectual pretension and moral cowardice, really? It’d be just as easy to call you morally pretentious and intellectually cowardly. You also make several mistakes in grammar, though that could be considered nitpicking at this point. What it does show, however, is a failure to edit and to cite; laziness in writing is the bane of educated discussion.

    Indeed, laziness in this article is blatantly obvious. You fail to form a coherent opinion, you fail to back up that opinion with logical and meaningful arguments, and you fail to cite and edit your work. Yes, this is an editorial, and it is meant to be informal. That does not excuse you from being smart.

  15. No, really, it is.

    First of all, your premise is unfounded and poorly thought out. Is it really hard to be Catholic in the Philippines? I would argue that it isn’t at all. This article is written in such a way that it seems to present an image of Catholic persecution and widespread oppression. However, the Philippines remains a country that is largely Catholic, and it is still the most accepted and practiced belief. In other words; you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, sir. Just because the Catholic faith is being challenged doesn’t mean that it is being persecuted. 80% of the population shares the same beliefs as you, and by that virtue alone, you are safe. There is no courage required here, not in the largest Catholic country in Asia. I understand that it is one of the few times the Catholic faith has been challenged, and I understand that you are not used to criticism or opposition. However, like we should have been taught, it is important to remember that opposition does not equal oppression, and criticism is not persecution. Other people gaining does not mean you are losing.

    Secondly, what right does the Catholic church have to interfere with the affairs of the state? They are wholly separate in their ideals and ends. The Catholic church is an institution that ensures the well-being of people in the after-life. The state ensures the well-being of its citizens in the here and now. The Catholic church is not concerned with political science and economic principles; it does not concern itself with population figures and economic projections. It is wholly concerned with the morality of human life. The problem with this concern is that it is widely subjective. How do we define the moral? Is it moral to allow families living in poverty to grow? Is political meddling moral? Are contraceptives immoral? Who knows? Certainly neither you nor I do. At least, not in any absolute sense.

    Thirdly, as the above poster mentions, this is a poor article based on both logic and style. A quick Wikipedia search without citations does not allow you to generalise (yes, you can spell that with an “s”) and make sweeping statements on the nature of the bill. You fail to inform the reader of both sides of the argument, brazenly advocating your own. You attack people personally. Intellectual pretension and moral cowardice, really? It’d be just as easy to call you morally pretentious and intellectually cowardly. You also make several mistakes in grammar, though that could be considered nitpicking at this point. What it does show, however, is a failure to edit and to cite; laziness in writing is the bane of educated discussion.

    Indeed, laziness in this article is blatantly obvious. You fail to form a coherent opinion, you fail to back up that opinion with logical and meaningful arguments, and you fail to cite and edit your work. Yes, this is an editorial, and it is meant to be informal. That does not excuse you from being smart.

  16. All of us know that journalists play an integral role in keeping people accountable. In bringing to the fore stories that would most readily be swept under the rug. In highlighting the unsung heroes. And putting corrupt politicians to shame. In upholding democracy. And being the voice of the common man.

    Journalists are trained to be objective. To analyze, dissect, probe, and report on facts.

    To give people something to chew on. To spur discussion. To enable change.

    Journalists are supposed to be non-partisan. Not bring their personal biases into their professional lives. Weed out the sensation and focus on what matters.

    Look for the story, not make one up.

    Journalists are supposed to be ethical. Grounded. Gritty. Real.

    I have discovered most of this to be true.

    In theory alone unfortunately.

    Thanks to the likes of you, good sir.

  17. i am a thomasianand i will disagree with you- do not make this about the catholic church dumb twat! the Lord wants the good for His people not ignorance- fact is if you love others you will educate them and not make them suffer bec they want to better themseleves- if u want a lot more squatters and dead people then u go and pay for their lives healthcare and childrens education. you are a shame to the country.

  18. Dear Sir,

    I admire your bravery. As a Catholic, your conviction is commendable. Those Atenean and La Sallian infidels do not stand a chance against your fervent Catholicism. I love how you use words that are borderline libelous to get your point across. It’s as if you weren’t afraid of persecution (there’s this thing, you know, called the libel clause of the cybercrime law). I applaud you for that! You’re a real fool-blooded Thomasian sir! Good job on that!

    The CBCP thanks you for your stalwart defense of its belief system. You go, sir! Your rhetoric is infallible in every aspect. Yes, Ateneans and La Sallians are all of them “stupid and malicious.” (I’m looking at you, pro RH profs! you’re cowards, the whole bunch of you! Resign! Resign! Resign!) What else could they be, to be so disrespectful of the Catholic church, whose mandate is like…the LAW OF EVERYTHING!

    All those pro-RH lobbyists are so malicious, and so stupid! Imagine giving the people the freedom of choice, to take care of their reproductive health needs. That kind of freedom of course, is nothing like the freedom you’re exercising now, writing this article online and cussing out a few Atenean and La Sallian professors for their “malice” and “stupidity.” Nope, it’s nothing like that.

    This is freedom of expression, what you’re doing. What they’re doing, on the other hand, that’s totally WRONG. Because they’re using Catholic institutions like Ateneo and La Salle to forward their own selfish agendas! Yup, it’s wrong. It’s unethical. It’s a blatant disregard of the Catholicness of Ateneo and La Salle! I mean, who do they think they are being Ateneo profs and La Salle profs and supporting RH? If they want to be RH supporters, they ought to go teach in UP…right? right? I mean, students in Ateneo and La Salle shouldn’t even be allowed to have their own opinions on this! They’re students in a Catholic school! STUDENTS! They must follow the letter of the law as dictated by the CBCP!

    Who do these people think they are right? Sheesh…It’s really so hard to be a Catholic nowadays. Everybody has no morals, you know, they’re all FREEDOM this and FREEDOM that! Freedom, of course, should be dictated according to the CBCP. It is, after all, the “magisterium or the successors of Christ’s apostles and therefore the teaching authority of the Catholic Church,” and its mandate must be followed throughout the entire Philippines-even by Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Scientologists (as long as they’re in the Philippines! No wonder the Muslims want to fight us!)

    In closing, fellow fervent Catholic of fervent frivolousness, I support your crusade! Let us have a second inquisition to root out all those non-Catholic, pro-RH peoples of the Philippines! They have no moral compass whatsoever! They will burn in the fires of hell, because yeah, that’s what happens to RH supporters anyhow. Those sinners must be stoned to death in the pulpit of justice (I think it’s called a magisterium or some fancy shmancy word that implies religiosity of the extreme).

    In closing, you’re awesome! Keep it up!

    May the Lord (that is anti-RH) be with you!

    Sincerely,

    A Fellow Fundamentalist

  19. This behaviour is exactly why I find myself straying away from the Church. Catholics always feel wholly entitled to the world’s attention, always crying foul when other individuals present logical arguments and facts.

    Well you know what? It takes courage to be an atheist in a predominantly Catholic country. Think about it. One can be a devout Catholic and receive praise from others, but the minute he shows inclination towards another religion the country throws rocks at him. It has me convinced that Catholics cannot and will not respect a person’s religious freedom, so long as the other religion encroaches on their territory.

    But intelligence and religious piety are not mutually exclusive. Ironically enough, it seems that stupidity and religion go hand in hand. You seem so adverse towards the facts. Scared of knowing the intellectual truth? I’m not surprised.

    I’m no Thomasian, but you’re putting your good school to shame. How laughable. I’m probably going to reconsider whether I want to study at UST.

  20. Mas bagay ang post na ganito sa isang tabloid o ‘di kaya’y sa isang blog. Hindi ko lubos maisip kung bakit pinapayagan ng mga opisyales ng Varsitarian na mag-post ng mga walang saysay na mga sulatin ang mga staff nito. How low can you go? First you go lambasting Fr. Dacanay without researching on his background and now this? It’s quite funny that you irk Ateneans, La Sallians and Thomasians alike. Anong saysay ng pagiging full-blooded mo kung narrow-minded ka naman? I’d like to believe that Thomasians are so much better than this. People like the author of this post, as well as the advisers of this ‘Varsitarian’ are nothing but idiots who know nothing of what they speak of. Learn to research properly.
    Respect, class, and breeding. Try to go to a school that teaches those values because clearly, you guys don’t have any and it’s such a shame because your from UST. At least, may gamit pa din ang mga walang kwentang articles tulad nito. These tabloidish articles can be tackled on English classes which revolve around fallacies; pwede rin sa Logic class since it seems the author doesn’t have any; or sa Philosophy class bilang napaka-immature ng article na ito. If the Varsitarian continues to create articles like this, sana gawin n’yo na lang na blogsite ito at tawagin ang sarili n’yo na ”The official bloggers/ pampam of the University of Sto. Tomas”. Nakakahiya kayo.

  21. “Church law mandates universities vested with Catholic titles not only to adhere to Church teachings but also ensure that its teachers do the same, so that gives university administration to dismiss them.”

    Kindly proofread articles in the future.

  22. I wish you no ill will and I am bound, as a supporter of free expression, to respect your stand, but from one Catholic to another, I find this article to be grossly malicious, insulting, and logically fallacious. The Ateneo has already made its stand against RH Bill, and these 190 professors used the university’s name not for pretentious intellecting but to inform the public that Ateneo is a locus of intellectual freedom, and it allows — nay, it forms and supports — this kind of free expression. Their stand is informed, and sites facts and studies, unlike your article. Why not rather contribute to the discourse with rationality and a gentlemanly, Christian conduct? These 190 professors, despite most of them having masters degrees and doctorates, were never arrogant in their statements. You, on the other hand, sound like a scabrous, medieval ranter, who thinks that everyone who doesn’t think like you is either stupid or evil. You yourself know that we must all beware of that kind of thinking. I am sure that you are passionate about this discourse, and that is always admirable. But all of us have been warned to be careful not to confuse conviction with arrogance. Still, I wish you good luck in your collegiate, dilettantish journalistic opining.

  23. How can you question our being Thomasians for making a stand? We are not robots, nor are we puppets of the church. We choose to think differently. We are no longer in the middle ages. If making a stand and being “practical” makes us less of a Thomasian, then so be it. I would rather be part of a community that embraces diversity than be part of a community that is stuck in the middle ages. This is like a modern-day witch hunt.

    Instead of trying to post a “witty” editorial, go back to cheering for Game 2 of the finals. That’s where our school and it’s community is good at anyway.

  24. “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases; curbing population may halt the country’s economic growth; and existing laws already cover family planning programs and maternal health. ”

    What? Cite your source punk ass nigga

  25. Let me just state a fact: the roman catholic church is not always right. Case in point, they believed that the world was the center of the universe and they persecuted Galileo for what he thought was right. It is also interesting to point out that the Jesuits supported Galileo’s theory but Galileo was still found guilty by the church and ordered to be imprisoned.

    I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. But I also believe that the church is not always right. In the case of the RH bill, I do not agree with their views.

    BTW, I’m an not from UST but that shouldn’t make a difference. I admire those who have the guts to voice out their opinions in a responsible and mature manner, despite what authorities say. We should not shoot them down.

  26. Well sir, there is a problem when the religious begins to take matters into their own hands as if it were the Spanish Inquisition. Is it right then to follow the faith blindly? If yes, then you can say the Crusades, and the likes are legal and morally sound.

    I myself am a Catholic, but it does not give me the right to force my beliefs down anyone’s throats. I respect their opinions, I respect their decisions. I cannot judge their actions, only God can.

    Also, the opinion of a handful of people from an institution, does not equal to the voice of the entire institution. In fact, Fr. Jett has said it himself that there is no easy answer to the RH dilemma and that faith and reason should not be enemies but rather go hand in hand.

  27. Such arrogance! From you.

    Obviously you still have a lot to learn about the world you won’t be getting from your beloved Thomasian education. But I respect your views even though I do not agree with them. Hey, that’s already one thing you need to learn among other many things.

  28. Your level of discourse is disappointingly abysmal. One resorts to name-calling only if one has nothing substantial to say. And that, clearly, is true in your case.

  29. The best part about this article is that had this been written some 400 years earlier, we’d be arguing about the Earth being the center of the universe, as taught by the Catholic Church – and everything would still fit like a glove.

    A Catholic academe should always be an academe before it is a Catholic institution. I believe if something is truly moral and right, science and logic will naturally side with it.

  30. in a University where you get to relive the repressive rule of the friars and see no one standing up against it is not just an act of cowardice but also a betrayal of what our heroes have fought and died for…

    you have voices to speak, arms so you can hold together and young minds to think…

    such a waste…

  31. Mr. Gayya, you are spouting hypocritical bullshit for a newspaper that shouldn’t be “biased” at all. What do you care about the views of your fellow classmates and alumni? It’s their opinion same way as you’re entitled to yours.

    However to use your privilege to write for a newspaper to lambaste the decisions and opinions of others (fool-blooded?) is a mockery for what Varsitatarian (used to) stand for!

  32. Is it me, or could this same guy be the actual author of that other infamous article that’s been causing so much fuzz lately… Kid, your a journalist… Open your mind and look at the world objectively and not just on what our Alma Mater “professes” as morally right. You can be a Christian, Catholic, or whatever and still do the right thing without a moral authority telling you what to do. As I said in my reply to that dastardly excuse for an editorial, a True Christian (not just Catholic) leads by example. The reason why Catholics get a lot of flak in the past millenia is because they FORCE their way into almost everything they could get their hands on, even the affairs of state of many nations. Jesus Christ NEVER did this. His actions compelled people to move. If UST, the CBCP, and the Roman Catholic Church resorts to medieval tactics once more, then they will add another reason for people to look down on your faith. Return to the basics of Christianity and be passive, and most importantly pray. Pray for wisdom. Pray for the strength to fight the temptation to do the wrong things. If you are a True Christian, then you don’t need bishops, universities, or whoever influential wannabee to tell you what’s right from wrong. It should come naturally because God will ALWAYS tell you to do the right thing… Bless you all…

    • He uses the same metaphor of “biting the hand that feeds you”. That implies though that it is the RCC who pays the salaries of the professors. TEchnically, it is the students who paid the money. The bishops can all go away and UST will still be there. But remove the students and the UST closes the following day or convert into a convento.

    • true. pag nasa outside world na sya, marerealize nya nalang na there’s more to life than what UST wants us to believe. baka paglaki nya, maiintindihan nya na ang lahat. hintay lang tayo 🙂

    • I believe the writer wasn’t questioning the beliefs of other people, not even the fact that they are sharing it with the world… From what I understand, what the writer was trying to underscore was the fact that, if you want to go teach in a Catholic university, you better be prepared to support what that institution stands for – and if you are not in agreement with that, that’s well and good, but maybe distance yourself from that institution, since a lot of people would surmise that if you belong to a specific group of educators, that you stand WITH that institution’s views. This comment actually doesn’t limit itself to the world of the academe. It is, in fact, applicable to virtually any other profession – say, if you’re working for a particular company or bank, you better be sure that you are able to comply with that organization’s outlook and agree with it; otherwise, you won’t be effective in the work that you do, regardless of your position or role in the company. It does have a point, does it not?

    • 2 Years of me debating this bill I either receive Red Herrings and worst is ad hominems. This is a good example of it. The Catholic Church has no police force or an army. Then when on earth we have used FORCE? As far as I know.

      Now another this other one is again dismal? Open our minds? Truly we have opened our minds I even have a long thought about it but you yourself have disregarded the argument on health and just like any other red herring arguments that I myself heard that is…. Its ok that we risk our women on cancers btw 🙂 🙂 🙂 The benefits outweigh the downsides 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Truly apalling 🙂 🙂 🙂

      • Read your history well… The Vatican had an army. Or have you forgotten about the PAPAL STATES which existed and shrunk to it’s current size (Vatican City), absorbed by modern Italy and spit out to its current state. Yes, the Roman Catholic CHURCH had forced its way quite evidently in the past millenia into every single affair it can get, up til the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Need I remind you about the CRUSADES? How countless Muslims, innocent or not, were SLAUGHTERED because the popes (emphasis on the plural) then decreed that every pagan that get’s slaughtered in the Holy Land would surely lead to absolution from any past sin committed by the man who does so. The Church is NOT as infallible, as most of its blind “faithful” believe it to be. It may have toned down, but it still can’t be considered the ABSOLUTE and PERFECT moral authority you claim it to be. This should be sufficient enough to answer your IGNORANCE on your beloved institution NOT using FORCE! Or do you also prefer turning a blind eye to all the sins of the Church that clearly has been, and still is, part of recorded HISTORY.

        As for the health part, think about this: CELLPHONES. We use them and it has become a part of our daily lives. But guess what? There was also a study that radiation from our beloved cellphones pose as a potential cause for cancer. Heck, almost everything that we have these days, from noodles, to processed meats, to vegetables treated with pesticides, to the very polluted air we breathe every single day pose as a potential carcinogen! But we all ignore them because these are things we CAN’T avoid using or eating MOST or ALL the time! As for the contraceptives you have been vilifying, will women use them EVERY single DAY of their lives? Are they not given the CHOICE whether to use them or not? Anything used to excess CAN be fatal, even water, even air, even the food we eat every day.

        I think you’re looking at the picture from a paranoid’s point of view. Much like how the Church used to view science. To point fingers at a few free thinkers and label them as the worst kind of traitors in your faith just because they think outside the box is what I can refer to as being SO CATHOLIC!!! People ignore history because they think that it’s all in the past. But the reason we have history is to REMIND us of past mistakes and prevent them from happening again. Thinking MEDIEVAL never helps!!!

      • Read your history well… The Vatican had an army. Or have you forgotten about the PAPAL STATES which existed and shrunk to it’s current size (Vatican City), absorbed by modern Italy and spit out to its current state. Yes, the Roman Catholic CHURCH had forced its way quite evidently in the past millenia into every single affair it can get, up til the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Need I remind you about the CRUSADES? How countless Muslims, innocent or not, were SLAUGHTERED because the popes (emphasis on the plural) then decreed that every pagan that get’s slaughtered in the Holy Land would surely lead to absolution from any past sin committed by the man who does so. The Church is NOT as infallible, as most of its blind “faithful” believe it to be. It may have toned down, but it still can’t be considered the ABSOLUTE and PERFECT moral authority you claim it to be. This should be sufficient enough to answer your IGNORANCE on your beloved institution NOT using FORCE! Or do you also prefer turning a blind eye to all the sins of the Church that clearly has been, and still is, part of recorded HISTORY.

        As for the health part, think about this: CELLPHONES. We use them and it has become a part of our daily lives. But guess what? There was also a study that radiation from our beloved cellphones pose as a potential cause for cancer. Heck, almost everything that we have these days, from noodles, to processed meats, to vegetables treated with pesticides, to the very polluted air we breathe every single day pose as a potential carcinogen! But we all ignore them because these are things we CAN’T avoid using or eating MOST or ALL the time! As for the contraceptives you have been vilifying, will women use them EVERY single DAY of their lives? Are they not given the CHOICE whether to use them or not? Anything used to excess CAN be fatal, even water, even air, even the food we eat every day.

        I think you’re looking at the picture from a paranoid’s point of view. Much like how the Church used to view science. To point fingers at a few free thinkers and label them as the worst kind of traitors in your faith just because they think outside the box is what I can refer to as being SO CATHOLIC!!! People ignore history because they think that it’s all in the past. But the reason we have history is to REMIND us of past mistakes and prevent them from happening again. Thinking MEDIEVAL never helps!!!

    • awaits them.

      This is not a catholic invention. This is the teaching of Christ to His Church. For over 2000 years, it is the mission of the Church to bring Christ to all nations accross all generations. The Church does not impose. It proposes the message of Christ to all people. Man is free to obey God or disobey Him. But as catholics, we are morally obliged to obey Christ and his commandments and the teaching Authority of the Church handed down to our present day through the Holy Apostles and their successors. That’s why it is the primary duty of every catholic to know Jesus, love Jesus and to serve Jesus in the Church, which He founded. Of course, all these won’t be possible without God ‘s grace. It is the grace of God that we come to know Christ. It’s is the grace of God to love Christ and it is the grace of God to serve Christ. Without Him that sustains us, catholics, we are worthless and nothing. Apart from Christ, we are nothing and we can do nothing. We remain faithful to Christ even at the cost of our lives, just as the early holy martyrs have done. Their blood is the seed of the Church. We should be the light and the salt of the world, as the Lord has commanded.

    • awaits them.

      This is not a catholic invention. This is the teaching of Christ to His Church. For over 2000 years, it is the mission of the Church to bring Christ to all nations accross all generations. The Church does not impose. It proposes the message of Christ to all people. Man is free to obey God or disobey Him. But as catholics, we are morally obliged to obey Christ and his commandments and the teaching Authority of the Church handed down to our present day through the Holy Apostles and their successors. That’s why it is the primary duty of every catholic to know Jesus, love Jesus and to serve Jesus in the Church, which He founded. Of course, all these won’t be possible without God ‘s grace. It is the grace of God that we come to know Christ. It’s is the grace of God to love Christ and it is the grace of God to serve Christ. Without Him that sustains us, catholics, we are worthless and nothing. Apart from Christ, we are nothing and we can do nothing. We remain faithful to Christ even at the cost of our lives, just as the early holy martyrs have done. Their blood is the seed of the Church. We should be the light and the salt of the world, as the Lord has commanded.

  33. Wow. It’s perfectly fine to have a different opinion. After all, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. But please post some facts and actual scientists to back up your comments. This is not a blog, this is a university paper. You have an obligation to be a journalist. As it appears in the article, you are merely parroting claims by Anti-RH people.

    On a personal note, you may not like me but like I have a voice. Majority of the country’s population is Catholic, around 90% (double check for reference) And you think it is cowardly to be an Atheist? Based on that percentage alone, chances are if an atheist were to come out and profess his non-belief for the Church, then his family, his friends, his teachers, his relatives will have opposing views. To go against that overwhelming tide of loved ones is not easy. What is easy is to remain a Catholic and go with the flow.

    You also hate bandwagoners, if you see someone doing something wrong in your eyes will you not seek to help or to join people who are trying to make it right?

    I guess what you are doing is simple. Screaming persecution thinking that you are acting like Christ as he carried His Cross while actually being the Roman Centurions holding the whips and the crown of thorns.

  34. These are the rants of one rabid close minded Catholic. What kind of an article is this? Extravagant claims with no sources? No citations whatsoever? In other words SINOTTO! Wahaha! Your religion is not the only one in existence, sir. Yes I find it extremely hindering so I got out early and so far I’m doing fine, no lightning bolt striking or rains of fire and brimstone. That doesn’t make me “ungrateful” because the church never helped me anyway but never did I claim that I’m superior above all others. Instead you’re the ones claiming superiority, pretending to know the whims of a supernatural being that so far hasn’t made his second coming yet and condemning us all to hell. Your church is the one who’s ungrateful because we basically pay taxes for them to be able to halt traffic for their extravagant rituals and churches while the priests get fat without lifting a single finger, driving expensive cars and molesting little boys and girls. And how can you call those who back the RH bill either “malicious or stupid?” Are you comparing the intellectual capacity of Sen. Santiago (pro) versus Sen. Sotto (anti)? Seriously is there even a need to compare? LMFAO!

  35. Wow. It’s perfectly fine to have a different opinion. After all, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. But please post some facts and actual scientists to back up your comments. This is not a blog, this is a university paper. You have an obligation to be a journalist. As it appears in the article, you are merely parroting claims by Anti-RH people.

    On a personal note, you may not like me but like I have a voice. Majority of the country’s population is Catholic, around 90% (double check for reference) And you think it is cowardly to be an Atheist? Based on that percentage alone, chances are if an atheist were to come out and profess his non-belief for the Church, then his family, his friends, his teachers, his relatives will have opposing views. To go against that overwhelming tide of loved ones is not easy. What is easy is to remain a Catholic and go with the flow.

    You also hate bandwagoners, if you see someone doing something wrong in your eyes will you not seek to help or to join people who are trying to make it right?

    I guess what you are doing is simple. Screaming persecution thinking that you are acting like Christ as he carried His Cross while actually being the Roman Centurions holding the whips and the crown of thorns.

  36. These are the rants of one rabid close minded Catholic. What kind of an article is this? Extravagant claims with no sources? No citations whatsoever? In other words SINOTTO! Wahaha! Your religion is not the only one in existence, sir. Yes I find it extremely hindering so I got out early and so far I’m doing fine, no lightning bolt striking or rains of fire and brimstone. That doesn’t make me “ungrateful” because the church never helped me anyway but never did I claim that I’m superior above all others. Instead you’re the ones claiming superiority, pretending to know the whims of a supernatural being that so far hasn’t made his second coming yet and condemning us all to hell. Your church is the one who’s ungrateful because we basically pay taxes for them to be able to halt traffic for their extravagant rituals and churches while the priests get fat without lifting a single finger, driving expensive cars and molesting little boys and girls. And how can you call those who back the RH bill either “malicious or stupid?” Are you comparing the intellectual capacity of Sen. Santiago (pro) versus Sen. Sotto (anti)? Seriously is there even a need to compare? LMFAO!

  37. you seem to really feel strongly about rh that you cannot let it all out in just one article. by calling those with opposing views nasty names, you are putting our university and your paper in a very very bad light.

  38. “Indeed, it’s hard to be a Catholic today.”

    *calls on people who oppose the Catholic bishops’ view to resign from their posts–their bread and butter*

    FAIL

  39. I agree on the point that Professors who voice their opinions for the passage of the RH Bill should be precluded from using the name of the schools for which they work for as a pedestal for their individual concerns, not relating in any manner to their duties for and in behalf of the educational institution. Academic freedom to teach, does not entail freedom to voice an unauthorized opinion for the school you teach for. Particularly, if the school you teach for is a Catholic school and those opinions are “unbecoming” of a Catholic. They are entitled to voice their own opinions however not to voice the opinions of the school, especially when no such authority was given.

    Nonetheless, in this case, the fact that these Professors had indeed voiced support for the RH Bill, does not necessarily mean that they had voiced their opinion for and in BEHALF of the schools. The fact that they stated they were Professors employed by Ateneo or La Salle does not purport to show that they were acting on behalf of either school. They were merely expressing a collective belief and stating their capacities as Professors. They should not be sacked or persecuted, lest there be proof that they are forcing their opinions on the students themselves.

    However, the most alarming concern that I have with this and the previous editorial was the harsh rhetoric used to discredit and bash supporters of the RH Bill itself. I have read the RH Bill. I have attended various talks promoting both sides. There is merit to either side.

    On the pro, there is a great need to offer the greater public an option to use birth control methods to at least, prevent unwanted pregnancies if not reduce the population. Studies have indeed shown that offering the public contraceptives through government programs, does result in a remarkable decrease in ABORTIONS, legal or illegal.

    On the anti, depending on who you ask, there may or may not be abortificients contained in the Bill itself. The answer is dependent on where you believe the point of conception occurs. To illustrate, Depo-Provera shots prevent the thickening of the lining leading up to the Uterus, such that, even when the egg has joined up with the sperm, there can be no actual implantation in the womb of the woman. Catholics say that the meeting of the egg and sperm is indeed conception, and therefore, life begins there. The other view is that only in implantation does life begin because the process of nourishment and growth only begins therefrom.

    This illustrates that the fact of the presence of abortion in either case is a matter of belief and faith of every individual person.

    We must remember that although the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic nation, it does not mean to say that every person within its borders must adhere to Catholic beliefs. We must leave it up to the consituents themselves to decide upon the validity of such laws. We cannot cram our beliefs upon our fellow citizens who believe otherwise. Whether one is an atheist, agnostic, muslim, protestant, we are all entitled to decide for ourselves the laws which we deem fit to govern us. If it is for the greater good to destroy the RH Bill, then leave it to the greater population to decide what Good they are willing to accept. The wanton and unnecessary destruction of the credibility of either side is unproductive to the health of the nation when it devolves to such arguments such as “they are either STUPID or MALICIOUS”.

    The harsh rhetoric in which the Varsitarian slings stones against those for the RH Bill is in itself, unbecoming of a Catholic. It devolves the opportunity for intellectual discourse and persuasion to one of childish name-calling and dirt slinging. Cowards, Stupid, Malicious? Such words are unworthy of such a Royal Pontifical Catholic University.

    I do not despise the Varsitarian for being anti-RH Bill, it is their right to protest and debate laws which may contradict their beliefs. For even if I am vehemently against what you say, I will more vehemently defend, with my life, your right to say it.

    What I truly despise is the method in which the Varsitarian voices its own opinion. The need to bring down the stature of other persons to alleviate your own does is not fitting in legal debates, but rather finds more comfort in gossips between one high school girl to another.

    The irony here is that the persecuted Professors never condemned any person in their opinion. The Varsitarian on the other hand, saw it indispensable to destroy the reputation of the other professors, in conjunction with its argument against the RH Bill. This, in my eyes, puts you far below than those whom you persecute. You lost the moral and intellectual high ground when you resorted to words with little INTELLECTUAL or MORAL value.

  40. I agree on the point that Professors who voice their opinions for the passage of the RH Bill should be precluded from using the name of the schools for which they work for as a pedestal for their individual concerns, not relating in any manner to their duties for and in behalf of the educational institution. Academic freedom to teach, does not entail freedom to voice an unauthorized opinion for the school you teach for. Particularly, if the school you teach for is a Catholic school and those opinions are “unbecoming” of a Catholic. They are entitled to voice their own opinions however not to voice the opinions of the school, especially when no such authority was given.

    Nonetheless, in this case, the fact that these Professors had indeed voiced support for the RH Bill, does not necessarily mean that they had voiced their opinion for and in BEHALF of the schools. The fact that they stated they were Professors employed by Ateneo or La Salle does not purport to show that they were acting on behalf of either school. They were merely expressing a collective belief and stating their capacities as Professors. They should not be sacked or persecuted, lest there be proof that they are forcing their opinions on the students themselves.

    However, the most alarming concern that I have with this and the previous editorial was the harsh rhetoric used to discredit and bash supporters of the RH Bill itself. I have read the RH Bill. I have attended various talks promoting both sides. There is merit to either side.

    On the pro, there is a great need to offer the greater public an option to use birth control methods to at least, prevent unwanted pregnancies if not reduce the population. Studies have indeed shown that offering the public contraceptives through government programs, does result in a remarkable decrease in ABORTIONS, legal or illegal.

    On the anti, depending on who you ask, there may or may not be abortificients contained in the Bill itself. The answer is dependent on where you believe the point of conception occurs. To illustrate, Depo-Provera shots prevent the thickening of the lining leading up to the Uterus, such that, even when the egg has joined up with the sperm, there can be no actual implantation in the womb of the woman. Catholics say that the meeting of the egg and sperm is indeed conception, and therefore, life begins there. The other view is that only in implantation does life begin because the process of nourishment and growth only begins therefrom.

    This illustrates that the fact of the presence of abortion in either case is a matter of belief and faith of every individual person.

    We must remember that although the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic nation, it does not mean to say that every person within its borders must adhere to Catholic beliefs. We must leave it up to the consituents themselves to decide upon the validity of such laws. We cannot cram our beliefs upon our fellow citizens who believe otherwise. Whether one is an atheist, agnostic, muslim, protestant, we are all entitled to decide for ourselves the laws which we deem fit to govern us. If it is for the greater good to destroy the RH Bill, then leave it to the greater population to decide what Good they are willing to accept. The wanton and unnecessary destruction of the credibility of either side is unproductive to the health of the nation when it devolves to such arguments such as “they are either STUPID or MALICIOUS”.

    The harsh rhetoric in which the Varsitarian slings stones against those for the RH Bill is in itself, unbecoming of a Catholic. It devolves the opportunity for intellectual discourse and persuasion to one of childish name-calling and dirt slinging. Cowards, Stupid, Malicious? Such words are unworthy of such a Royal Pontifical Catholic University.

    I do not despise the Varsitarian for being anti-RH Bill, it is their right to protest and debate laws which may contradict their beliefs. For even if I am vehemently against what you say, I will more vehemently defend, with my life, your right to say it.

    What I truly despise is the method in which the Varsitarian voices its own opinion. The need to bring down the stature of other persons to alleviate your own does is not fitting in legal debates, but rather finds more comfort in gossips between one high school girl to another.

    The irony here is that the persecuted Professors never condemned any person in their opinion. The Varsitarian on the other hand, saw it indispensable to destroy the reputation of the other professors, in conjunction with its argument against the RH Bill. This, in my eyes, puts you far below than those whom you persecute. You lost the moral and intellectual high ground when you resorted to words with little INTELLECTUAL or MORAL value.

  41. I agree on the point that Professors who voice their opinions for the passage of the RH Bill should be precluded from using the name of the schools for which they work for as a pedestal for their individual concerns, not relating in any manner to their duties for and in behalf of the educational institution. Academic freedom to teach, does not entail freedom to voice an unauthorized opinion for the school you teach for. Particularly, if the school you teach for is a Catholic school and those opinions are “unbecoming” of a Catholic. They are entitled to voice their own opinions however not to voice the opinions of the school, especially when no such authority was given.

    Nonetheless, in this case, the fact that these Professors had indeed voiced support for the RH Bill, does not necessarily mean that they had voiced their opinion for and in BEHALF of the schools. The fact that they stated they were Professors employed by Ateneo or La Salle does not purport to show that they were acting on behalf of either school. They were merely expressing a collective belief and stating their capacities as Professors. They should not be sacked or persecuted, lest there be proof that they are forcing their opinions on the students themselves.

    However, the most alarming concern that I have with this and the previous editorial was the harsh rhetoric used to discredit and bash supporters of the RH Bill itself. I have read the RH Bill. I have attended various talks promoting both sides. There is merit to either side.

    On the pro, there is a great need to offer the greater public an option to use birth control methods to at least, prevent unwanted pregnancies if not reduce the population. Studies have indeed shown that offering the public contraceptives through government programs, does result in a remarkable decrease in ABORTIONS, legal or illegal.

    On the anti, depending on who you ask, there may or may not be abortificients contained in the Bill itself. The answer is dependent on where you believe the point of conception occurs. To illustrate, Depo-Provera shots prevent the thickening of the lining leading up to the Uterus, such that, even when the egg has joined up with the sperm, there can be no actual implantation in the womb of the woman. Catholics say that the meeting of the egg and sperm is indeed conception, and therefore, life begins there. The other view is that only in implantation does life begin because the process of nourishment and growth only begins therefrom.

    This illustrates that the fact of the presence of abortion in either case is a matter of belief and faith of every individual person.

    We must remember that although the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic nation, it does not mean to say that every person within its borders must adhere to Catholic beliefs. We must leave it up to the consituents themselves to decide upon the validity of such laws. We cannot cram our beliefs upon our fellow citizens who believe otherwise. Whether one is an atheist, agnostic, muslim, protestant, we are all entitled to decide for ourselves the laws which we deem fit to govern us. If it is for the greater good to destroy the RH Bill, then leave it to the greater population to decide what Good they are willing to accept. The wanton and unnecessary destruction of the credibility of either side is unproductive to the health of the nation when it devolves to such arguments such as “they are either STUPID or MALICIOUS”.

    The harsh rhetoric in which the Varsitarian slings stones against those for the RH Bill is in itself, unbecoming of a Catholic. It devolves the opportunity for intellectual discourse and persuasion to one of childish name-calling and dirt slinging. Cowards, Stupid, Malicious? Such words are unworthy of such a Royal Pontifical Catholic University.

    I do not despise the Varsitarian for being anti-RH Bill, it is their right to protest and debate laws which may contradict their beliefs. For even if I am vehemently against what you say, I will more vehemently defend, with my life, your right to say it.

    What I truly despise is the method in which the Varsitarian voices its own opinion. The need to bring down the stature of other persons to alleviate your own does is not fitting in legal debates, but rather finds more comfort in gossips between one high school girl to another.

    The irony here is that the persecuted Professors never condemned any person in their opinion. The Varsitarian on the other hand, saw it indispensable to destroy the reputation of the other professors, in conjunction with its argument against the RH Bill. This, in my eyes, puts you far below than those whom you persecute. You lost the moral and intellectual high ground when you resorted to words with little INTELLECTUAL or MORAL value.

  42. These are the rants of one rabid close minded Catholic. What kind of an article is this? Extravagant claims with no sources? No citations whatsoever? In other words SINOTTO! Wahaha! Your religion is not the only one in existence, sir. Yes I find it extremely hindering so I got out early and so far I’m doing fine, no lightning bolt striking or rains of fire and brimstone. That doesn’t make me “ungrateful” because the church never helped me anyway but never did I claim that I’m superior above all others. Instead you’re the ones claiming superiority, pretending to know the whims of a supernatural being that so far hasn’t made his second coming yet and condemning us all to hell. Your church is the one who’s ungrateful because we basically pay taxes for them to be able to halt traffic for their extravagant rituals and churches while the priests get fat without lifting a single finger, driving expensive cars and molesting little boys and girls. And how can you call those who back the RH bill either “malicious or stupid?” Are you comparing the intellectual capacity of Sen. Santiago (pro) versus Sen. Sotto (anti)? Seriously is there even a need to compare? LMFAO!

  43. Gayya’s latest article in his column Vorpal (the sword in the poem Jabberwocky which was written by suspected pedophile Lewis Carroll) shows outright fallacies, defeating his own allegations against Ateneo and La Salle’s professors of intellectual dishonesty.

    First, he derisively calls some pro-RH supporters as “bandwagon riders” as having “poor rhetorics” and “fake hero-capes” (perhaps he meant fake-caped heroes or fapped cake heroes). This is an ad hominem attack in which Gayya is not addressing the argument against the RH bill but instead resorts to name-calling his opponents, a tactic often used by those inclined to noise rather than substance.

    Gayya further exclaims “[s]uch arrogance!”, name-calling again another fellow Thomasian as a “fool-blooded” one rather than of full-blood, whatever the latter actually means.

    And there’s the glaring generalization of citing the unnamed expert lawyers and economists who have predicted that contraception will lead to a halt in the economic growth or that existing (uncited) laws already cover maternal health.

    Gayya offers no let-down of his name-calling spree and tirades, reducing RH lobbyists as “stupid” and “malicious”, without even presenting to the us readers, the validy or invalidity of the pro-RH arguments.

    Gayya is, thus, himself guilty of the intellectual dishonesty and the arrogance that he charges upon others.

    We would have expected better written and reasoned out article from Gayya or the Varsitarian for that matter. Better tomes have been published by scholars of that 400 year old school, especially the “thesis/speech” which was rigorously “defended” by Corona.

  44. Wow! You changed the entire article. It still reeks of arrogance.

    Also, you never published my earlier comments. What’s a matter? Did I hit a nerve? You, sir and the statements you made in your previous version of this article, are the polar opposite of the Christ I know.

    Now, by changing your article, you’re a liar too.

  45. “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases.” [citation needed]

    Bend over for bishops, bro. They like their altar boys that way.

  46. Gayya’s article in his column Vorpal (the sword in the poem Jabberwocky which was written by suspected pedophile Lewis Carroll) shows outright fallacies, defeating his own allegations against Ateneo and La Salle’s professors of intellectual dishonesty.

    First, he derisively calls some pro-RH supporters as “bandwagon riders” as having “poor rhetorics” and “fake hero-capes” (perhaps he meant fake-caped heroes or fapped cake heroes). This is an ad hominem attack in which Gayya is not addressing the argument against the RH bill but instead resorts to name-calling his opponents, a tactic often used by those inclined to noise rather than substance.

    Gayya further exclaims “[s]uch arrogance!”, name-calling again another fellow Thomasian as a “fool-blooded” one rather than of full-blood, whatever the latter actually means.

    And there’s the glaring generalization of citing the unnamed expert lawyers and economists who have predicted that contraception will lead to a halt in the economic growth or that existing (uncited) laws already cover maternal health.

    Gayya offers no let-down of his name-calling spree and tirades, reducing RH lobbyists as “stupid” and “malicious”, without even presenting to the us readers, the validy or invalidity of the pro-RH arguments.

    Gayya is, thus, himself guilty of the intellectual dishonesty and the arrogance that he charges upon others.

    We would have expected better written and reasoned out article from Gayya or the Varsitarian for that matter. Better tomes have been published by scholars of that 400 year old school, especially the “thesis/speech” which was rigorously “defended” by Corona.

  47. Hmm, if you are the same author of that other article, then it is good to finally see your face and name. A journalist MUST ALWAYS stake both for his/her words. If it really is you congratulations and good luck.

    But back to topic, I am really concerned on how your articles got through even with a/an Adviser/s. I don’t mean to attack that/those Professor/s, but he/she should have taught you kids there how to write fair and balanced. Further more, this may be your opinion, but they should also have already taught you on how you represent the school, and should write with the University in mind. If you notice both from this article and the other controversial one, It was the author being attacked by the community and not the University. (but in the eyes of the public, the University seems villainous just because of one person’s careless words)

    Kid, you are young and believe us when we tell you on how you really lack the experiences of life. It is natural after all, and every one goes through it. I don’t mean to say that you don’t know what you are talking about, because really you are very knowledgeable and we commend you on that. But there are things you cannot express with merely knowledge. Wisdom though is fruit of age and experience. You can never just claim it. Why did I get there? because your words are filled with arrogance and lack one of the most fundamental, if not the core of the Thomasian mindset. It is the one thing you will see that Thomasians never lose out there in the fields – HUMILITY. And straight up I will tell you, you are a self righteous jerk.

    A person who stands with his/her words is commendable, But the one who by his/her own will learns and admits mistake deserves the highest of praise.

  48. please limit your “straw-man”. it’s not always catholics vs non-catholics. it’s not always catholics vs non-believers. there are other religions too, and there are those who left religion from there too. though it is true that some non-catholics or former catholics are pro-RH essentially your polar opposite on the matter, it is also true that others just don’t care or even share in your anti-RH point of view. My point is please don’t lump everyone together vs the catholics. That would be unfair and ultimately, un-Christian.

  49. Hmm, if you are the same author of that other article, then it is good to finally see your face and name. A journalist MUST ALWAYS stake both for his/her words. If it really is you congratulations and good luck.

    But back to topic, I am really concerned on how your articles got through even with a/an Adviser/s. I don’t mean to attack that/those Professor/s, but he/she should have taught you kids there how to write fair and balanced. Further more, this may be your opinion, but they should also have already taught you on how you represent the school, and should write with the University in mind. If you notice both from this article and the other controversial one, It was the author being attacked by the community and not the University. (but in the eyes of the public, the University seems villainous just because of one person’s careless words)

    Kid, you are young and believe us when we tell you on how you really lack the experiences of life. It is natural after all, and every one goes through it. I don’t mean to say that you don’t know what you are talking about, because really you are very knowledgeable and we commend you on that. But there are things you cannot express with merely knowledge. Wisdom though is fruit of age and experience. You can never just claim it. Why did I get there? because your words are filled with arrogance and lack one of the most fundamental, if not the core of the Thomasian mindset. It is the one thing you will see that Thomasians never lose out there in the fields – HUMILITY. And straight up I will tell you, you are a self righteous jerk.

    A person who stands with his/her words is commendable, But the one who by his/her own will learns and admits mistake deserves the highest of praise.

  50. I’m embarrassed for you. You need to get out and get some perspective. Obviously you have none, and your whole identity is based on your alma mater. Wala kang sariling identity. I pity you.

  51. when i was in UST, i remember the varsitarian as something upheld and was an honor to a part of.

    now, with the advent of these kids… damn. these articles only serve to divide, not unite.

  52. Is there something wrong with people abandoning “Religion”?
    FYI some people really found freedom without religion. And speaking from an Agnostic’s point of view, losing religion doesn’t mean losing beliefs and morals but rather just having the freedom to consider and follow whatever morals you think and deem that needs to be observed and followed. Having no religion too does not mean that an individual loses his faith or spirituality. It is far more deeper than that.

    Religions , more often than not, shove to their followers morals/teachings which they need to follow even if this is against their will/belief. If a certain religious group consider things as right or wrong you must follow them blindly for the sake of “honoring” and being a “devout” member of that religious group.

    This is one of the reason why most people and not just Filipinos are Agnostic or Atheist. Most people just cant stand the hypocrisy of these “devout” members.

    Where is the sense of enlightenment and learning in blind faith?

    I, for one admire these professors whom you called “stupid and malicious” for having a stand against a certain issue even if it is against their institutions beliefs. Having a different perspective or view to a thing does not make them stupid. Neither does it make them right or make them wrong.

    You cannot have a whole bunch of people agreeing at almost everything. And this is one good example of it. Even in brotherhoods it happens. Even at home this happens. You cannot disregard that fact. We humans have our own understanding and opinion. Free will as what they call it, which is a gift given to us by God.

    So my friend, please learn how to respect others. Learn to be humble and do not be self-righteous. Freedom of expression is our right, but we must not abuse its privilege.

  53. Is there something wrong with people abandoning “Religion”?
    FYI some people really found freedom without religion. And speaking from an Agnostic’s point of view, losing religion doesn’t mean losing beliefs and morals but rather just having the freedom to consider and follow whatever morals you think and deem that needs to be observed and followed. Having no religion too does not mean that an individual loses his faith or spirituality. It is far more deeper than that.

    Religions , more often than not, shove to their followers morals/teachings which they need to follow even if this is against their will/belief. If a certain religious group consider things as right or wrong you must follow them blindly for the sake of “honoring” and being a “devout” member of that religious group.

    This is one of the reason why most people and not just Filipinos are Agnostic or Atheist. Most people just cant stand the hypocrisy of these “devout” members.

    Where is the sense of enlightenment and learning in blind faith?

    I, for one admire these professors whom you called “stupid and malicious” for having a stand against a certain issue even if it is against their institutions beliefs. Having a different perspective or view to a thing does not make them stupid. Neither does it make them right or make them wrong.

    You cannot have a whole bunch of people agreeing at almost everything. And this is one good example of it. Even in brotherhoods it happens. Even at home this happens. You cannot disregard that fact. We humans have our own understanding and opinion. Free will as what they call it, which is a gift given to us by God.

    So my friend, please learn how to respect others. Learn to be humble and do not be self-righteous. Freedom of expression is our right, but we must not abuse its privilege.

  54. Is there something wrong with people abandoning “Religion”?
    FYI some people really found freedom without religion. And speaking from an Agnostic’s point of view, losing religion doesn’t mean losing beliefs and morals but rather just having the freedom to consider and follow whatever morals you think and deem that needs to be observed and followed. Having no religion too does not mean that an individual loses his faith or spirituality. It is far more deeper than that.

    Religions , more often than not, shove to their followers morals/teachings which they need to follow even if this is against their will/belief. If a certain religious group consider things as right or wrong you must follow them blindly for the sake of “honoring” and being a “devout” member of that religious group.

    This is one of the reason why most people and not just Filipinos are Agnostic or Atheist. Most people just cant stand the hypocrisy of these “devout” members.

    Where is the sense of enlightenment and learning in blind faith?

    I, for one admire these professors whom you called “stupid and malicious” for having a stand against a certain issue even if it is against their institutions beliefs. Having a different perspective or view to a thing does not make them stupid. Neither does it make them right or make them wrong.

    You cannot have a whole bunch of people agreeing at almost everything. And this is one good example of it. Even in brotherhoods it happens. Even at home this happens. You cannot disregard that fact. We humans have our own understanding and opinion. Free will as what they call it, which is a gift given to us by God.

    So my friend, please learn how to respect others. Learn to be humble and do not be self-righteous. Freedom of expression is our right, but we must not abuse its privilege.

  55. Is there something wrong with people abandoning “Religion”?
    FYI some people really found freedom without religion. And speaking from an Agnostic’s point of view, losing religion doesn’t mean losing beliefs and morals but rather just having the freedom to consider and follow whatever morals you think and deem that needs to be observed and followed. Having no religion too does not mean that an individual loses his faith or spirituality. It is far more deeper than that.

    Religions , more often than not, shove to their followers morals/teachings which they need to follow even if this is against their will/belief. If a certain religious group consider things as right or wrong you must follow them blindly for the sake of “honoring” and being a “devout” member of that religious group.

    This is one of the reason why most people and not just Filipinos are Agnostic or Atheist. Most people just cant stand the hypocrisy of these “devout” members.

    Where is the sense of enlightenment and learning in blind faith?

    I, for one admire these professors whom you called “stupid and malicious” for having a stand against a certain issue even if it is against their institutions beliefs. Having a different perspective or view to a thing does not make them stupid. Neither does it make them right or make them wrong.

    You cannot have a whole bunch of people agreeing at almost everything. And this is one good example of it. Even in brotherhoods it happens. Even at home this happens. You cannot disregard that fact. We humans have our own understanding and opinion. Free will as what they call it, which is a gift given to us by God.

    So my friend, please learn how to respect others. Learn to be humble and do not be self-righteous. Freedom of expression is our right, but we must not abuse its privilege.

  56. Has it ever occurred to you that these people who oppose the church have reasons other than stupidity or malice? If yes, include it in your article, and add your opinion.

    Do you know what exactly the RH bill addresses? Write it down. Add your opinion that answers this question: “Do you think this problem really needs to be fixed?”

    Can you provide alternatives to the RH bill to fix the problems it addresses? Quote people who support these alternatives.

    What is the perspective of this article? First person? or third person?

    Does your article contain malice against a certain entity? Or does it take a certain side in an argument? It shouldn’t.

    The basic pattern when writing an editorial article involving an argument is this; Quote the leftist side, then quote the rightist side. And then your own opinion. Do not include any sides’ opinion. Only your own.

  57. If you can’t say something good and being a biased then don’t talk at all.

    I will not argue with a pea brain like you.

  58. I suppose that it really is hard to be a catholic nowadays, particularly when your faith and belief find themselves perpendicular to one another, but far from impossible. I highly doubt that taking a position that isn’t aligned with the stance of your religion leaders, automatically invalidates your faith, and makes you a morally bankrupt coward. Isn’t it far more courageous (gutsy, even) to take a stance (regardless on which side of the argument it may be) and stick to it despite the expected onslaught of criticism and possible mudslinging? Isn’t it far more cowardly to make harsh, attacks at groups who’ve actually made an attempt to stand by their convictions for what they believe is the right thing to do? That it is far more dishonest and morally questionable to dismissively reduce these groups to an insulting label that only serves to further the rift on the debate than to seek a common ground for intellectual discourse? Isn’t it an incredible disservice to intellectuality, rationality, and the academe to blindly follow mandates by simply being associated with, or a member of a particular group? Maybe the next time we simply want to prove how well we use words to an audience, we can write about constructive, and unifying things instead.

  59. I can’t believe that someone could be such an arrogant and one-sided person, whoever wrote this should be very much afraid right now. Your reasoning is nothing more than a child’s reasoning. You call yourself a ‘thomasian’? You know for me you are nothing more than a hypocrite cowering in the shadows of the school editorial. COWARD! You can’t even make a proper stand by identifying yourself.

  60. I can’t believe that someone could be such an arrogant and one-sided person, whoever wrote this should be very much afraid right now. Your reasoning is nothing more than a child’s reasoning. You call yourself a ‘thomasian’? You know for me you are nothing more than a hypocrite cowering in the shadows of the school editorial. COWARD! You can’t even make a proper stand by identifying yourself.

  61. “Unfortunately, it also attracted bandwagon riders, who have nothing but poor rhetorics and fake hero-capes to boost their ego in the guise of contributing to the debate.”

    — I think the author of this article is referring to himself when he wrote this line. The mere fact that he starts calling people who support it as either stupid or malicious makes him both. And like the bandwagon riders, he’s doing nothing to help in solving this issue, but just getting a lot of attention and raised eyebrows.

    • like the name christian grey.. the sadist and masochist character in 50 shades.. hehehe.. you’re really a pro RH bill.. hehehe

  62. Wow, you people don’t learn, do you? You’ve already gotten flak for your “editorial” and then you come up with another piece which speaks along the same line.

    If you wanted to argue the merits of your case, you do not personally attack other people espousing opposing convictions. You lay out your argument in an intelligent and respectful way. You also do not jeopardize the name and reputation of the institution you claim to represent. THAT is biting the hand that feeds you. Your advisor has already apologized on your behalf. That should tell you something.

    The thing is those of you against the RH are so focused on the sex component of it you forget that most of the things you are advocating for can extend to other things as well – things which you apparently care little about. You say all life is sacred? Ha! You could care less for the environment. You say you advocate for the health of women and don’t want contraceptives because of their ill side effects. But that’s also true for a lot of drugs on the market, and yet you don’t speak out against it. You seem to be so busy being holier-than-thou you forget to be regular humans and to just simply THINK.

    You haven’t even talked to any of these professors and you dare tell them that they are stupid and malicious? Being Catholic and being arrogant are two different things. You know, face-to-face and with the way you’ve stated your views, these professors would call you one word directly to your face, and aptly: Bastos.

    Live and see more of life. The old ones don’t always get it right, sure. But if you must digress, do so in a manner that is respectful and bear in mind that part of being young means keeping in mind that the real world is often very different from our idealized notions of it. After you’ve been through a few hard(er) knocks, you may still have your convictions but you will be kinder towards those who don’t share your views.

    • I think, the other provisions in the RH bill are good i.e. improving women health etc. But the thing is, these good provisions are already contained in scattered laws which are already in effect. In reality, the only new provision is about contraceptives and the funding that it would get. Hence, RH bill is just a compilation of existing laws promoting women health but with an added provision – contraceptives.
      Ok, let us be practical. How many times does an average person have sex in a month? They may be regular or even sporadic right? What more of the poor people who are idle most of the time who are tempted to engage in sexual intercourse? So does the pro-contraceptives want the women to drink pills everyday? What if they forgot to drink and got impregnated? They will now drink more contraceptives in the opinion that it could stop the fetus to further develop. Moreover, aren’t the pro-contraceptives promting the view that women are sex objects? eh may contraceptives naman pala, sex na lang palagi di ba? ganun ba gusto nyo?
      Another thing, how about the sex education in the bill which will be taught in the early formation stage of a child? Di ba dapat mas maganda kung optional lang yun at ibigay sa parents and decision if they want their children to be sexually educated in school?
      last, tanggalin na lang kasi funding sa contraceptives and then icompile yung ibang health provisions para contained na lang sa isang law. tapos

    • Go Varsitarian! Do not be swayed! Stand your ground! Remain courageous and firm! It’s time to call a spade a spade. No more hiding for fear of bashing. Defend the ideals and doctrines of the church. If not you, then who? Do not be scared of backlash from loud and self-preserving indies. GO USTE!

    • “You say you advocate for the health of women and don’t want contraceptives because of their ill side effects. But that’s also true for a lot of drugs on the market, and yet you don’t speak out against it.”

      But the thing is, with those drugs, you are curing a certain disease. What exactly are you curing mostly with contraceptives? Pregnancy? Is pregnancy a disease?

  63. Another waste of cyberspace and tuition fees. You are not a journalist if you are too judgmental of ones own opinion. Respect the other half of Thomasians who support the RH bill, besides, whatever the stance may be all are called still THOMASIANS.

  64. Hmmm, ganon tlga mga UST ppl noh, BASTOS.

    Idk, i watch game 1 of UAAP bbol and their headcoach, their leader, goes apeshit on a ref threatening to kill the guy with a WWE undertaker geasture due to a missed call. Homicidal b!@#%

    These ppl doesnt seem to realize what sort of reponsibility they have as a leader-of-men. Guess it shows, the UST crowd started throwing stuff at the refs and booed during our song.

    This editor guys seems to think that having space in the school paper allows him to talk-shit. Parang antapang nga eh, baka “the rock” naman idol niya.

    TL;DR Yup ganon lang tlga UST ppl BASTOS. Ew

  65. Hmmm, ganon tlga mga UST ppl noh, BASTOS.

    Idk, i watch game 1 of UAAP bbol and their headcoach, their leader, goes apeshit on a ref threatening to kill the guy with a WWE undertaker geasture due to a missed call. Homicidal b!@#%

    These ppl doesnt seem to realize what sort of reponsibility they have as a leader-of-men. Guess it shows, the UST crowd started throwing stuff at the refs and booed during our song.

    This editor guys seems to think that having space in the school paper allows him to talk-shit. Parang antapang nga eh, baka “the rock” naman idol niya.

    TL;DR Yup ganon lang tlga UST ppl BASTOS. Ew

  66. Hmmm, ganon tlga mga UST ppl noh, BASTOS.

    Idk, i watch game 1 of UAAP bbol and their headcoach, their leader, goes apeshit on a ref threatening to kill the guy with a WWE undertaker geasture due to a missed call. Homicidal b!@#%

    These ppl doesnt seem to realize what sort of reponsibility they have as a leader-of-men. Guess it shows, the UST crowd started throwing stuff at the refs and booed during our song.

    This editor guys seems to think that having space in the school paper allows him to talk-shit. Parang antapang nga eh, baka “the rock” naman idol niya.

    TL;DR Yup ganon lang tlga UST ppl BASTOS. Ew

  67. Go Varsitarian! Do not be swayed! Stand your ground! Remain courageous and firm! It’s time to call a spade a spade. No more hiding for fear of bashing. Defend the ideals and doctrines of the church. If not you, then who? Do not be scared of backlash from loud and self-preserving indies. GO USTE!

  68. It’s really disappointing to see the youth being dragged by the ideas of the people who are considered influential to them. I believe that the issue of the RH Bill, should be investigated INDIVIDUALLY and everyone MUST HAVE THEIR OWN STAND on the issue. You don’t have to join the bandwagon of the anti-RH people just because your leaders tell you to do so. And come on, your arguments are so lame. Napakaspoon feeding naman pala sa university niyo kung ganyan ang magiging reason ng stand mo. God gave you free will, thus you should use it and not let others manipulate it. Have you actually read the bill? Or you just read it with a stand already in mind? Didn’t you at least opened your mind to the possibilities once the RH bill is passed?

    UST is the dream school of many of my classmates in high school. I’m glad I’m not one of them.

  69. Please do continue to speak out and not be affected by the views of dissenting Catholics. Varsitarian is giving hope to the many faithful Catholics who love life and the silent majority who are just too timid to speak out because of the harsh backlash from know-it-all pro rh advocates. You have fearlessly inspired the faithful Catholics to not be afraid to stand up for the Faith and speak out for the Truth! Thank you very much for shining brightly as our LIGHT! Warmest regards from UP Diliman. Keep it up!

  70. Perhaps, if you stop using words like STUPID and MALICIOUS, stop generalizing people, stop personally attacking them, and instead start stating the facts and the rationale behind your stance, then people might start taking you seriously.

    STOP LIONIZING YOURSELVES BY DEMONIZING THE ANTI-RH MOVEMENT. Just makes you look more STUPID and MALICIOUS.

    The merit of your arguments are lost in your self-righteousness, it’s making people hate on your beliefs. It’s becoming obvious you (the Varsitarian) are trying to generate attention, but boy are you getting the wrong one. People look down upon you now and wouldn’t take any word to merit. You really want that?

  71. “The 190 Ateneo professors claim that artificial contraception is the solution to “high maternal mortality ratio, rise in teenage pregnancies, and increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases,” while the 45 professors from La Salle said artificial contraceptives are needed to deal with population growth “to improve the quality of life.”

    This actually is the most LOGICAL thing to do in the present time. You’re MENTAL to say that biblical, religious teachings and words of your priests can stop people, specially on the under privilege side of the population from getting the population growth any lower.

    I am disgusted with that kind of thinking. So IS YOUR SO CALLED CATHOLICISM so harsh that they don’t wish the people better lives?

    In the decade that passed ( I didn’t even included centuries) Have your TEACHINGS helped any people have a better life? Spiritually maybe but how can you live every passing day with suffering?

    I know that there are words in the bible like “humayo kayo at magpakarami” but I DO BELIEVE in GREATER UNDERSTANDING of the words of GOD that somewhere around that line also says BE RESPONSIBLE for the FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY AND KIDS.

    BUT NO, squatters as you may call them, attend these so-called masses but what do they learn from it? Feeling good from going to church doesn’t put FOOD on the TABLE, gives your kid PROPER EDUCATION, even teach you about FAMILY PLANNING and SEXUAL CONTROL, GOOD JOBS, PROPER SHELTER despite the continuous efforts of the government. AND YEAH YOU PEOPLE ALWAYS BLAME THE GOVERNMENT FOR NOT HAVING ENOUGH “FUNDS” TO HELP YOUR CATHOLICS HAVE A BETTER LIFE.

    AND IF YOUR PRIESTS ARE SO DAMN SACRED WHY DO THEY RAPE WOMEN AND KIDS? WHY DO THEY BREAK THEIR CHASTITY OATH SOMETHING? WHY ON EARTH THAT THEIR WORD SHALL BE LAW?

    Please wake up from your foolishness and may your God help you. Unless your CATHOLICISM has a better plan, just keep your mouth shut. I DO ADMIRE SOME CATHOLICS WHO USE THEIR MIND THAN YOU WHO BLINDLY FOLLOW SOME WORDS SPOKEN BY YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEING AS IF THEY ARE GODS. Because “YOUR KIND” of people doesn’t even help anyone.

    SO DOES YOUR SO-CALLED “MORALITY” ALLOW PEOPLE TO DIE IN HUNGER AND SUCCUMB TO GREATER POVERTY? If that is how you define morals, I do feel pity for you. I hope your God can forgive your evil mind.

  72. “The 190 Ateneo professors claim that artificial contraception is the solution to “high maternal mortality ratio, rise in teenage pregnancies, and increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases,” while the 45 professors from La Salle said artificial contraceptives are needed to deal with population growth “to improve the quality of life.”

    This actually is the most LOGICAL thing to do in the present time. You’re MENTAL to say that biblical, religious teachings and words of your priests can stop people, specially on the under privilege side of the population from getting the population growth any lower.

    I am disgusted with that kind of thinking. So IS YOUR SO CALLED CATHOLICISM so harsh that they don’t wish the people better lives?

    In the decade that passed ( I didn’t even included centuries) Have your TEACHINGS helped any people have a better life? Spiritually maybe but how can you live every passing day with suffering?

    I know that there are words in the bible like “humayo kayo at magpakarami” but I DO BELIEVE in GREATER UNDERSTANDING of the words of GOD that somewhere around that line also says BE RESPONSIBLE for the FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY AND KIDS.

    BUT NO, squatters as you may call them, attend these so-called masses but what do they learn from it? Feeling good from going to church doesn’t put FOOD on the TABLE, gives your kid PROPER EDUCATION, even teach you about FAMILY PLANNING and SEXUAL CONTROL, GOOD JOBS, PROPER SHELTER despite the continuous efforts of the government. AND YEAH YOU PEOPLE ALWAYS BLAME THE GOVERNMENT FOR NOT HAVING ENOUGH “FUNDS” TO HELP YOUR CATHOLICS HAVE A BETTER LIFE.

    AND IF YOUR PRIESTS ARE SO DAMN SACRED WHY DO THEY RAPE WOMEN AND KIDS? WHY DO THEY BREAK THEIR CHASTITY OATH SOMETHING? WHY ON EARTH THAT THEIR WORD SHALL BE LAW?

    Please wake up from your foolishness and may your God help you. Unless your CATHOLICISM has a better plan, just keep your mouth shut. I DO ADMIRE SOME CATHOLICS WHO USE THEIR MIND THAN YOU WHO BLINDLY FOLLOW SOME WORDS SPOKEN BY YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEING AS IF THEY ARE GODS. Because “YOUR KIND” of people doesn’t even help anyone.

    SO DOES YOUR SO-CALLED “MORALITY” ALLOW PEOPLE TO DIE IN HUNGER AND SUCCUMB TO GREATER POVERTY? If that is how you define morals, I do feel pity for you. I hope your God can forgive your evil mind.

  73. I don’t want to say dismissive statements but…. I guess they are in need of brain donations… logical brains to be specific. Somebody, please….

  74. Thank you for your post. At least there are at least people who try to live the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    People will criticize you because they were raised to be selfish, self-centered, proud and have an invented idea of who Jesus really is. It is always best to be reminded that Pride is the real Sin of Satan.

    People uses their ”hardships” in life to find an excuse to do evil. Others use ‘respect or tolerance’ as an excuse to justify evil.

    Jesus Christ is King-not an elected official.
    He left commandments that cannot change.
    His justice is spontaneous even when His mercy is applied.
    Heaven is a Kingdom and His church is not an organization where people can debate.

    Tolerance and Liberalism are gateways to Hell. Pope Benedict has explained this. If any Catholic questions the authority of the Pope, let it stick to his head – he commits self-excommunication. There is no if and buts with Jesus’ Kingdom.

    When you disobey – you leave the Catholic Church . It is called a SIN. It is a reality – not a premise.

    The RH Bill goes against the sanctity of Life that belongs to God alone. The magna carta for women is already in place to protect both woman and child but it is not applied.

    The UN is promoting this bill due to financial concerns – not the people’s welfare. Africa has rejected this and I cannot understand why Filipino intellectuals could not see their point.

    As far as any professor in a Catholic Institution, you are right, If they cannot uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ, they should get out.

    They are already openly opposing Jesus Christ. Their open defiance only tells the world the darkness they live in. Why would any decent parent allow their children to be influenced by the dark side?

    It is hard to be holy. And it is pitiful for a soul who is not even trying to be holy-there is no Heaven for him.

  75. Two articles. Write a third one so I can do a Peter and deny my Thomasian heritage three times.

    If arrogance, ad hominems, strawmen and self-righteousness are what we represent now, I refuse to be called a Thomasian. During my time in the University we believed in different things. We believed in Compassion, Commitment, and Competence. We upheld our convictions. We exercised acceptance.

    We did not debate because we wanted to “bandwagon”. The fact that you see going against the flow as a sort of “heroic cape” move is both insulting and misinformed. No intellectual has ever presented his opinion on things in the hopes of being recognized as “awesome!”; they present their opinion because they honestly believe that they are in the right, and they are looking for counter-opinions to either prove them wrong or cause them to reexamine their stand. I professed my support for the RH Bill in hopes of this, but instead we get slapped like it was 1611 because the “Church is always right”.

    I support the RH Bill. It is an interesting dichotomy, seeing as I am a Thomasian Engineer. On one hand, my Thomasian side puts a high premium on the values I learned during my time there, which, Catholic or not, are excellent values to take to heart. On the other, the Engineering side values optimization and innovation, within the bounds of ethics and morality. When you examine the RH Bill objectively, it aims to educate the public and the less fortunate regarding sex, a subject that has remained taboo in our country for too long. When you think about it, does it not embody compassion (towards the less fortunate and misinformed), competence (in that you don’t hope to shoot blanks when caught in THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT™), and commitment (in that the RH Bill strives for the country’s progress, and is in no way malicious)?

    But instead we keep the subject taboo, and we have stagnated. It is not an issue wherein we can close our eyes and pray it goes away. We have the means to progress, but instead we are hindered. This is not progress for progress’ sake, this is progress fueled by compassion, competence and commitment, which, last I looked, are what we stand for.

  76. These are the rants of one rabid close minded Catholic. What kind of an article is this? Extravagant claims with no sources? No citations whatsoever? In other words SINOTTO! Wahaha! Your religion is not the only one in existence, sir. Yes I find it extremely hindering so I got out early and so far I’m doing fine, no lightning bolt striking or rains of fire and brimstone. That doesn’t make me “ungrateful” because the church never helped me anyway but never did I claim that I’m superior above all others. Instead you’re the ones claiming superiority, pretending to know the whims of a supernatural being that so far hasn’t made his second coming yet and condemning us all to hell. Your church is the one who’s ungrateful because we basically pay taxes for them to be able to halt traffic for their extravagant rituals and churches while the priests get fat without lifting a single finger, driving expensive cars and molesting little boys and girls. And how can you call those who back the RH bill either “malicious or stupid?” Are you comparing the intellectual capacity of Sen. Santiago (pro) versus Sen. Sotto (anti)? Seriously is there even a need to compare? LMFAO!

  77. This is the result of a man who threw away his mind, his reason, his logic. He has surrendered it to the mystics. He has decided that the statement “RH bill is evil” is a universal truth and not a statement to be scrutinized using reason and logic as his highest basis for judgement. He let his mind become an idle tool, and surrendered his ability of reason to someone else that didn’t even practice it. He sacrificed God’s gift of the power of the mind and told himself that faith is without logic, without reason. I refuse to believe that God would grant us a mind if we are not to use it. If my reason, my logic deems something to be wrong or to be right, I know that God says the same, he made me in his image. Faith in God is a product of logic and reason. If you believe in Blind-Faith,then you are throwing away your mind. You are like a mindless beast, an animal, like a dog obeying anything his master says, like a lapdog.

  78. maternal death is caused by failure of government and private hospitals to give assistance to poor women giving birth. This was the case of my laundry woman… we brought her to Paranaque Hospital in Tambo they refused admittance because she did not have her maternal check up with them…. so maternal death is due to inefficient assistance to women on labor…. would be interested to learn statistics be done to show cause of maternal death… i think it is during delivery? so maybe we should pour billions into delivery clinics /hospitals not in condoms and birth control pills (i had to undergo hysterectomy due to 5 year taking of birth control pills) and bleeding due to IUD. I am talking from experience. Hope PRO RH bill will realize the danger to women …. caused by birth control pills and IUD. God bless!

  79. Respect others if you want to be respected. Instead of ‘defending’ your belief like this, why not be a little more open-minded? You are a journalist after all.
    To be honest, all you’ve managed to do here is make us Catholics look like close-minded people who condemn others for opposing what we believe.

  80. Here is a response to what you wrote, Mr. Gayya. Make of it what you wish, but rather than using the same ad hominem attacks you used, it addresses the issues with fact and reason.

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/10/09/12/response-varsitarian

    Quite frankly, all you’ve done is show yourself to be less like Christ and more like the ones who had Him crucified. It is not irrelevance that has moved some to leave our Church nor caused its faithful to struggle- rather, it is the self-righteous passing of judgement on other people without respect to understanding, empathy and reason that has cast the Church in such a bad light in today’s world. It is simply Pharasaical rather than Christian, and you do those against the RH Bill no justice with how you’ve acted.

    Good day, Mr. Gayya.

  81. The title says “Intellectual Dishonesty and Moral Cowardice.” I don’t see any entry in this article that tackles “Intellectual Dishonesty.” What about “Moral Cowardice”? Well, that would well describe the author (journalist-poser would be a better term…and Nick Joaquin, a Thomasian, must be turning over in his grave for this journalistic masterpiece, my ass).

    The RH Bill is not about religion. The RH bill is about tolerance.
    The RH Bill is not about stupidity and malice. The RH is about broad-mindedness
    The RH Bill is about human life.

    G.E.T. A. L.I.F.E!

  82. Its as simple as this for those who claim to be Catholic and go to church every sunday. I suppose they recite the Apostles’s Creed and in that it creed its says ” I believe in the Holy Catholic church”. I don’t know what they don’t get.
    I am a La Sallista ( student and teacher) now in Canada, still proud to be one , a member of CFCFFL and I know the last time I check , DLSU still has its motto intact :” Religio, Mores, Cultura.” . It is now my prayer that the Holy Spirit enlighten the minds of those who continue to stand oppose to the church and come back to its fold.

  83. This is the lowest of the low. My god. After calling ADMU and DLSU professors Intellectual pretenders and interlopers, now you attack by saying they are Stupid and Malicious?! If there’s someone here who’s stupid and malicious, it’s you. You never learned. Like what we always emphasize, it’s totally okay if you are on the opposing side of the bill and defend it reasonably and constructively, but it was and never will be okay to use foul words and resort to name calling. How arrogant of you. If you think that you’ll get pride and glory by doing so, think again. Or shall I say… Think over and over again. I have so much respect for UST pero ngayon nababawasan na yata…hindi ko lubos maisip how did UST ever produce and develop such arrogant and Damaso-cultured student journalists.

  84. Please, talk to the people you are condemning first before passing judgment, its not-christian nor is it journalistic, nor professional to do what you just did. This is not anymore a journalistic entity, its now a Public Relations or Advertising Platform.

    if you are not going to do any due diligence, nor your advisers or your betters require this of you, I guess we now know from this pattern and standard what this is.

  85. It’s funny how you actually think that you’re helping with the situation by opening up the minds of our fellow Catholics and Christians. I hope that some form of genuine intelligence and wisdom gets through that thick skull of yours. I am not here to argue. I am just here to say to you that your mode of defense against the critics of your beloved article about lemons and cowards, is just PATHETIC. I don’t even have to explain why it’s pathetic. Just let the thought simmer, let it resonate in your very being. You are not a true Catholic, you are just fooling yourself into thinking that you are one. I know that you may not be an evil person per se, in fact I think you actually believe that your doing the right thing. But its not working bro, you better find yourself a new career; a new “mission” if you prefer, and again no, you are not the hero here, you are not a martyr, and if we were to clear up the skies in order to look at the face of God at the this very instance, I believe he’d be frowning at you and would ask you to stay away until you’ve come to your senses. Your just… sigh…. stupid and ugly at that.. And I can’t believe you actually used the codename “VORPAL”???!?! hahahaha jabberwockey slayer ka ba??? hahaha kaya pala may sayad ka ata talaga thinking you’re so cool by using a term coined by Lewis Carroll, you do know he’s not a Catholic right? haha oopps the irony. Well at least he’s Christian. Or did you even know where that he coined that term?? Sige magquit ka na ng school at ng varsitarian pinapabaho mo lang ang UST dahil sa itsura at ugali mo. Ktnxbye..

  86. With all due respect, sir. I guess you should know more facts before making a very bold statement. Journalism 101. Research first before you make any claims. Such a shame that you seemed to fail in this part.

    I like how bold you are – no matter how stupid this entry is. I like how you seem to stand for what YOU believe in. You’re pretty amazing when you just OBEY what your whippers tell you. You’re such a submissive little boy.

    But you’re just a boy. And a boy lacks credibility.

    Be a man and earn more of it before you speak like this.

    You’re following the example of Christ? Did he ever attack those who were against him and called them “stupid”?

    Quite a Christian, you are.

    Matthew 7: 1- 5

    1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    That’s your bible, sir. Read it first and evaluate yourself before you evaluate others.

    Good night.

  87. With all due respect, sir. I guess you should know more facts before making a very bold statement. Journalism 101. Research first before you make any claims. Such a shame that you seemed to fail in this part.

    I like how bold you are – no matter how stupid this entry is. I like how you seem to stand for what YOU believe in. You’re pretty amazing when you just OBEY what your whippers tell you. You’re such a submissive little boy.

    But you’re just a boy. And a boy lacks credibility.

    Be a man and earn more of it before you speak like this.

    You’re following the example of Christ? Did he ever attack those who were against him and called them “stupid”?

    Quite a Christian, you are.

    Matthew 7: 1- 5

    1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    That’s your bible, sir. Read it first and evaluate yourself before you evaluate others.

    Good night.

  88. Honey, if you’re going to claim “malice and stupidity,” at least have the sense of mind to point out what specific parts of the statements from the 190 professors from Ateneo were malicious and stupid.

    You’re writing for a school paper, so I assume that you have at least a basic understanding of how critical thinking works.

    Otherwise, you’re guilty of an ad hominem fallacy. Again.

  89. To say nothing yet about your unnecessarily snide tone, grammatical errors, and more important factual errors (those profs clearly stated their position was independently held)…

    You’ve misrepresented the university you wanted to defend, unless it really is as you describe — taking any questioning/dissent as attack, and requiring quiet acceptance of all its positions — which I highly doubt. In case you didn’t know, the Church has moved on since medieval times and encourages fides quarens intellectum, not blind obedience. Furthermore, you’ve claimed to understand the motivations and desires of over 200 people, and passed moral judgment on them for it — knowledge and authority that, last I checked, implied omniscience and transcendence. Ikaw na pala si God?

  90. Moral cowards are those who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for what he believes, and you’re calling people who stood up for what they believe in moral cowards? who’s the intellectually dishonest now? Simple reality? surveys here and even from foreign institutions says that the risks that contraception poses is minimal, I wonder who are the “EXPERTS” you’re saying. Catholicism is not the only religion here, and not every religion here condemns RH bill, take the INC for example, they support it. UST isn’t only harboring catholics, it also has Muslims, INCs, etc. etc., even Agnostics and Atheist, your call that Thomasians should just follow what the church says blindly is not just a “no true scotsman” argument, its also an insult to free will.The Ateneo and La Salle professors are not promoting stupidity and malice, they’re promoting reality, I think you should look at yourself for that. Catholic schools aren’t just proselytizing machines as you claim them to be, they’re also intellectual institutions that advocate learning not just from the catholic doctrine but from the concreteness of reality as well. You know what take GUTS today? calling others maliciously “intellectually pretentious and morally bankrupt”, they have studied what they said very thoroughly, maybe you should study yours.

    “Oral Contraceptives REDUCE the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer”, and “Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers”. “Dr. Beral commented that while OCs may pose a slight increased risk of breast and cervical cancer, the effect is small and disappears once the drugs are no longer being used, as contrasted with the ongoing protective effect against ovarian cancer.” (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/prevention/ovarian/oral-contraceptives)
    that’s just one of many.

    Did you think that the government will just give away oral contraceptives without informing the people of their risks?
    Did you think that doctors of the government would willfully give out contraceptives who had history of illness and such? NO, that’s why we have a myriad of contraceptives and why people go to doctors for advice about which is the safest they can use.

    Do you know what bugs me? is that you even brag that the CBCP not allowing for discourse is such a good thing. No amount of explanation will convince people like you otherwise, way to call others hardheaded when you are one yourself.

    so far the only arguments you posted here are ad hominem, red herring, no true scotsman and the “willfully ignorant” arguments.

    Besides what YOUR religion says, there’s nothing substantial to argue against the RH bill. DO NOT forget that the Catholic Church does not own the Philippines, even if most people here are catholics and never ever forget, that we are not sheeples that you can just order around, not everyone recognizes your “moral high ground”.

    ohh, and BTW, I’m an agnostic existentialist, a filipino and a thomasian.

  91. I have only one thing to say to you:

    You do not deserve to be called a “journalist”. You would be lovely as a front page writer for the tabloids and show business. Go back to square one.

  92. Try being moslem. Let’s see if you can deal with even half of what they go through these days.
    Hope you didn’t break your arm too much from patting yourself in the back by claiming you’ve got “guts”.
    The tell-tale signs of religious extremism? Demonizing those who don’t share your beliefs.

  93. This is just one example of poor journalism nowadays. We go back again to Journalism 101..Presenting two sides of the story seems very appropriate considering that you represented or perhaps posted this article in a school paper. Yes you have all the rights to express your opinion but that ends where you strike down the opinion of others as if what you believe is the correct truth. Two sides of a story, remember? Your damning everyone who contradicts what you believe in, and you presented it not in a factual way nor constructive, rather vindictive. Maybe reevaluating your “journalist” way might be a good idea on how you attack issues, because I could dare say today that journalist say more than they should have or makes a drama out of the story, thus causing unwanted reactions from audience.

  94. Many times we unconsciously jeopardize Christianity by expressing words against the will of Christ. Love is crucial in the context of conflicting views with regard to RH bill and the church authority extended even to universities of Catholic. In the love of Christ there is room for “everyone”; therefore in this context of love lies our responsibility to welcome the other before the evangelizing process takes place. We can never persuade anyone if in the first place there is no love within our words and actions. Let us cultivate truth not just in authority, science and
    religion but in all the rationalities within the modern world. It takes time”

  95. i am an alumnus of DLSU and i was a faculty there also for more than 12 years. yet, the priests of the OP that comprise the administration of UST have just captured my utmost reverence. i salute them and i salute the editorial staff of the Varsitarian for standing up for Catholic Truth! keep up the good work. i pray that you remain steadfast in your advocacy and loyal to the Magisterium of the Church. if a Catholic cannot accept in full the doctrine of the Catholic Church, then he/she is free to leave. it is that plain and simple. we just cannot remain ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ as that is contrary to what Catholicism is all about.

  96. Full Blooded Thomasians are those who know how to think, what to weigh and choose things and stand up for their own idea. Studying in a Catholic University does not mean standing up for a principle that the Church is imposing, it is using our education, considering church principles and giving importance to our own value judgement.

  97. This is simple, really.

    When people go in UST, they do not sign or attest to going against the RH Law. They go there to learn in the courses they are enrolled in. They enroll in their respective departments to learn what those departments offer, not to be indoctrinated by what qualifies as Catholic opinion.

    Therefore, you have no right whatsoever to call these ‘Fool-blooded Thomasians’ as such, for two reasons. One, less importantly, your condescension makes these people who stand up to their beliefs, makes them look like fools.

    Second, and the more shocking, is this. At least these people have guts to stand up to what they know is right, to stand up to what they discern is right.

    Standing up to a doctrine is indeed easy, just look at NoKor. Standing up to one’s own is harder.

  98. A true Tomasino has a gut to say his opinions freely, a person who thinks intellectually (As Carlos Celdran says “I have the highest respect for Atheist because I believe they are the bravest people in the world”) and be a moral example to everybody. I’m a Thomasian student and a Freethinker and there is a growing percentage of the Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist…. etc. not only in UST but in other areas of the Philippines too. As I can see in your article is that you are merely bashing other beliefs, opinions and even other universities for not supporting the RH bill.

    May I ask if have you already read the bill? And where did you get these statement:

    “Experts, including doctors, economists, and lawyers, have constantly warned that contraception has been proven to increase cancer risks and other diseases; curbing population may halt the country’s economic growth; and existing laws already cover family planning programs and maternal health.”

    This is a questionable paragraph since it’s a “Reproductive Health” and it’s purpose is to give women a heathy option.

    Please be an example of a Thomasian and not an example of a Hypocrite catholic person.

LEAVE A REPLY