Reprehensible A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison

Reprehensible
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated

People who believe in God whether Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other faith would certainly feel offended if somebody disrupts the very rite or liturgy that is the center of their faith, the celebration of God’s presence in their midst. These rituals are the most sacred to them. This is the reason behind the provision of our Revised Penal Code (RPC, Article 133) penalizing with imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years and 4 months “anyone who shall perform acts in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony” which are “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful”.

For Catholics “the Mass is the center of the Church. Nothing can compare to the Mass because it is the renewal of the Sacrifice on the Cross where Christ offers Himself up for all humanity. It is the moment when heaven and earth unite”. Disrupting the Mass is therefore the most offensive act against the feelings of Catholic faithful. Anyone who disrupts the mass like that Intramuros tourist guide (his name is not worth mentioning) certainly deserves to be imprisoned. His act can never be justified by his deep resentment against the prelates who oppose the RH bill. It is willfully, willingly and feloniously done during a rite most sacred to Catholics and therefore punishable under the RPC. Muslims and Buddhists would also feel offended if such disruption was committed against them. There is no reason why disruption of a Catholic ritual should be treated differently.

Article 133 of the RPC does not penalize the proponents and supporters of the RH bill or those who want to impose a family planning program and the promotion of women’s reproductive health. It only penalizes the act of disrupting religious worships and rites. Definitely this is not a medieval law. It is relevant and appropriate for as long as faith in the almighty God exists. Those who are therefore advocating the repeal of the law on the premise that it is being enforced by the “Padre Damasos” allegedly still in our midst or by “people whose thinking is stuck in the dark ages”, are grossly mistaken and miserably misinformed.

It is really reprehensible for the advocates and supporters of the RH bill to vent their ire and viciously attack the Catholic prelates and the faithful simply because the latter believe that the RH bill is wrong and contrary to their own belief. They may have the freedom to express their own views but they must also respect the customs, practices and the rights of others to express contrary views. They have no right to denigrate, defile and blaspheme those who do not agree with them.

Actually there is an abuse of freedom in our society today. People now think that they have the absolute right to act and speak freely even to the extent of trampling upon the rights of others or of imposing their individual rights over and above the rights promoting the common good. This observation is confirmed not only by recent criminal act of that tourist guide at the Manila Cathedral. The more dangerous example is the alleged right to informed choice guaranteed by the RH bill which is now being openly supported by P-Noy after accepting that Millennium Challenge Corporation grant.

The RH bill and P-Noy would grant couples the right to choose between the natural and artificial method of birth control with the use of contraceptives in spacing the births of their children and planning the size of their family provided they are properly informed. According to the bill, the entire range of contraceptives will be made available to them if they choose the artificial method. But medical science has already established that some of these contraceptives do not actually prevent conception. Instead they prevent the live fetus from implanting in the wall of the uterus which is terminating pregnancy or simply abortion. Considering that couples have the right to choose these contraceptives pursuant to the RH bill, then couples are virtually given the right to choose abortion.

Pro choice is really a popular catchword. It is bound to attract backers of the RH bill like that Intramuros guide fanatic. But “whenever we hear the term pro choice, we must also ask the all important question, ‘what choice are we talking about’. “Given the facts about abortion, the question really becomes, do you think people should have the right to choose to kill” innocent defenseless and helpless children in the mothers’ womb “if that is what they want to do”? (Pro life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments, p. 83).

Indeed, the main authors of this bill, Representatives Lagman and Guarin do not deny that some of these contraceptives prevent the live fetus from implanting in the walls of the uterus. But they stubbornly insist on the passage of the bill by claiming that life begins only upon the implantation of the fetus on the uterus contrary to the scientifically established findings that life begins from the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm or at conception. Raising the issue of when life begins just leads us to the following question: “If you are driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child but may just be a dark figure of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes. Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life”? ( idem, p. 39).

Actually however there is no more doubt on this matter anymore. Our Constitution itself says that the state shall protect the life of the mother equally with the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. So the RH bill should be junked not because the Church is opposing it but because it is unconstitutional. There is no reason at all to pounce on the Church and her prelates for opposing the bill.

E mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net.