2nd District Rep. George Arnaiz’s strong stand against the RH/”Responsible Parenthood” bill (and other such pending legislative measures) is laudable. His pragmatic viewpoint that aligns with the Catholic position speaks of an independent stand, unafraid of and not swayed by the administration line (therefore politically popular position) on the same issue.
Arnaiz’s observation that the bill, if enacted, gives the bulk of the implementation to local government units – who he says weren’t even consulted on the said bill’s provisions – is unfair in that LGUs have not been provided the opportunity to determine whether or not it is advantageous to them, or even if it is a priority for them. In this day and age when supposedly all important developmental issues or decisions have to be ‘demand-driven’ and coming from the ‘grassroots’ (represented by the LGUs) to become ‘empowering’ (i.e. ‘from the bottom-up’, not ‘from the top-down’), here is another manifestation of co-optation on a national scale.
That the proposed measure involves a lot of money (public funds) which Rep. Arnaiz says could be put to far better use elsewhere is another indication that when Imperial Manila has set its eyes on a certain direction, it cannot be deterred from the logical end and outcome – because behind the scenes, there is just too much at stake for a select number of people who are the powerful ‘movers and shakers’ in this particular issue (as well as other critical ones).
Quoting directly from the Metro Post article, “The bill will never be a solution to overpopulation and poverty in the country, Arnaiz said.” This opinion cannot be overemphasized. As the Catholic Church has stressed, the bill addresses the issue of overpopulation on the basis of an erroneous view on human sexuality. If we go back to the theories of population, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 — 1834) posited its increase or decrease according to certain factors. Subsequently, the rational answers to deal with the problem of overpopulation were typically short-sighted and unsustainable. But Malthus later also propounded the belief that moral restraint is the best means of easing poverty and limiting population growth — this being consistent with virtue, economic gain and social improvement.
Many people think that addressing human sexuality issues with artificial birth control to limit the inevitable result — population boom — is a cure that is worse than the disease, because it only spawns more complex social and even physiological problems. With these aggravations, we will only continue to go down the path of self-destruction. We will never learn from our mistakes, until we are able to understand and realize that it entails sacrificing the worst things in us — our pride and vanities, our negative emotions and evil desires — in order to be free to enjoy the fullness of life, without fear… and without imposing upon others (especially the poor) that which we do not wish for ourselves.
“For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature.” (From the Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI)
And because we tend to be more conscious of our socio-political situation rather than our spiritual needs, let’s consider what John F. Kennedy – the only Catholic President of the United States – said:
“With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
We have a responsibility to the future – which belongs to our children. That future will certainly be affected by what we do now. But the “reproductive health”/”responsible parenthood” bill may turn out to be an abdication of that responsibility. Even if we do not mind how history may eventually judge us for our actions, shall we also forget that we are ultimately accountable to God, our heavenly Father?
