PHNix Network Advocate

February is ProLife month. So that means this post is a lot later than it should be. Still, I’ve put together some suggestions thatordinary people can do this month — or any time of the year — to promote a Culture of Life.

1. Expose the lie that contraception can lead to fewer abortions. The exact opposite is true. There is information on that issue in the ProLife Philippines website, LifeSiteNews, Human Life International, Population Research Institute, and many others. Download and pass this information around via e-mail, text messages, instant messaging, and if you can afford to, print them out as flyers and handouts.

2. Vote and speak out against the authors and supporters of the anti-life bills in the Senate and in Congress. These include Rep. Lagman, Rep. Remulla and Sen. Biazon (not sure if Biazon will run again though). Write to your local and national legislators and oppose the various “reproductive health” ordinances which are promoting the contraceptive mentality that eventually leads to abortion.

3. Make a small contribution to ProLife Philippines. You can also subscribe to their magazine, Love Life. Help them educate our people on the many issues involved. Education is key.

4. Most important, make a firm resolution to resist irresponsible behavior and be faithful to your Church and your spouse. No one is perfect, but we still have to try.

These suggestions are not national or global in scale, but can make a real difference when enough people carry them out.

General Objectives Related to a Culture fo Life

Here are some more general goals that are related to building a Culture of Life. I post hese in the hope others can come up with more specific suggestions to attain them.

(more…)

The culture of death has been relentless in its advocacy of the population control myth, contraception, and — eventually — abortion. Philippine Local Government Units (LGUs) have become successful targets for so-called “reproductive health” measures that are disingeniously crafted to appear as beneficial programs but are actually used to push abortifacient contraceptives and value-neutral sexuality among minors.

Such deadly measures have already crept nto the programs of some LGUs. These include Aurora Province, Paracelis and Sagada, Mountain Province, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, Ubay, Bohol, Carmen, Ifugao, and Olongapo City.

Yet another assault on life and the family is taking place in Quezon City in the form of the Reproductive Health and Population Management Ordinance sponsored by District 1 Councilor Joseph Juico.

Fighting for Life

The fight for life, however, is being fought in many small battles by unsung heroes who are willing to take a stand — often at great personal risk — against the culture of death. This drama repeated itself late last year as ordinary citizens stood up to oppose the Juico ordinance.

The Committee on Laws of the Quezon City Council conducted its first public hearing on the proposal on the morning of December 18, 2007. Committee chairman, District 4 Councilor Jesus ‘Bong’ Suntay, presided over the hearing. Councilors Dorothy Delarmente (Dist. 1), Joseph Juico (Dist. 1), Jorge Banal, Jr. (Dist. 3), Antonio Inton, Jr. (Dist. 4), and Edcel Lagman, Jr. (Dist. 4) were also present.

(more…)

Recent wrong-headed legislation allegedly designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination and to promote tolerance and equality, may actually oppress other groups. Christians, it seems, are becoming the targets of such “reverse” discrimination, inequality, and intolerance. This is truly tragic since homosexuals themselves are children of God and deserving of the compassion, justice, and mercy that the more militant pro-gay advocates are so willing to deny to those who disagree with them.

In what would appear to be a mad scramble to pander to the interests of homosexuals, laws are being passed — or implemented in such a manner — that effectively, place limits on freedom of religion and suppress dissent against the homosexual agenda. Father John Flynn, LC, notes this in the article, Imposing “Tolerance”: Christians Obliged to Approve Homosexuality:

ROME, OCT. 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- State laws on homosexuality are increasingly creating conflicts for Christians who wish to follow their conscience. In recent days, news came from England of a Christian couple who face being forced to give up their role as foster parents because they were not prepared to promote homosexuality, reported the Telegraph newspaper Oct. 24.

Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline are registered as foster parents in Somerset County. They are also ministers at the non-conformist South Chard Christian Church. They were recently informed by authorities that they must obey laws that require them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

Discrimination Against Religious Belief

Secularists have long sought to remove religious belief from public life, seeing it as irrelevant or even counterproductive. But that in itself involves a value judgement, and assumes the superiority of a secular ideology over contrary ideas. It ultimately results in supression of religion and democratic freedoms. Fr. Flynn recognizes the same and quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor who spoke out against such unjust treatment:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor strongly criticized the ideology inspiring such laws shortly after their approval, during a lecture given March 28 at Westminster Cathedral Hall. In his address titled “The Kingdom of God and This World: the Church in Public Life,” he maintained that, “freedom of religion is much more than the freedom to worship; it is the freedom to act according to that belief in the service of others.”

He also warned against a model of a secular state that seeks to totally exclude religious principles. “The choice of the state to side with the secular is said to be neutrality; and it is usually justified by an appeal to equality,” Cardinal Murphy O’Connor explained.

“But this is in itself ideology, divorcing religion from the public realm on the pretext that religion is divisive,” he continued.

“If equality can only be promoted at the expense of the freedom to manifest our religion, we have reason to question the nature of that equality,” the cardinal observed. “It is not, surely, an equality which adequately recognizes the common dignity of all.”

Pro-Gay Intolerance

Unfortunately, this hostility to religion is also being used to turn homosexuals into a politically protected class, using laws that have real teeth against those who dissent. The consequences for Christians and others who disagree with the homosexual agenda can be dire, as pointed out in the article, Churches fear British hate crimes law could silence Christians:

LONDON, ENGLAND (CNA) - British churches have expressed concern that legislation punishing hate crimes based on sexual orientation could be used to silence Christian disapproval of certain sexual behaviors.

Both the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England have issued a memorandum concerning an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986 that would make incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation an offense punishable by law.

“Christians engaged in teaching or preaching and those seeking to act in accord with Christian convictions in their daily lives need to be assured that the expression of strong opinions on marriage or sexuality will not be illegal,” the memorandum says.

(more…)

“Humanity is rushing towards the future. But where are we headed?”

If you can’t view the video from here, here’s the link: The Human Race

The Population Research Institute (PRI) is looking at new ways to reach out to the online generation. Other videos by the organization can be found at this YouTube Channel: Colinpri1

Here is a video about PRI, the group that produced the previous video:

(Static link to the above video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykQVxWQpZzA)

Help save the human race before it murders more of itself. Blog about these videos on your Multiply and Facebook sites. Tell your friends about them.

The principle of separation of church and state is often cited by many persons in all sorts of situations. From traditional politicians trying to surreptitiously push a morally questionable population control program, to anti-clerics who want to monopolize debate in important issues, the principle of separation is employed whenever the Catholic Church, or any other religion, speaks out and steps on a few toes.

The separation of church and state is sometimes thought of as a “wall” separating the affairs of the two. Those who follow this thinking usually claim that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of men. They would probably also say that religious belief should not influence the crafting of laws, affect the actions of public officials, or even be part of public debate. Instead, government should be neutral towards all religions and be totally secular in nature. Such secularism can therefore be seen as an embodiment of the separation principle.

Carlos Palad, in his essay, “Secularism: A Hidden Danger“, explains it thus:

Secularism is an attitude that takes away the public sphere from the rightful influence of religious belief. Secularism is an outlook, sometimes rising (as in contemporary France) to the level of a state-sponsored ideology, that insists on considering all public matters from a vantage point characterized by a reliance on human reason, and free of any reference to the sacred. This is because the individual conscience must be defended and freedom of discourse allowed, and (so secularists believe) this can be done only by allowing for common ground characterized by a “reasonableness” uninfluenced by “sectarian” considerations. For this reason, the secularist mentality insists on excluding religious views from the public square, often under the plea that Church and State must be considered separate.

Secularism does not necessarily judge religious beliefs to be “wrong” or even “irrational”; it simply considers them to be purely a matter of private judgment or opinion, that should be left at the doorsteps of any public institution. Secularists often profess respect for religious belief, as long as it is kept precisely that: a mere belief without bearing on public affairs. Behind this attitude towards religion is the presupposition that religion is a dangerous element once brought into the public sphere; religion is seen as productive (better word is product) of intolerance and bigotry, and as precluding all “common ground” between the various combatants in the sphere of public discourse. Classic examples of this indifference towards the importance of religious belief in public life are at present supplied by the so-called “Catholics” of the Democratic Party (John Kerry, Edward Kennedy) who say that they are “personally opposed” to abortion but that they are in favor of its continued legalization because “they don’t want to impose their private beliefs” on other people.

But is this “secularism”, this interpretation of the separation of church and state right? Does it have any legal basis?

(more…)

More Catholics are parting ways with human rights group Amnesty International because of its new policy on abortion. Amnesty International abandoned its neutral stance, and is now committed to promoting access to abortion in some cases. In response, just last week, Catholic school groups in Scotland were thinking about withdrawing their support for Amnesty International, joining others who have done the same — many of whom have been loyal supporters for years.

This is not surprising. Amnesty International is supposed to defend human rights — everyone’s rights. Well, unborn children have rights too, and the most essential right is the right to life. Without it, other rights cannot be enjoyed. The fact that Amnesty International has betrayed its commitment to defending the rights of the most defenseless persons in the world (the unborn) should cause Catholics — indeed everyone — to pause and examine where our loyalties lie and to whom we give our support. We ought to examine those groups with which we are affiliated and make sure we are not unwittingly compromising our faith and principles.

Sadly, there are those who would pretend that unborn children are not human beings. To answer that notion quickly, let me quote Peter Kreeft, a philosopher who presents a convincing, purely logical argument for believing that the unborn are human beings. This is taken from the article, “The Apple Argument Against Abortion“:

(more…)

As it does periodically, the claim that a high abortion rate can be reduced through even more vigorous population control using artificial contraceptives has resurfaced lately. This time it came in the form of statements within a news report on the number of abortions every year in the Philippines. The report put the annual abortion rater at around 400,000!

That number is truly scandalous in a country that is supposed to be predominantly Catholic. It is, as one Filipino writer penned in “The Monumental Modern-day Filipino Holocaust“, a “mockery of Christ’s teachings”.

But granted that we are against abortion, is contraception the way to prevent it?

The Big Lie

While it may at first seem obvious that preventing so-called “unwanted” pregnancies should lessen the number of abortions, the opposite is in fact true. The contraceptive and “safe sex” mindset leads to increased promiscuity and a false confidence that contraceptives are truly effective. This, of course leads to more contraceptive failures since the total number of sexual encounters increases. And this, in turn, leads to more people resorting to abortion as a backup method to contraception.

This deadly dynamic is outlined in more detail by Rev. Thomas J Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, in the video “Does Contraception Prevent Abortion?” If you can’t view the video, a transcript of part of Fr. Euteneuer’s message is below:

Let’s first consider one basic fact: Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business, and no business wants to reduce its bottom line. While you and I work towards eliminating abortion, the abortion industry has a vested interest in increasing those numbers. More abortions simply mean more profit. Granted, some embrace abortion for other reasons, but profit is the bottom line of the abortion business. In 2004 Planned Parenthood made about $90 million in revenues just selling abortion to American women.

And, their clients: women with unexpected and unwanted pregnancies.

Given this client base, there are three main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception:

The first is that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture. Contraception severs the link between sexual union and childbearing. No longer is sexual activity the exclusive domain of marriage but can be treated as a recreational activity supposedly without the responsibility of children. The so-called unwanted pregnancies that result from a promiscuous contraceptive culture are what drive the demand for abortion. Remember — the more promiscuity, the more unwanted pregnancies there are, and the more unwanted pregnancies, the more abortions there will be.

Secondly, all methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse. People have been so indoctrinated with the “safe sex” message that the potential for contraceptive failure is never even considered — until it happens of course — and then, faced with a crisis, people turn to
quick fix solutions to escape the problem that was created by contraception in the first place. According to the Guttmacher Association, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, close to 60% of all women going into abortion mills do so because their contraception has failed. In other words, they are using abortion as a back-up to failed contraception.

Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, and in the end we have the same result as surgical abortion: the death of an innocent human being.

(more…)