Fidelity with my Church: speech of Rep. Antonio C. Alvarez against the RH Bill

Rep. Antonio C. Alvarez, 1st District, Palawan

Rep. Antonio C. Alvarez, 1st District, Palawan

From GMA News Network:

Mr. Speaker:

Three months from now, I will be marking my 27th year of uninterrupted service as an elected public official.

In formulating my final vote in this House, I drew mainly upon my experience as mayor for 12 years and provincial board member for six.

For in my years here, that has always been my way of appraising  proposals: to imagine the “implementability” of policies in a grassroots setting.

That is the best test because what I have discovered is that what is good on paper is not necessarily good in practice; what is good in the Batasan, is not always good for the barrios.

So far here are my conclusions:

All the purported things that this bill will do are already covered by a multitude of laws.

Thus, it is not a matter of legislation but implementation.

A barangay council can buy pills and even distribute them like confetti, but no barangay chairman will tell you that the same pills will cure poverty.

He will tell you instead that in the hierarchy of his constituents’ needs, schools, books, roads, water, and livelihood are far more important to them.

Sa bawat araw na ginawa ng Diyos, kadami-dami ang natatanggap kong sulat at text na humihingi ng tulong, mga resolutions na nakikiusap ng pondo, pero ni minsan hindi po ako nakatanggap ng sulat na humihingi sa akin ng condom o pilduras o IUD.

In many areas of my District, the best form of contraception is not the one that is unsheathed, but one that is switched on—and that is electricity.

There are good provisions in this bill, I admit, like the improvement of health facilities, but these are mere reiterations of what a government must do, so whether a government is pro-, anti-, or deadma on RH, it is duty-bound to provide these services.

So whether a woman is carrying a baby on purpose or by accident, through artificial insemination or by immaculate conception, she deserves to have access to the best medical care which should be provided—without the need for an RH bill.

Mr. Speaker:

I vote NO to this measure, and Mr. Speaker, please allow me to cite my last reason for it is also the most important reason for me.

I know that a lawmaker’s religious beliefs must not solely guide his vote.

But I will take the risk of allowing my final vote as a congressman to be shaped in part by the teachings of my Church, not because I believe that they are infallible, but because my final act should be in fidelity with what my Church stands for.

This is also an act of solidarity with my Church as it has come under attack as regressive, as archaic, and as antiquated.

But its past and its present belie this slander.

This is the Church that fought against tyranny, ousted a dictatorship, struggled against repression, and defended human rights.

This is the Church which continues to educate our young, heal our sick, shelter our homeless, and comfort our poor.

This is a Church that treats people as the most important resource of a community. Unlike those pushing for this bill who treat them as liability.  Let us never forget that the most precious capital of all is HUMAN CAPITAL.

This is the Church whose teachings form our social glue, provide our moral anchor, and whose celebrations, including Christmas, strengthen our bond as a community.

So pray, tell me my friends, with this heritage and record how can I vote against it?

I vote NO to this measure.

Advertisements

Catholic Vote is Coming to Town

Catholic Vote Philippines

Catholic Vote Philippines

Catholic Vote is Coming to Town
(For Pro-RH Congressmen and Senators)

You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
We’re telling you why
Catholic Vote is coming to town
We’re making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out the Pros and Antis
Catholic Vote is coming to town
We see you when you’re voting
We know when you have left
We know if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
We’re telling you why
Catholic Vote is coming to town
Catholic Vote is coming to town

Does “subdue it” in Genesis refer to birth control?

Question:

Those against family planning never tire to quote that passage in Genesis about increasing and multiplying and filling the earth. However, the quote does not end there but continues with “to subdue it.” The definition of “subdue” is to control or overcome.

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns the prevention of conception; that is, the mingling of sperm and egg that produces life. The couples themselves are to decide what method to use, how large a family they can raise with dignity, as responsible citizens and true followers of Christ.

As a matter of fact, the so-called natural birth control is against Nature because it prevents the couple from enjoying each other precisely at the time when they most want to have sexual relations. That is precisely why they get married; the couple’s natural inclination to have sex when this is most desired should not be curtailed by such an unnatural method. Besides, the rhythm method is not only unreliable, it also causes psychological problems that affect not only the couple but the entire family. St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Thessalonians where the early Christians were warned that such an unnatural practice makes the couple vulnerable to the temptations of Satan.

There’s a strong connection between size of population and socio-economic resources. Most significantly, it shows a deep understanding of human nature.

Response:

Submitted on 2012/12/14 at 11:40 pm | In reply to Noel.

Noel,

That is an interesting interpretation that you give. Below is the actual quote in Genesis:

“God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

The “it” in “subdue it” does not refer to “be fertile and multiply” that you use to justify contraception or birth control. Rather, standard grammar rules say that the pronoun “it” refers to the closest noun mentioned (called the antecedent), which is the “earth”. See? “Fill the earth and subdue it.”

It is time to brush up on our Grammar. Here is from Grammar Girl:

What Is an Antecedent?

Whatever kind of pronoun you have, the pronoun takes the place of a specific noun you’ve already mentioned. The noun that a pronoun refers to is called an antecedent.

That’s spelled with an “a-n-t-e,” not an “a-n-t-i.” “Anti-” is a prefix meaning “against,” as in “antisocial.” “Ante” is a prefix for things that go before other things; “ante mortem” means “before death,” for example.

In the sentence “The driver totaled his car,” the word “his” refers back to “driver,” so “driver” is the antecedent of the pronoun “his.” It would sound silly to repeat the noun: “The driver totaled the driver’s car.” So, in simple sentences like this, readers are clear on what pronoun is replacing what noun.