Sacrilege! Shameful apathy!

Illustration by Carla T. Gamalinda

Last October 1, Intramuros tourist guide Carlos Celdran staged a shocking, stupid, and shameful stunt all in one when he disrupted Holy Mass at the Manila Cathedral, where Apostolic Nuncio Edward Joseph Adams and Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales were present. Styling himself as the “new” Jose Rizal and dresssed in the national hero’s characteristic European attire, he broke up the solemn Mass and carried around a placard with the inscription “Damaso,” a reference to the friar-character in Rizal’s novels, and shouted at the bishops and clery on the altar, “Stop involving yourselves in politics!” He was referring to the Church’s opposition to the Reproductive Health bill, several versions of which have been refiled in the new Congress, as well as criticism of President Aquino’s statements during his US trip that he’s in favor of “responsible parenthood,” or some form of birth control.

Even if he clearly does not agree with the Church, Celdran could have just let his mind known by a letter to the editor: after all, the Church representatives only made known their stand when they were interviewed by the media. But arrogantly enough and without regard for religious sensibilities, Celdran did the brazen act of desecrating the Church, her priests and liturgy. As a result, he landed in jail for committing a crime against religious worship, a violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

But what was more alarming was that many Catholics did not condemn Celdran’s “shameful deed,” as described by the Manila clergy.

Even more terrible was that at the time of Celdran’s detention, about 6,500 people, apparently Catholics, had immediately supported a Facebook fan page calling for his release. Moreover, feminists rallied in front of the building of the Church’s episcopal conference in Intramuros with obscene placards directed at the bishops such as, “Get your rosary out of my ovary.” Even harlots would not use such language!

In what planet are Celdran and his supporters living? Perhaps they should repeat their stunt in a Muslim mosque or an Iglesia ni Cristo service. Let’s see if they would not get lynched.

Celdran’s arrogance was not only an affront to religion; it was an insult to the national hero. Even if Rizal was a Mason, a liberal secularist, and an anti-cleric, he would not have disrupted the Holy Mass and cursed the clergy. In his distasteful, unseemly blog, Celdran styles himself and those opposed to the Church’s stand on population control as “the new Jose Rizal.” What megalomania! Even the diehard Rizalista would not make such a claim. Apparently Celdran and his ilk have been making the fantastic claim inside the Mandaluyong sanatorium.

The apathy of many Catholics to denounce Celdran’s outright assault of the Church is a reality check on the Church both as a hierarchy and as people of God: Catholics are woefully ignorant of the Church’s teachings. The Catholic Church and her leaders have failed to educate Catholics on the teachings of the Church.

This problem may also stem from the failure of schools, particularly Catholic schools, to impress upon the students the position of the Church on issues such as the RH bill, which goes against the Church’s teachings on the basic right to life.

Closer to home, has UST, which prides itself as the Catholic University of the Philippines and a Pontifical University no less, done its job in teaching the Church’s pro-life stand as it confronts issues such as population control?

In the University, a minimum 15 units of theology subjects are mandated. Despite this, a study of former Arts and Letters Dean Armando de Jesus last year revealed that many Thomasians are “religious but not moral”––a finding which implies the tendency of Thomasian students to support the RH bill.

To be sure, this disturbing situation in the academe should force the Institute of Religion, the office in charge of the theology subjects, to start rethinking its curriculum and method of instruction, particularly SCL3 (The Social Teachings of the Church) and SCL9 (Marriage and Family).

All of the subjects are treated in an abstract manner, without reference to pressing issues of the day. For example, the chapter on natural family planning in the Marriage and Family textbook does not really explain why there should be family planning at all, it does not explain the geopolitcal context that has forced couples more and more to limit their family size. The discussion does not reveal the population-control mindset that occasions the discourse on family planning, whether natural or contraceptive.

Moreover, the chapter does not explain really why natural family planning is best. It does not even make reference to the natural law that underpins the Church’s moral teachings.

Theology professors appear to be ignorant of the issues around the RH bill and population control, considering that these issues are pressing to young Thomasians who have impressionable minds. Corollarily, UST doctors and bioethicists have largely evaded the issues. Most UST doctors, who receive perks from drug companies some of which produce contraceptives, don’t even go out of the way and explain to the public the side effects and risks of chemical contraceptives.

The Church, her leaders and teachers should tell Catholics that alleged overpopulation is not the cause of the poverty in the country but corruption, mismanagement and poor public policy. As columnist Atty. Jose Sison, a loyal Thomasian, said, “overpopulation” is the wrong term to use for the congestion of Metro Manila and urban centers, which is a migration and development phenomenon. In any case, he said it is wrong to blame the poor people for their poverty: the corruption and mismanagement of public officials are the culprits.

World-class economists such as Simon Kuznets and Jacqueline Katzun have denied any negative correlation between population and economic growth. Meanwhile, Nobel-winning economists Amartya Sen and Gary Becker have recommended that funds for birth control would be better used in directly addressing poverty.

Moreover, the RH bill is draconian and violative of human rights. The version by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman bill forces employers into providing contraceptives to workers under their collective bargaining agreements. How can UST, a Catholic institution, offer contraceptives to its employees?

Catholics should understand that natural family planning teaches husbands to respect their wives’ body cycles. It teaches trust, discipline and fortifies the family as an institution contrary to the RH bill, which advocates shortcuts, fosters irresponsibility, and weakens the family. Therefore, natural family planning humanizes us while artificial methods, which RH bill espouses, make us look like sex-starved rabbits.

House Bill 5043 carries a provision in which a spouse can get a vasectomy or ligation without the consent of the other spouse, which is tantamount to legalized treachery.

In addition, the bill also wants to muzzle the opposition by providing a provision that punishes those who allegedly spread “disinformation.” In addition, foreigners who speak against the bill may be deported. (What if the Pope visits the country and calls population-control measures anti-life? Can Lagman kick the Supreme Pontiff out of the country?)

Catholics are duty-bound to study the many anti-life and anti-human-right provisions of the RH bill and uphold with conviction the stand of the Church against it and other social-engineering measures of the state. Thomasians and other Catholics should rouse themselves from their apathy. Let the biblical injunction be their guide: “If you are neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.”


  1. sad to say the teachings of the Catholic church is not effective in transforming the lives of the poor. i am not saying it is the religion’s responsibility to alleviate poverty and human suffering but it should serve as guidance on how to live Christ-like lifestyle. in my opinion, human laws exist to enforce order and it does not address anything that has something to do with religious faith. divine Law on the other hand adds more to the law of man. it makes human law more restrictive to address the concerns of the faith. no government law exists which prohibits and punishes those who think lustfully towards others. this is against the Bible, for anyone who thinks lustful thoughts is committing the sin of adultery. no law exists that prohibits eating of pork but the Qur’an is absolute about it: “Forbidden to you for (food) are: dead meat, blood and the flesh of the swine and that which hath been invoked the name other than Allah. – Holy Qur’an 5:4”. the law of man does not make you justifiable in the eyes of God because it only makes you justifiable in the eyes of men. the law of man does not help you to achieve salvation and neither does it help you to please any supreme being. that is why the two exist, one to enforce peace and order and the other to fill in the requirements of the faith. let RH bill pass for it is just the law that gives people the freedom of choice and you may add restrictions or prohibit it totally WITHIN your religious domains.

    • Since you’ve already cited it, could you cite the verse where it supposedly grants Jesus status as a Prophet of God? Because the reason no human law exists to prohibit the eating of pork because those human lawmakers have already gone by Jesus’ words regarding the uselessness of such religious dietary restrictions. From Mark 7: 18 “Don’t you understand?” Jesus asked. “Don’t you see? Nothing that enters people from the outside can make them ‘unclean.’ 19 It doesn’t go into the heart. It goes into the stomach. Then it goes out of the body.” In saying this, Jesus was calling all foods “clean.” So, if by the Qur’an’s standards Jesus was a voice of God, then God has already addressed the eating of pork (among other things). But if God already said one thing in the Gospels, why would he contradict himself in the Qur’an?

      • if indeed Muslims believe that Quran ‘certifies’ pork as clean as what you’ve said because of Jesus, then why aren’t they allow Muslims to eat them? i’m telling this based on experience. i went to Amman, Jordan (an islamic country near Israel and Syria) last 2007, i can tell you how strongly those people are against eating of pork until this day. if Jesus was a voice of God for the Muslims then they should at least become influenced by Christian beliefs.

        they become furious whenever we say we believe in the same God, that is: Jesus – Yahweh – Allah, because to them the three are not the same. i almost got into a fight with a jordanian software engineer because of that. i’ve learned so much about their faith which at first looked so alien to me and it truly is until now very different from what we know in a Christian perspective.

        this is becoming off-topic. but my point is that religious belief should not dictate how state laws are formed. we are becoming a multicultural-multinational country with contrasting beliefs and state laws should remain NEUTRAL.

  2. In the passing of time, one shall see who stands. Science and religion are not favored here. Evidence and Reason will show what It is.

  3. The number of supporters of Carlos Celdran has grown to more than 30,000.

    The numbers are clearly against you. Perhaps you must rethink.

    • whichever way you interpret or look at it, the means with which celdran chose to justify and express his being against the church’s meddling in affairs of the state is clearly not rational and normal. At the very least it was cheap attention getting maybe because of poor breeding or lack of proper guidance from his parents or school. You definitely cannot consider him brave, patriotic, intelligent, or well informed. His act was delusional, immoral, unlawful, uneducated, and uncalled for. young people should not follow the example of mr. celdran, it is barbaric and does not deserve a place in human society. In my opinion, he should be referred to a psychiatrist and be treated as soon as possible. Television stations and offices should be very careful with the people they hire. A pre-emplyment psychological test should be a requirement.

  4. “House Bill 5043 carries a provision in which a spouse can get a vasectomy or ligation without the consent of the other spouse, which is tantamount to legalized treachery.”

    So you oppose a law granting each partner full, legal, sexual autonomy, in part because you believe husbands and wives cannot make decisions independently from one another and — moreover — unilaterally if necessary? Let’s be clear here, there’s a crucial moral difference between cannot and should not. There are lots of things people should not do that are not explicitly dealt with by law, and lots of things that are explicitly forbidden biblically (read: cannot do) that people do anyway. You claim it is treachery to make independent decisions, which implies ‘cannot’, where instead a couple in a respectful relationship ‘should not’ make those decisions but remains able to (‘can’) if required.

    By saying ‘cannot’ instead of ‘should not’, you implicitly suggest that a husband owns a wife’s body, and a wife owns a husband’s body, and that neither one has autonomy independent from the other? The New Testament would have some issues with that, given that you suggest that free will is implicitly treacherous/illicit/immoral and that neither are capable of making informed, moral decisions independently of the other.

    If we suppose that no autonomy exists and that each partner owns the other, you give traction to husbands raping wives because they are merely property or wives insisting on having children that neither can afford regardless of what the husband wishes because it is her right. Both of these pitfalls can be avoided through unilateral contraceptive use — and while they are not ideal choices, we don’t live in an ideal world where every relationship is respectful and loving. The Catholic Church doesn’t offer citizens any recourse in these situations, and you oppose legislation that would give victims an alternative? Ridiculous. Not every wife who is raped wants their husband jailed and removed from their lives entirely. Not every husband whose wife wants to be a good catholic and have oodles of children wants to watch his children starve when he can’t afford to feed them.

    “In any case, he said it is wrong to blame the poor people for their poverty: the corruption and mismanagement of public officials are the culprits.”

    If, as the rest of the world rightly sees it, the Philippines is essentially theocratic and has been that way for ages, who is responsible for the corruption and mismanagement of officials endorsed in-part or in-full by the Catholic Church? Is it the secular community somehow, and not the Catholics? That is ridiculous on the face of it.

  5. i totally agree, let the RH bill be implemented then the Catholic church can just lecture their followers to use natural method.

    if you read the RH bill you might be surprised to see that contraception is just a little part of it. please learn how to READ and BE INFORMED before opposing something that could save a lot of people’s lives.

  6. Hey, why would that Lagman have to kick your Holy Pontiff out of the country? Do you now assume power of enforcing the law, in case this will ever be signed? The MPD can do that really well. I really trust their capacity to handle foreigners.

    • I don’t think you understand the context of the sentence. “Lagman” being referred to in that sentence is Lagman’s bill (if ever it becomes a law) and not Lagman the person. Let me buy you some logic!

  7. Thank you for reinforcing the xenophobic and bigoted belief that a church subscribed to by a majority can dictate what the rest may or may not do to their bodies. If you don’t want contraceptives, don’t use them on your own body. You should try to live in the Middle East for a while to see what it’s like on the other side of a dominant faith.

  8. y’know, there’s a reason that our constitution forbids religion from interfering with government policy. Wouldn’t that make the CBCP’s actions unconstitutional and treasonous?

    I’d like to invite the church to get off its high horse and come up with a solution for all the kids who will be born into poverty and hunger if a solid family planning bill isn’t passed.

    • we should clearly see that there technically really is no interference by the Church in the State because they are only giving out their point of view in the issue and they clearly and technically cannot do anything once the bill is passed. It is such a sad thing that people keep on arguing that the Church always interferes with the government when that is not the case after all. therefore the actions of CBCP are NOT unconstitutional and definitely not treasonous.

      • This is a load of bull. The CBCP has already threatened lawmakers with excommunication if the bill goes through. That’s about as much interference as a murder suspect threatening a key witness with death if he testifies.

        Face it, they’re not only trying to dictate government policy, but they’re doing so by using the same underhanded tactics you’d expect of criminal syndicates such as the Mafia, which like the Church, is also run by Italians.

        With all of the pedophilia controversies surrounding the church, they should maybe just shut up, clean up their ranks, and leave governing the country to governments.

    • “there’s a reason that our constitution forbids religion from interfering with government policy. ROFL! It is GOVERNMENT which cannot interfere with Church Policy. That Separation is for the protection of the Church against the Government, not the other way around. The CBCP is WELL WITHIN its Constitutional Rights to carry-on as it does. That’s called Freedom of Speech. “I’d like to invite the church to get off its high horse” The Church is already the biggest charitable institution in the world. It is the government’s job to address social problems. First off by effectively managing existing policies and programs. Secondly by not making redundant legislation that ignores deficiencies in the enforcement of pre-existing legislation. Doing otherwise would fall under Fraud and Waste.

  9. did you guys read the whole editorial or was your conviction that what everything the Church (and those who support it) says is wrong clouded your judgment? I’m not against ligation, contraceptive, sex ed, or any of the sorts per se. If the gov’t could use the funds to educate, build houses or provide jobs for the marginalized, then I don’t think overpopulation or sex would be the case here anymore. Condoms, vasectomy, ligation wouldn’t alleviate the pressing concerns of the country. Do you think less population would result in less crime? It may, but it will only serve as a palliative effect. More jobs, better education will do. Analyze the editorial first without having intermittent biases along the way. People will procreate when they want to–you can’t stop them. Give the marginalized education and they may be enlightened, as we all want.

    And btw, it wasn’t the publication adviser or any CBCP or Church crony who wrote this ed proper. You don’t have to be a detective to know that. Why are you always thinking that all the sides of the Church is written or said by the Church itself. Can’t a lay person support their stand? The writer just wants to prove a point (regardless of the Catholic stand, which i know you would react as blatant in the text), but i guess people are too biased–so wanting to be leftist, thinking that they would “make the world a better place,” or just simply wanting to bash the Church–to know that.

    And I bet, our taxes would soar once this so-called RH Bill is implemented. Where would the gov’t be getting the fund, huh? And I do bet some of it will just end up somewhere… maybe in someone’s pocket… JUST MAYBE

    • “People will procreate when they want to–you can’t stop them.”

      You’re right — and the RHB won’t stop people from procreating who want to. It isn’t designed to *force* people not to procreate. It is about enshrining in law the *choice* so that noone has authority but the individual. So why would you even suggest otherwise? What does that conjecture do for you? This isn’t the creation of a government agent that sneaks into everyone’s house and jams a condom on them while they’re sleeping and says ‘ha ha! now you can’t ever have children’! It’s about providing choices and options to people who do not currently have the luxury of those choices and options.

      Further, a layperson can indeed support their stand. No-one, to my knowledge, said they couldn’t. So why does open dissent — opposing views which are necessary for discourse, if you will — suddenly equate, in your mind, to a bunch of people trying to stifle discussion? People are trying to create discussion, which is the opposite of what you seem to think is going on. Throwing your arms up and saying ‘well, if you guys just don’t want to talk about it [note: this isn’t true], you clearly must be opposing just for the sake of opposing [note: also not true]’ misunderstands the point entirely. Who is encouraging discussion of the matter? Not the church, that’s for sure.

  10. Dear Varsitarian,

    If you really are for the student’s voice, I wanna see an editorial in favor of the RH bill and Carlos Celdran’s bravery to face the pontiffs.

    • so now you want everyone to defer to your stand? Are you ordering the publication to voice out your opinion? Who are you, some demigod? What Celdran did is intolerable in any way you look at it. he lambasted a sacred place. he is no Rizal, and you are no Andres Bonifacio of Katipunan. Stop acting like some old-fashioned hero who thinks he is at war with the Spaniards. As for the RH Bill, you can give thousands and thousands of condoms (vasectomy, or any of the like) to the poor but it wouldn’t make any difference. Why not pass a bill that will better the educated workforce of the Philippines that includes the marginalized.

      Mukha na kayong RH Bill no. And stop acting like you know everything, ’cause you don’t.

  11. I hope that the people here who approve the RH bill are not Thomasians, for I fear that perhaps the Thomasian students of the Pontifical and Catholic University of Santo Tomas have lost their morality.

    • so you mean disproving the RH Bill means losing morality? i think it’s the other way around. Are people not allowed to have their own stand anymore? You are entitled to your own stand, your own opinion. But don’t step on the line as saying that detesting the bill would lose them morality. In this everyone-wants-to-be-Rizal milieu, i don’t know what morality is anymore.

    • I am Thomasian and I proudly say I support RH Bill. Stop generalizing and assuming. I don’t believe it’s immoral. The priest and church hypocracy are the ones I dont support.

  12. I feel like I’ve been swept back to the middle ages as I read this article. Word of advice: don’t shame a student publication with your Bronze age mentality.

  13. Mr. CC planted a Flag in their Yard… but The CC’s been planting hundreds of flags in Legislation’s Yard. I think they deserved that, this one time. 🙂
    Apparently it was written by an angry defender. Well, what they don’t realize is that they’re (angrily…) barking up the wrong tree. Instead of attempting to pigeonhole another Bill from becoming a Law (as they’ve done previously), why not develop a massive program to actually make the RH Bill redundant? A massive series of education programs on the Natural Planning Method, giving poor people sustainable income through jobs, and basically accomplish what they say the Government has failed to do. If they must get political once more, do it on the grassroots level, not at the top. Mr. CC’s act, they say, was that of “disrespect towards a religious institute”. Well, is not hassling and excommunication threats a “disrespect of the Lawmaking Process”?
    On the Laws they seek to defend, well they must do battle where THEIR laws were found on: the Grassroots Level. Was it not through divine intervention AND observation of society that such laws were formulated and codified? If it is the case, then seek to align present practice with the Laws as how they were formulated, not do battle where temporal laws are made.

    Actually, the “heated” tone of the article in question reflects an almost hilarious situation with our politics: constant finger-pointing. So blame the government for not having enough resources at their disposal to dispense with their social obligations. But does the Church do a bigger and better job than the government does? I doubt it, since we’re still very much miserable as when Rizal started writing articles on the Philippine Society. So neither of the two institutions solve this lingering problem. Now the Government wants a crack at it, one more time. The Church (who had repelled multiple Bills due to them being “unfavorable” with their faith), would now tell Government to “Let me talk! You didn’t solve the problem, so why try now when me and my followers are jeopardized?” Ergo, nothing solved.

    Oh and on rallying Catholics to defend the Faith, this is a unique form of “conscription”. It’s like telling people in a Fortress to “Man the Guns! We’re at War!” when the people you ask to defend the Fortress are not even aware why they are fighting or that if they should even fight for their master. Enlighten these people OR negotiate and try to show the opposition that the defenders are fighting for the same ends.

    Let people choose and act what they will, and let them receive the consequences of their actions. This is, after all, the nature of Justice. Deny them this, and you deny them their freedom, which has been called “An element of human nature”.

  14. this article is so stupid. Explain mo sakin kung papaano ang isang theo prof. sa UST, na nagtuturo ng marraige in the family, nabuntis ang kaniyang anak na babae? take note prof yon, I have nothing against to that professor, pero siguro naman, he gain more theology units than me, his daughter probably goes to sunday church, She probably got her morals right?…..right?

    Masasabi ko lang, mas magkakasala pa ang mga tao pag walang RH bill, because everyday there is an unwanted pregnancy, there are children who cannot eat, families of 10, and what is the church doing about that? nothing. Everyday we are increasing our population by the dozen, and if sermons are not working then we have to try something else, right?

    CHURCH are just people. they make this judgements that they think is morally right, but politically, socially incorrect. They think like “I’m GOD I call the shots here in this country, people will listen to me because im an archbishop and I’m closer to GOD than any of you”–owwhh im scared. DO you honestly think that this is moral? playing God? excommunicating lawmakers?

    and please separation of church and state, my goodness this is very basic! this stupid author must already know this at first.

  15. this article is so stupid. Explain mo sakin kung papaano ang isang theo prof. sa UST, na nagtuturo ng marraige in the family, nabuntis ang kaniyang anak na babae? take note prof yon, I have nothing against to that professor, pero siguro naman, he gain more theology units than me, his daughter probably goes to sunday church, She probably got her morals right?…..right?

    Masasabi ko lang, mas magkakasala pa ang mga tao pag walang RH bill, because everyday there is an unwanted pregnancy, there are children who cannot eat, families of 10, and what is the church doing about that? nothing. Everyday we are increasing our population by the dozen, and if sermons are not working then we have to try something else, right?

    CHURCH are just people. they make this judgements that they think is morally right, but politically, socially incorrect. They think like “I’m GOD I call the shots here in this country, people will listen to me because im an archbishop and I’m closer to GOD than any of you”–owwhh im scared. DO you honestly think that this is moral? playing God? excommunicating lawmakers?

    and please separation of church and state, my goodness this is very basic! this stupid author must already know this at first.

  16. Truth is immutable. No amount of popular support can make an evil or wrong, right. Contraception is an intrinsic evil based on natural law and divine Revelation. Nothing will change that.

    Why is it evil? Because it prevents the true purpose of the conjugal or sexual act which is procreation. You see, one uses ones eye to see, ones ear to hear, ones mouth to eat or speak, ones legs to walk, etc.. These are natural because these are their respective purposes . If one uses one’s arms to walk, well, isn’t that unnatural?

    What’s the purpose of the sexual act again? You got it. Don’t pretend you didn’t catch the logic of this reasoning.
    You don’t engage in sex just for the sake of pleasure by using contraceptives, either barrier types (condoms, IUDs) or the pill (oral). And by the way, the sexual act is for married spouses only.

    Oh you say, many do it outside of it, right? Yes, you’re right..and it’s also called fornication, a clear evil or sin!

    By the way, the Jewish multitude called for Our Lord’s death, lots of them and clearly the majority during Pilate’s judgment of His case. Were they right because of their numbers?

    Lesson or moral of the story: Just because you have the numbers doesn’t mean you are right. That’s the flaw of the rule of the majority. And for this reason, the Church bases Her teachings on Natural Law and Divine Revelation, not on poll numbers.

  17. “In what planet are Celdran and his supporters living?”

    -Is this the way a Thomasian describe a fellow Filipino, or at least a fellowman? I thought you are “the finest breed of Filipinos?”

    “Perhaps they should repeat their stunt in a Muslim mosque or an Iglesia ni Cristo service. Let’s see if they would not get lynched.”

    – Are you saying that these religious sectors are capable of doing such just because of that particular situation? This is discrimination!

    “This article is “stupid” as well, maybe more “stupid” than RH bill”

    Sorry, I had to borrow that Varsitarian term for a Varsitarian act.

  18. however the truth is that people engage in sex for pleasure, pleasure and pleasure!!! and most of them aren’t married yet. that’s a fact. hello welcome to the 21st century. i work in a BPO company and i may say that 70% of them (us) has had sexual intercourse. 100% of us are Christians and 80% of us are Catholics. people doesn’t care about what’s in the Bible anymore that is why the state has proposed this bill to address the problem. because the state is not the church, it doesn’t need to base its laws on any religious belief. if i’m a muslim it’s against my religion to eat pork, should the state ban all the people from eating it too? if the catholics don’t want to use contraceptives, then don’t do so within your own domain, tell them you’re going to hell if you have sex for reasons beyond what it is intended for. state laws are there to enforce peace and order, to protect its people from diseases (like STD), unwanted pregnancies, etc. it doesn’t help you (it never will) earn salvation (oh btw it is not earned because it is through grace given by God). as what has been said in the comments below, state laws make you justifiable in the eyes of men not in the eyes of God.

    • however, the truth is you are ignorant of other important facts…
      Aren’t you aware of how our government sucks at enforcing the law? Let’s say this bill makes it, do you really believe that our officials would use the money to distribute contraceptives? They couldn’t even put our taxes to proper education, proper healthcare and proper housing for the poor and you expect them to put our taxes to condoms? They’ll just put it in their pockets like they used to. Furthermore, in Africa where condoms are widely used, statistics have shown that AIDS is more widespread than ever. One Harvard AIDS researcher even supports the Catholic church’s position that condoms DO NOT work. see it here:
      Oh and since you sound like a born again Christian, please don’t be ignorant of history, the first Christians were Catholics NOT born again christians. Born again Christians believe in LIES and inventions of heretics.

  19. I am against plain blatant abortion. killing. murder. if at any point, the RH Bill will try to conceal abortion into one its provisions, then, I’m sorry, but that’s a deal breaker. from what i know, life begins at fertilization. if any form of insult is done to that fertilized ovum to prevent it from implantation on the endometrium, that is a form of abortion.legalizing any form of abortion is like legalizing murder.

  20. I was in doubt when abortion actually occurs when two sperms and egg were actually prevented from having contact. I remember watching the interview of CBCP representative in the Bottomline (ABS-CBN). Boy Abunda asked if using contraceptives would be liable for abortion, the bishop answered, “the sole purpose of having intercourse to create life (procreate).” Now, why do most of the Filipinos support the bill, it is because they only want pleasure that they get from having sexual intercourse. Let your decision speak of who you are.

    • Actually, I was hoping you’d explain your question a little more – I have no idea what you are saying. Are you actually enrolled in a University?

      Which side of the issue are you on?

    • since when did the philippines become just a catholic country? have you forgotten the muslims, inc, aglipayans, baptists, methodists, and all the other non catholics living there?

  21. What’s up with the inflammatory and racist illustration? How long are lazy, apathetic Filipinos going to blame the US for their inablity to pull them selves up from the muck?

    Anyone remember 4 July, 1946? You’ve been driving your own nation since then. Hello!

  22. Oh come on.. Contraceptives are used widely nowadays in Philippines so why make it a law? Even if it will be a law, the pinoys are still awkward in buying those things in the pharmacy for the fact that we are a catholic and conservative country. Another thing, why do the government impose “sex education” to the elementary pupils? They are just destroying the innocence of these children. This bill must be trashed!!!

  23. It is just sad reading this – especially from a university that offers a Journalism course. What happened to the media ethics and standards taught to you guys? In the bigger scale of things, the conclusion is this: The Varsitarian will always be Anti-RH. Tis pointless to argue with these hypocrites.

  24. I’ll skip the details and jump right in to my question. What is the meaning of being pro-life?

    People, aren’t we a little radical about something here? Pro-life against Pro-RH. Is Pro-life being radical to trashing the bill? And is Pro-RH not minding the suggestions of the opposite camp? Does the word compromise even exist in the battlefield they made?

  25. What is even more shameful is the fact that The Varsitarian would allow such trash to be published on their website. And this isn’t the first time.

    Seriously, guys. Whatever happened to OBJECTIVE, BALANCED, UNBIASED journalism?

  26. Fantastic website you have here but I was wanting
    to know if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics talked about in this article?

    I’d really love to be a part of community where I can get advice from other experienced people that
    share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please
    let me know. Thanks a lot!


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.