Conception and Contraception: Virgin Mary and Margaret Sanger

The Miraculous Medal containing the Image of the Immaculate Conception

The Miraculous Medal containing the Image of the Immaculate Conception

I.  Immaculate Conception

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.  As defined by Pope Pius IX last December 8, 1854 in his encyclical,Ineffabilis Deus:

 “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Four years after, Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous on March 25, 1858 and proclaimed her title:

“I am the Immaculate Conception” (“que soy era immaculada concepciou”)

But two decades before this, on November 27, 1830, the Virgin Mary already appeared to Catherine Soubirous instructing her to promote the devotion to the Miraculous Medal:

According to an account written by Catherine’s own hand, Mary was clothed in a robe of auroral light and her robe had a high neck and plain sleeves. According to Catherine’s notes, the medal should also have half a globe upon which Mary’s feet rest, hands raised up to her waist, fingers filled with diamond rings of different sizes giving off rays of light, and a frame slightly oval with golden letters saying, “O Mary! conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!” Her fingers each had three rings and the largest stones emitted the most brilliant rays. She added that some of the diamonds did not give off rays.

Mary, the Immaculate Conception, was conceived without sin.

II. Margaret Sanger and Contraception

It is interesting how the modern world has turned this statement upside down by telling each woman around the world: “Mary, to conceive is to sin.”  In 1914, sixty years after the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus, Margaret Sanger wrote an 8-page monthly newsletter on contraception with the slogan, “No Gods, No Masters.”  In 1917, she published the monthly periodical, The Birth Control Review.  In 1921, she founded the American Birth Control League, with the following guiding principles:

“We hold that children should be (1) Conceived in love; (2) Born of the mother’s conscious desire; (3) And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health. Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied.”

With the support of the Rockefeller family, Sanger created the Clinical Research Bureau, a birth control clinic, which later gave rise to the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952–a name which Sanger deplored because it is too euphemistic.  Planned Parenthood is the number one abortion provider in the US and is one of the major supporters of the Reproductive Health Law in the Philippines.

The guiding principles of the American Birth Control League has discriminated against babies that were not born in love or the mother’s conscious decision or were simply sickly

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[73] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[74][75] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[76] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals

Notice the Darwinian undercurrents in Sanger’s pronouncements: “Survival of the fittest, removal of the unfit.”  But it will not be nature who will define who will be the fittest and the unfit; rather, it will be Margaret Sanger or the woman or Planned Parenthood or the State.  This is what Pope Paul VI prophesied in 1968 in his Encyclical, Humanae Vitae:

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

And true enough, Pres. Aquino has fulfilled this prophecy when he signed in December 21, 2012 the  Republic Act No. 10354, An Act Providing for a National Policy on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health.

Monk’s Hobbit posts for August 2013

Mission and Vision of Monk’s Hobbit

The Mission and Vision of Monk’s Hobbit is to strengthen the Catholic Faith of Filipinos worldwide. The blog posts are limited to the following labels: Business, Economics, Films, History, Literature, Liturgy, Music, News, Politics, Science, and Theology. These labels appear on the tabs at the top. Click on each tab and all posts with that label will appear. Click on the Monk’s Hobbit Title Banner and you’ll go to the home page to see all articles.

Memories of Mar Girgis Church in Egypt before the Great Burning

About a train ride from Helwan University is Girgis station. It is named after St. George the Dragon Slayer. In this place is the Coptic Church of Mar Girgis which was recently burned by supporters of Muslim Brotherhood. There were already 64 churches burned in Egypt in a single day. Unbelievable. Such wanton hate which reminds me of the burning of Minas Tirith.

Latin Mass at the Oratory of St. Ignatius of Loyola on 17 August 2013, 8:30 am

The Ateneo Latin Mass Society cordially invites you to a Latin Mass in Extraordinary Form in honor of St. Hyacinth, confessor with the Octave of the Blessed Virgin Mary and st. Lawrence on Saturday, 17 August 2013, 8:30 am at the Oratory of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Loyola House of Studies, Ateneo de Manila University. Fr. Tim Ofrasio, SJ shall celebrate the mass.

Ateneo Latin Mass 17 August 2013: Some pictures

Here are some pictures of the Latin Mass that was held today, 17 August 2013, 8:30 am at the Oratory of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Loyola House of Studies, Ateneo de Manila. The mass was celebrated in honor of St. Hyacinth with the Octave of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Lawrence. Fr. Tim Ofrasio, SJ celebrated the mass. The Mass was sponsored by the Ateneo Latin Mass Society. Other pictures can be found in my Google Plus album.

Raise the Shire! Hobbits to gather in Luneta against Pork Barrel

There is a new Facebook page: “Million people march to Luneta August 26 sa araw ng mga bayani. Protesta ng bayan!” Below are the aims of the organizers of the march: “We, the taxpayers, want: the pork barrel scrapped, the senators and congressmen in the pork barrel fund scam investigated and charged accordingly, with full media coverage for the people to see.

Janet Napoles and Shelob the Great

Shelob is the giant spider-like creature that lived in Morgul Vale, guarding the secret path to Sauron’s realm in Mordor: “There agelong she had dwelt, an evil thing in spider-form, even such as once of old had lived in the Land of the Elves in the West that is now under the Sea, such as Beren fought in the Mountains of Terror in Doriath, and so came to Luthien upon the green sward amid the hemlocks in the moonlight long ago.”

Gandalf and Christ: Setting fire on earth and hearts

In today’s Gospel, Christ said: “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!” (Lk 12:49). During Pentecost, Christ fulfilled His wish

Ang Kapatiran Party starts signature campaign vs Pork Barrel System in change.org

This 21 August 2012, the National Holiday in commemoration of the death of Ninoy Aquino, Ang Kapatiran Party (Kapatiran sa Pangkalahatang Kabutihan or The Alliance for the Common Good) is making a signature campaign to abolish the Pork Barrel in Change.org: Pangulong Benigno Aquino III: Wakasan na ang Pork Barrel System/PDAF. Please visit this site and sign the petition as I did. The petition is in Filipino. Here’s my translation.

Birth Control: Always winter, but never Christmas

In C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 2), a White Witch ruled Narnia for a hundred years, making it “always winter, but never Christmas.” In this post, I would like to reflect on the phrase “always winter, but never Christmas” in the context of the demographic winter and the Birth Control.

Book Review of Ricardo Semler’s “Maverick”: The glory of a company is man fully alive

I finished reading Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace by Ricardo Semler. I noticed that the principles that Semler used to run Brazil’s SEMCO are based on Gospel values, though he may not consciously do so. The overarching principle of Semler’s company management that we can deduce from his book is this: The glory of the company is man fully alive.

Vilma Santos’s Extra in Cinemalaya 2013: Mystery of the Face

Extra (The Bit Player) starring Vilma Santos is a movie entry to the Cinemalaya 2013. The extras are the hobbits in the movie industry governed by wizards (movie directors) and powerful lords (producers). Extra is a movie about the life of these little people that makes movies happen. As Loida (Vilma) said, it is the crowd that define the setting, for what is a restaurant without ordinary people eating or a street without people walking by? “I used to be part of the crowd, too, ” Loida told a young girl. “But look at me now, I am a still part of the crowd.” She laughed.

Crowd estimate of Anti-Pork Barrel Rally at Luneta last 26 Aug 2013

A friend in Filipinos for Life asked me to make make a crowd estimate of the Luneta Rally last 26 Aug 2013. She sent me an aerial photograph of the crowd by Architect Paulo Alcazaren in Inquirer, which I used it as the basis of my crowd estimate, assuming there are no other persons outside the picture. There is also another excellent photo by Alcazaren in GMA Network.

SLSSG: Traditional Latin Mass Schedule for September 2013

Societas Liturgiae Sacrae Sancti Gregorii is an apostolate dedicated to the celebration, promotion and propagation of the Traditional Latin Mass of St. Gregory the Great, implementing the Motu Proprio, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM as envisioned by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Is the viability of a fertilized ovum a condition for its humanity as claimed by Lagman?

Let’s state Lagman’s definitions, though we may disagree with him. For him, conception is different from fertilization. Fertilization is the meeting of the egg (ovum) and the sperm. Conception is the implantation of this fertilized ovum on the woman’s uterus.

Does the RH law force Catholics to use contraceptives?

Atty. Jemy Gatdula wrote in his blog that the religious freedom argument would not work because religious freedom works via exemption:

Religious freedom arguments are by nature working on the idea of exemption. Take for example the Flag salute case of Ebranilag or the live-in arrangement in Estrada, what is sought is not to render the laws subject of those cases unconstitutional but to ask that an exemption from its application be made with regard to those religions adversely affected by it.

Hence, what a petitioner in a religious freedom argument is saying is not that the law is unjust but only in that the law is unjust insofar as it hinders in the free exercise of their religion.
Furthermore, it also leads to other, even more complicated, questions. Because, if for example an exemption is indeed granted, how then would such exemption be applied? In the Ebranilag and Estrada cases, detailed conditions were laid out by the Supreme Court that must be complied with. However, in the case of the RH Law, how can such exemptions be given when the law itself does not force Catholics to use contraceptives. And this within the context that a substantial majority of Catholics are in favor of contraceptives. If the religious freedom argument were used only in relation to government health workers, then the same could easily be cured by the use of the separability clause.
Pope Paul VI

Pope Paul VI

Response:

I am not a lawyer, so I have no expertise regarding the constitution and its interpretation.  Atty. Gatdula may have a point here regarding the constitutional weakness of the religious freedom argument.  But I shall only comment on two of his statements from a religious point of view:
1.  How can exemptions be given when the law itself does not force Catholics to use contraceptives?
2.  And this is within the context that a substantial majority of Catholics are in favor of contraceptives.
I shall discuss these issues individually.
1.  How can exemptions be given when the law itself does not force Catholics to use contraceptives?

An object, such as a rock, may be pushed in two ways.  One way is to push it with your bare hands.  The other way is to use a lever such as a stick.  Both have the same results: the rock is moved.

The RH law does not indeed force Catholics to use contraceptives.  But since the RH law uses the taxation power of the State to fund the law, and taxes are paid by Catholics who constitute more than 80 percent of the population, then Catholics effectively pay for the use of contraceptives by other people, even if these would be freely given by the State.

Now, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful.  This is an unchanging teaching of the Church.  Pope Paul VI wrote:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (Humanae Vitae)

Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XI

And before this, Pope Pius XI wrote:

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: “They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46] (Casti Connubii)

Thus, if the State, through the RH Law, taxes Catholics to pay for purchase of contraceptives whose use is a grave sin, then the State forces Catholics to sin by being accomplice to sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines four ways in which a person becomes an accomplice to sin:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

– by protecting evil-doers.

Participating directly in the procurement of contraceptives by paying taxes that will fund the RH law is to be an accomplice to sin.  This is the first way, though our sin may be lessened or we may be dispensed from this if we are unwilling accomplices, because amortal sin requires three things: grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent.

The third way is also relevant: if we Catholics do not disclose or hinder the passage of the RH Law when we have the obligation to do so, then we are guilty of being accomplices to the RH Law, and by doing so we sin.  This is the sin of omission.  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (attributed to Edmund Burke).  But if we lose the fight and the RH Law gets passed, then our conscience is clear even if we pay our taxes to the State who shall fund the RH Law: because we tried with all our might to hinder its passage, but was defeated.  As stated in the Serenity Prayer attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

2.  And this is within the context that a substantial majority of Catholics are in favor of contraceptives.

Individual Catholics do not define Church doctrine: it is the hierarchical Church who does so headed by the Pope.  Even if majority of Catholics are in favor of contraceptives, this does not change the fact that the use of contraceptives is a grave sin.  Thus, it is the duty of the Bishops of the Philippines to make sure that the RH Law would not be passed, in order to spare ordinary Catholics from sinning by being accomplices to sin.

Thus, it is impossible for the State to exempt Catholics from using contraceptives yet at the same time force Catholics to pay taxes that would be used to purchase contraceptives.  The better option is not to ratify the RH Law and make the State buy contraceptives in behalf of the people; rather, the State should only at most make the contraceptives available in the market as what we have now, and let individuals who need them buy them as their consciences allow.

UPDATE 7/21/2013

From Atty Jemy Gatdula:

hi dr. sugon. just to let you know i agree with both your points. the article was just to let law students, laymen see the difficulties in translating such points into a cohesive argument for the court. and, by the way, i belong to the only group of petitioners that actually used the tax argument and addressed all (hopefully) the concerns regarding such argument.

Response:

Hi Jemy,

Thanks for the clarification. It is only now that I read your group’s petition to the Supreme Court regarding the RH Law. In this petition, your group have shown that contraception is against Natural Law and that Natural Law is not just a Christian idea but dates back to the Ancient Greeks and which form the basis of modern jurisprudence. In the second part starting at article 120, you discussed how the government’s promotion of contraceptives is against religious freedom, because contraception is not just a discipline such as fasting, but a grave sin. And you used much more exhaustive references than I have shown in my blog post. You also showed that the implementation of the RH Law makes Catholics accomplices to sin through the payment of taxes. The third part starting at article 200 is more on how the RH Law is against the pro-family character of the Philippine constitution. I shall promote your petition in my blog and FB pages. Thank you very much.

What did Jesus say about homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and progressive taxes?

What does Jesus say about homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and progressive tax rates?

Question from Being Liberal (FB Page):

The only time the Bible tells us Jesus every got angry was when he chased the money-changers out of the temple.  That’s right; the one thing that really pissed off Jesus was greed.

There are literally hundreds of passages in the Bible where Jesus tells us to help the poor, the sick, and the elderly.  There are zero passages in the Bible where Jesus condemned homosexuality, birth control, abortion, or progressive tax rates.

Today, conservatives invoke Jesus’ name in condemning gay marriage, birth control, abortion and taxes, while they stridently oppose anything that helps the poor, the sick, and the elderly.

D’ya think conservatives are thinking of some other Jesus?

Answer:

When He chased money-changers out of the temple, Jesus was not simply angry because of the greed of the money-changers.  This is what Jesus said: “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of thieves.”  The Temple is the Father’s House.  And Jesus, being the Son, has the authority to cleanse the House and restore it to its original purpose.  The second layer of meaning is as follows: the cleansing of the temple based on animal sacrifices would soon be gone and replaced by the most perfect sacrifice of the most holy Victim:

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in. 7Then I said, ‘As is written of me in the scroll, Behold, I come to do your will, O God.’” (Heb 10:5-7)

Jesus may not have explicitly condemned gay marriage, birth control, abortion and taxes, but his actions speak that he is for the traditional marriage, fecundity, and payment of taxes.

At the Wedding Feast at Cana, Jesus and His Mother were there, and even changed water into wine to give joy to the worried bride and groom (Jn 2:1-11).  No, this is not a marriage of Adam and Steve or of Amy and Eve, but a real marriage of a man and a woman:

Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife],8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Mk 10:5-9)

Notice that Jesus says that there are only two sexes: male and female.  Nothing else.  And Jesus teaches the indissolubility of marriage.

If Jesus approved of abortion, he would have asked Angel Gabriel to tell His Mother, Mary, to abort Him after conception or to use  contraceptive so that she won’t be pregnant even if the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, thereby making  fruitless all efforts of God to save mankind through the Savior who shall be born by her.  Also, welcomes and loves children:

Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. (Mt 19:14)

Regarding taxes, Jesus does not prohibit paying taxes.  This is what he said when posed with a question whether to pay taxes to the emperor or not: “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mt 22:21).  Also, when Jesus was with Peter, he also asked Peter to pay the temple tax for Peter himself and for him:

“What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?”26 When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt. 27 But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.” (Mt 17:25-27)

There are still many things that Jesus did and taught that is not recorded in the Bible but were heard by his apostles:

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written” (Jn 21:25)

Jesus knows that he will soon be gone from the world.  What will happen to His teachings?  How shall He ensure that the apostles and their spiritual descendants the priests and bishops united in Charity would still teach the truth of Christ?  Jesus did not leave his apostles orphan: He sent to them the Holy Spirit.  As Jesus said:

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,17the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you….The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you. (Jn 14:15-26)

During the Feast of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit indeed came as Jesus promised, the Spirit who will teach the Church everything Jesus taught and remind the Church everything that Jesus did.  It is the Holy Spirit which guided the Church during the Apostolic Age.  The Holy Spirit chose Paul and Barnabas as one of those who are sent:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. 3Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:2-3)

The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Catholic Church down to the present day, providing the Church the teaching authority or Magisterium to definitively teach truth from error in matters and questions that were not yet posed before during the time of Christ and the apostles–questions such as on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and taxation.  The Catholic Church has extensively taught on these issues; the ones summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are but the tip of the iceberg.  And I doubt if liberals has sifted through these issues in their fine details more than the Catholic Church as done.  As Gandalf said to the Mouth of Sauron:

“Indeed, I know them all and all their history, and despite your scorn, foul Mouth of Sauron, you cannot say as much.” (The Black Gate Opens, The Return of the King, LOTR).

Feast of Holy Innocents: Pharoah, Herod, Kissinger, Obama, and PNoy

“Massacre of the Holy Innocents,” Codex Egberti, Fol 15v, Szene: Bethlehemitischer Kindermord, 10th c.

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents.  In this feast we remember the many children who were killed not only by Herod during the time of Christ, but also the many babies born and unborn who were slaughtered through the birth control policies of Pharoah, Kissinger, and Obama.  Now, with the passage of the RH Bill into a law which promotes contraceptives that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum on the uterine walls, we can also put Pres. Noynoy Aquino on the list of the birth control autocrats of history.

1.  Herod at the Birth of Christ

In this feast we remember the children ages 2 and down who were slaughtered by Herod for fear of a new born king of the Jews who will overthrow Herod’s power:

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, 2 behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,2saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star 3 at its rising and have come to do him homage.”3When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.4Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 45They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:6’And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel.'”7Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearance.8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage.”…

When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”14Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.158 He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”16When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Mt 2:1-16)

2.  Pharoah at the Birth of Moses

In this Feast we also remember the Israelite babies who were killed by Pharoah for fear of the growing number of Israelites in Egypt.  Pharaoah tried several approaches to birth control for the Israelites: (1) forced labor and slavery, (2) killing of male babies born by midwives, and (3) throwing of male babies into the Nile River.  Below is a detailed account:

Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph,* rose to power in Egypt.9He said to his people, “See! The Israelite people have multiplied and become more numerous than we are!10Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase;* otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave the land.”

11Accordingly, they set supervisors over the Israelites to oppress them with forced labor.d Thus they had to build for Pharaoh* the garrison cities of Pithom and Raamses.12Yet the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians began to loathe the Israelites.13So the Egyptians reduced the Israelites to cruel slavery,14making life bitter for them with hard labor, at mortar* and brick and all kinds of field work—cruelly oppressed in all their labor.

15The king of Egypt told the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah and the other Puah,16“When you act as midwives for the Hebrew women, look on the birthstool:* if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she may live.”17The midwives, however, feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt had ordered them, but let the boys live.18So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this, allowing the boys to live?”19The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women. They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.”20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very numerous.21And because the midwives feared God, God built up families for them.

22Pharaoh then commanded all his people, “Throw into the Nile every boy that is born,e but you may let all the girls live.” (Ex 1:8-22)

3.  Kissinger and the NSSM 200

NSSM 200 is the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200).  It was written in 1974 under the leadership of Henry Kissinger.  This report is the basis of the policies of many US Presidents from Ford to Obama.  Below are the salient provisions as summarized in Wikipedia:

“The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

“Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth” [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

“Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,’ ‘imperialists,’ multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles” [Chapter V, “Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

“We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.” [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends]

“In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

Pres. Noynoy Aquino and Pres. Barack Obama

Pres. Noynoy Aquino and Pres. Barack Obama meeting in New York in 2011

4.  Obama and Planned Parenthood

Here is a short story about the long love affair of Obama and the world’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood.  The excerpt below is from Life News:

  1. President Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times, horrifyingly voting against protecting babies who survived abortion and voting in favor of leaving them to die. A vote against this legislation was a vote for infanticide. [Source]
  2. On his third day in office, President Obama repealed the pro-life “Mexico City Policy.” By doing this, President Obama made groups that perform and promote abortion eligible for U.S. foreign aid funds. [Source]
  3. Planned Parenthood’s funding jumped from 33% to nearly 50% – over $487 million in taxpayer funding now goes to the abortion giant (under Obama and his administration). This is almost half a billion dollars that American families are forced to pay in tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. [Source]
  4. President Obama refused to sign an emergency budget, putting funding the military at risk, until Planned Parenthood funding was included in the budget. This was following Live Action’s Sex Trafficking investigation, showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting the sex-traffickers of underage girls. [Source]
  5. The president has pushed for his “pet legislation,” The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which would help fund “community health centers” (Planned Parenthood is their prime target). Additionally, the HHS mandate would force all Americans to fund abortion and contraception, with no exceptions for religious institutions or religious individuals who are vehemently against abortion and contraception. [Source]

5.  Pres. Noynoy Aquino and the RH Bill (Law?)

In his 2012 State of the Nation Address, Pres. Aquino said:

I have great faith in Secretary Luistro: Before the next year ends, we will have built the 66,800 classrooms needed to fill up the shortage we inherited—of this, we expect 40,000 for this year.  The 2,573,212 backlog in chairs that we were bequeathed will be addressed before 2012 ends. This year, too, will see the eradication of the backlog of 61.7 million textbooks—and we will finally achieve the one-to-one ratio of books to students.

We are ending the backlogs in the education sector, but the potential for shortages remains as our student population continues to increase. Perhaps Responsible Parenthood can help address this.

The cat is out of the bag: for PNoy, the reason why there is a backlog of classrooms is because of rise in student population.  PNoy’s solution is simple: responsible parenthood to decrease the number of babies born.  In other words, birth control.  That was in July 2012.  In December 2012, he pushed the ratification of the RH Bill which would teach sex education from Grade 5 to High School.  The bill would also make condoms and other contraceptives more accessible through subsidies from the National Government at taxpayer’s expense.

Who is behind this?  PNoy is just a puppet: though he takes the main credit as the actor, the one behind the scenes are writing the script.  And that script is the NSSM 200 state policy:

 “Third World” leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time.”

There are many ways for the US to coerce a Least Developed Country (LDC) like the Philippines to accepting family planning programs.  One way is by tying the program’s implementation to increase in financial aid and investments.  The other way is to use abortion providers(Likhaan and Planned Parenthood) and contraceptive manufacturers (pharmaceutical firms) to lobby for the passage of national family planning programs such as the RH Bill.  Many senators and congressmen made it appear that they were bought to the idea of birth control through the RH Bill, but in the process they sold themselves and their country for 30 pieces of silver.  Actually, they cannot anymore withstand the pressure from US and PNoy who are hell-bent in getting the RH Bill approved.  A lunch with PNoy made many congressmen change their votes to YES to RH Bill.  The threat of expulsion from the Liberal Party, with the 2013 elections as backdrop, silenced even the Bill’s strongest critics.  And there is a pork barrel awaiting the executive’s butcher knife.

PNoy sent the RH Bill as a battering ram against the gates of Congress and Senate and the walls of the two institutions collapsed.  PNoy now holds the Judiciary on his left hand, and the Congress and  Senate on his right hand.  There is now a new form of Philippine government: the PNoy autocracy.  Render unto PNoy what PNoy wants.  Or else.

With a government like this, more birth control programs are on their way to keep the population in check, to lessen dissent against the autocracy: Divorce, Euthanasia, and Homosexuality.  All these are related to the RH Bill:

  • Divorce.  If contraceptives become more available and the youth are taught how to use them through sex education, then there is no more reason to get married, because the youth can get the pleasure of the marriage bed without tying marriage knot.  And the husbands and wives who are married would see no more reason for marriage if their neighbor’s  wife and husband is prettier or sexier.  Then people clamor for the approval of the Divorce Law.
  • Homosexuality.  And why would restrict the pleasures of the marriage bed to heterosexual couples.  If they use contraceptives, their sexual intercourse remains sterile.  This does not differ from the homosexual intercourse which is also sterile.  Then the people would clamor for the approval of Anti-Discrimination Laws to make Homosexuals have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples.  In all these, no children are born or if there are, they are too few to mention–products of accidents of contraceptive failures–and most of them are out of wedlock.  The Philippine population plummets.
  • Euthanasia.  Without children, there is no one to take care of the old.  The old becomes a liability to the government: senior citizens get pensions and medical care without doing work.  So if  the government can think that the solution to classroom shortage is by planned parenthood, then there will be similar response to the problem of the aged: kill them off through euthanasia or make them continue to work past retirement age until they die.  By the sweat of their brow the aged must eat.

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.