Frequently Asked Questions about the Philippine Population and its implications

1. We’re approaching 100 million! Is there reason to be scared?

Fear usually comes from misunderstanding the issue. No thanks to Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich who both said that runaway population growth (to borrow the term from the media) will lead to widespread hunger, famine, and disease. Ehrlic said this will happen in the 70s. It did not happen. He said it will happen in the 80s. It did not happen. Today, the media, fueled by ignorance and denial of many people, still say that this will happen in the future, but by now we already know not to trust them.

photo courtesy of http://candobetter.net/node/2080

2. How can you say that?! Do you think there will be enough food to feed everyone?

The World Food Programme lists several factors for the lack of food in certain places, and having too many people is not one of them. Here in our country, there are factors that affect food production, like the fact that our farmers lack the technology and the infrastructure required to grow more food. The key is to produce more food, not to curb population.

3. But curbing “runaway population growth” means less mouths to feed!

Yes, but these “mouths to feed” (a very insulting thing to say to PEOPLE by the way) also have two arms, two feet, a heart, and a brain that can be part of the workforce in the future, stabilizing our economy. 

courtesy of http://krissthesexyatheist.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-seemingly-quarterly-post-on.html

4. But more people means a weaker economy!

Says who? There is no real evidence that supports the claim that population growth has jeopardized the economy. If anything, population growth has actually helped the economy of China, Singapore, and the Philippines, according to the study of Wong Hok Tsen and Fumitaka Furuoka entitled “The Relationship between Population and Economic Growth in Asian Economies”[1]. So clearly, if there’s a direction that our population must take, it has to increase, not decrease.

5. 100 Million! We’re going to be filling every island in the Philippines and get overcrowded!

No we won’t. Population isn’t just about the number of people; you have to factor in population growth rate, population density, and total fertility rate in as well. Our growth rate is around 1.7%[2], our population density is  330 people per square kilometers[3], and the average number of children every Filipina mother is having is just around 3.10, which is way down from an average of 7.15 in 1960[4]. It is very easy to make the mistake of saying that the Philippines is overpopulated just because Metro Manila is congested. The National Statistical Coordination Board of the Philippines says: With a land area of only 619.5 square kilometers and a population of 11,553,427, Metro Manila has a population density of 18,650 persons per square kilometer in 2007[5].

courtesy of http://globalbalita.com/2013/06/22/industrialization-and-overpopulation/

7. What needs to be done then?

Our government needs to curb corruption, not the population! Esteemed economist Dr. Bernardo Villegas explains the problem succinctly: “P400 billion is yearly lost to corruption: P200 billion lost in tax evasion and another P200 billion lost in government resources used unproductively.”[6] And this statement was made prior to the PDAF scandal!

It makes much, much more sense to invest in the population than to curb it. While a lot of countries like Japan and Singapore, and many of the European countries like France, Italy, Spain, and Russia are very worried about their aging and dwindling population, to the point that they had to come up with so many creative ways to get couples to procreate, the media, the government, and a lot of sectors are passing around ignorance by emphasizing on curbing our population.

Let us invest on education, skills training, and the creation of businesses that will employ more people rather than focusing our energies on slowing our population growth.

---

[1] Wong Hok Tsen, Fumitaka Furuoka, The Relationship between Population and Economic Growth in Asian Economies, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/asean_economic_bulletin/v022/22.3.wong.html

[2] The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW/countries/PH?display=graph

[3] The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST

[4] Index Mundi, http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/total_fertility_rate.html

[5] National Statistical Coordination Board, http://www.nscb.gov.ph/factsheet/pdf08/FS-200806-SS1-01.asp

[6] Cunan, Bel Political Tidbits, http://www.polbits.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

When the RH Law is Just a Symptom of a Bigger Problem

This was in the news about a month ago:

MANILA, February 13, 2014 – In an ambush interview after the Tapatan sa Aristocrat Media Forum held every Monday at the historic Aristocrat Restaurant. Dr. Ruben Siapno, M.D. assistant regional director for the NCR of the Department of Health said that the department ‘will still provide family planning services’ even if the Supreme Court will declare the RH Law unconstitutional.

Siapno admitted that even without the RH Law, certain provisions of the RH law can still be implemented especially the need for Maternal Health services such as family planning pills and devices.

He however quickly revealed when asked of the difference of having and RH law and without it as, “funding.”

Siapno added, “We currently have limitations. We can only provide for the maternal needs of women but with the RH Law we can prepare even the children. It is important that children be ready in case and be aware what to do.”

Early last year, the Commission on Audit (COA) in its 2011 annual audit report of the DOH uncovered over P500 million in fund irregularities from medicine procurement, hospital, medical, various goods and services.

During the debates of the RH bill senator Pia Cayetano sponsor of the bill admitted during interpellations on Senate Bill 2865 that the Department of Health (DOH) had asked for P13.7 billion to implement the RH bill for the year 2012 alone – an amount bigger than the individual budgets of the departments of energy, finance, foreign affairs, justice, labor, science, tourism, and trade. – veritas846.ph

Siapno admitted that even without the RH Law, certain provisions of the RH law can still be implemented
especially the need for Maternal Health services such as family planning pills and devices.

The logical reaction here would be to say that RH is moot. The government is going to go with it anyway, so why enforce a law that is divisive? The RH camp has gone so brazen anyway to show commercials on condoms, pills, and injectibles even as RH is in the limbo of the Supreme Court. They’re going to implement RH services with or without the RH law, therefore there is no need for it, and no need to use taxpayers’ money for contraception.

However, it would not be correct for us to assume that this means the Supreme Court will rule in our favor next month, nor is it right for us to disregard RH and its effects. One of the first things Michael Voris of churchmilitant.tv told us when he arrived here last month for a series of talks was a very sobering statistic: according to the group Univision.com, who made a survey on Catholics around the world, 68% of Filipino Catholics disagree with the Church on Her teachings about contraception.

That’s close to 3/4 of Catholics here in our country! What has happened?

What do you mean "Bahala na si Batman?"

We were having dinner one night with a doctor active in the pro-life advocacy, and she told us about her experience in giving a pro-life talk to an all-girls school. She was floored by the questions they asked her in the open forum. Questions such as: “Is it bad for us to have sex? and “are you stopping us from having sex?”

Naturally, she asked the religion teacher why the girls seem to not comprehend basic notions of chastity and modesty. The simple reply was: “we don’t teach doctrines and catechism any more. Everything is “experiential “ (where they apparently share stories and experiences in class without the catechism or the scriptures guiding these children).

Our doctor adds: “one of the girls got pregnant and she didn’t know who the father was. Apparently the kids experimented on sex one night during a very sexual game in a slumber party they attended. The girls were blindfolded and they had to guess who among the guys had sex with them.”

Shocking as it may sound, these activities seem like everyday stuff to many of our younger generation. We have to understand now that there is a bigger problem that lies ahead of us even if RH does not pass in the Supreme Court.

Even without the RH law, we now have a society whose foundations have been disintegrating beneath us; lives have been cheapened, exploited and destroyed; our families are broken, our schools are no longer teaching the authentic teaching of the Church; our children are having sex and using contraception at an earlier age, and marriage between one man and one woman is in danger because of the threat of same-sex marriage.

The RH law is just the final nail in the coffin.

There are lots of reasons why these problems are upon us. It all boils down to the failure of teaching the faith.

We have a lot of work to do in order to reverse this trend. We have to spread the Gospel of Life one person, one family, one group, one parish, one school, and one institution at a time. There really is no other way than to strengthen our foundations, and there is no other choice but to raise our children along the path to holiness.

We have to do something now. Not next month, not next week, not later. Now. Starting with our own homes and our own families. 

Some Questions I Wish RH Fans Could Answer

Barely a few days into the new year and the Pro RH camp has fired the first shot into this battle for lives. This time it came in the form of a simple PR from the Population Commission, which said that we will hit 100 million this year. Once again, mainstream and social media are abuzz with people clamoring that we need the RH law, which is now in Supreme Court Limbo following the SC's status quo ante order.

This is by no means an accident or a coincidence. The RH machinery makes sure that from time to time the media will report something about the RH law. Haven't you noticed? Last time around, it was the rising incidence of HIV cases. This time it's the population 'ballooning' to a hundred million. Next time I bet it will be about the rise in unwanted pregnancies. This well-oiled, and well-funded RH machinery will make sure that society will be saturated with news proclaiming the RH Gospel.

For the longest time the pro-life side has been touted by the anti-life side as religious fanatics whose faith rules over the intellect. In short: they think we're the stupid ones. Next time they remind you that you're stupid because you take the side of life, ask them to take time to answer these simple questions.

1. Exactly how many Filipinos does it take to say that we are really overpopulated? No one has been able to give me an exact number yet. Can you?

2. Would God create you if He knew there would not be enough food and resources to keep you alive? There's plenty for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich because of greed. Lowering the population does nothing to address this problem of greed.

by Jess Abrera

3. Why are we trying to lower our population when the rest of the world is desperate to raise theirs?  A case of gaya-gaya, puto-maya? Countries like Japan, China, Singapore, France, Italy, and Russia are desperate to jack up their birth rates. Why are we imitating their folly? The demographic and economic implications are the same. If they're losing workforce because of too few babies born and too many old people around, it will happen to us too, if we put the breaks on our population.

4. If you're against PDAF, why aren't you against RH? So you went to Luneta and protested the unscrupulous spending of billions of taxpayer's money in things that did nothing to help the poor and advance us into progress. Tell me again how funding RH will give the poor access to basic things such as food, shelter, education, job opportunities, and skills training?

by Jess Abrera

5. Can you look at this, say out loud "we need 13.9 billion pesos to implement the RH law", and be at peace with yourself? 

That is a picture of the bunkhouses they're building as temporary shelters for Yolanda victims in Tacloban. Architect Jun Palafox said in an interview with Inquirer Radio:

“I can confirm they (bunkhouses) were substandard and undersized,”

International standards, he said, require bunkhouses to be at least 20 square meters and should have two bedrooms.

“Daughters should not be sleeping with their fathers or brothers, it’s a basic human requirement,” he explained.

“What I saw there was so inhumane.”

Palafox, who has worked with 38 other countries in rebuilding disaster-stricken areas, compared the bunkhouses that they built in Sri Lanka and Malaysia to the ones being built in Leyte.

“I’m reminded of the saying, `We build monuments for the dead but we can’t even provide decent housing for the living’,’’ he said by phone when interviewed by the Inquirer.

He added that the bunkhouses in Leyte have violated various laws in terms of building construction, saying that the spaces for the families are cramped and the materials used were fire hazards.

“Various international organizations confirmed that they (bunkhouses) are cramped and are fire hazards; there is no privacy; it violates the building code… I would not put my family there,” Palafox said. “How can you put a family of five into a six to nine square-meter room while the materials used were one-fourth plywood.”

Palafox also said that the roofing, which were made with  “dos aguas” galvanized iron sheets (two slopes) were the same materials that were blown away during the onslaught of “Yolanda.”

They used the same materials that were blown away in the storm, and they just repeated what was there in the first place,” Palafox said. “You don’t have to be an engineer or an architect to see it, it is a no brainer, maybe a first year Architecture student can tell you this is substandard,” he said.

This is how the government treats us. This is how the government treats the poor. No wonder the President and his cohorts have no shame in passing the RH law. Their idea of eradicating poverty is making poor people have less children, so they don't have to do the difficult work of finding real, long-term solutions to poverty and corruption. 

Pro RH friends, wake up! 

A Debate Between Quirky Catholic and A Population Control Fanatic

First of all, let me set the record straight: this is more of a discussion rather than an all-out slug fest, and I would not call this a proper debate. However, I think you would like to know one thing about population control pushers, like the one I had a discussion with. They claim to use science and reason to push their agenda, but when it comes down to it... I will let you decide.

Just a brief background. I was tagged in a thread in a certain page. Lo and behold, I see our old friend, Antiqueno Pinoy, peddling his wares again, so to speak. He and I, along with several of my companions, have been debating him since 2010 during the early days of the I Oppose the RH bill page. I sort of lost track of him after the bill passed late last year, and I was a bit surprised to see him on another page. He is a rabid population control believer, and he insists that unless our country goes down to a TFR (total fertility rate) of 1.0, then this country is doomed. In essence, he wants to copy China's one-child policy, even as China has already turned its back on it. The reversal may have come too late, as you guys can read here, but let's save that for another day. Without further ado, I present to you Mr. Population Control Fanatic.

Knowing Mr. Population Control Fanatic all too well, exchanging facts, numbers, statistics, and studies with him in an effort to prove his Malthusian ideas wrong is as futile as Sisyphus rolling up his fabled boulder up the hill. It's like dousing water to Greek Fire - he will not accept any logical or scientific proof that will debunk his population control philosophy. So I took a different route, as you can read above and below. 

Hah! He refuses to answer such an easy question: do you have kids of your own, Mr. Antiqueno? He might as well tie a millstone to his neck and drop to the bottom of the sea if he were to follow my line of arguing, and so he deflects it and refuses to answer my simple question.

See how he tried to duck and weave by saying that my question was 'personal and emotional'. Following his statement of "high fertility(too many babies) causes poverty, the logical conclusion would be that his kids caused poverty too. If he didn't have any, he might as well just have none, lest he and his siring of children exacerbate the poverty we have here in the country.

For the record: Yes, his statement - high fertility rate is the major cause of poverty in the Philippines - is wrong. Many countries have already felt the effects of having too few babies born that would have been the future manpower and labor force of their nation. They have mitigated this by asking for immigrants, like us, to work and live there in their country. Countries like Japan, Singapore, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, and Spain have TFRs below 2.1 - meaning that their ladies are having less than 2 kids. Demographically speaking, countries whose TFRs are below the so-called "replacement rate" of 2.1 are the countries having trouble with too many elderly people and too few young people. In Japan, for example, sales of adult diapers are way higher than that of baby diapers.

This kind of mentality - that too many people cause poverty - is a theory developed by Thomas Malthus in the 19th century, and has been long debunked by Simon Kuznets, a Russian-American economist, statistician, demographer, and economic historian who won the 1971 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development". Here in Asia, scientists Wong Hock Tsen and Fumitaka Furuoka made a study called: The Relationship between Population and Economic Growth in Asian Economies. Their studies concluded that overall, there was no relationship between economics and population growth - debunking what Antiqueno Pinoy said above that very high fertility causes poverty; however, they also concluded that for some countries, namely: Singapore, China, and The Philippines, population growth actually causes economic growth, debunking Antiqueno a second time. 

It is one thing to debunk Antiqueno's claims; however, too many people, many of them RH supporters, still believe in the antiquated and long-debunked Malthusian idea of too many people causing poverty. In fact, this is also the belief of so many ecologists - that too many people cause the destruction of nature, ergo we should diminish the population for the sake of the trees, the animals, the rivers, and the forests. Bullsh*t! That's why I don't adhere to animal groups like PETA either. They place animals' rights before human rights. You don't see too many of animal rights groups fighting abortion and contraception, right? 

In the end, the debate was not meant to be. I was tired of arguing stats and demography with him, and he wouldn't answer my question either. But, I learned something very valuable with my exchange with him. When it all comes down to it, when we're dealing with flesh and blood, science can only prove so much. Beyond the numbers, beyond the statistics, beyond the ideologies, there are people like you and me, happy and grateful to be alive. Who among us, then, have caused poverty in the country? We're working, we're paying taxes, we're contributing to a better nation, and so will our children. 

My life is a gift from God. We are all God's gifts to one another. This way we enrich the world with our lives. This is my belief. This is why I cannot accept Mr. Antiqueno's belief that people cause poverty and misery, precisely because people are also the way out of it. 

If You Say You Oppose PDAF, You Should Oppose RH Too

The Pork Barrel Scam has certainly enraged this nation and the anger will soon spill over to the streets. A few days from now simultaneous rallies will be held against the greed and corruption perpetuated by the Pork Barrel system, held fortuitously on the day called Araw ng mga Bayani. The day of heroes. On that day, we take to the streets, and protest the massive corruption happening in our country – an injustice so great that it has left the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Some were afraid that the recent habagat rains and the massive flooding might steal the thunder away from this event on the 26th. However, neither rains nor flood had that effect. On the contrary, the flooding and the destruction caused by the monsoon rains served as the perfect visual aid needed for the fence sitters still undecided whether to join the said event or not. The message was unmistakeable: had the billions Napoles and these legislators pocketed been spent on a proper flood-control system, all that rain that pelted us for the past few days wouldn’t have caused the massive flooding that we saw and experienced for ourselves. This flood and loss of property, money, and lives could have been averted; visualize these images vis a vis that lavish party of Jeane Napoles, Janet's daughter. 

Admit it: Every time you hear Katy Perry's "Firework"
you will always be reminded of this. That you wallow in poverty, they couldn't care less.

Just to be clear: I am opposing PDAF because the money that these congressmen and senators have taken from us deserve to be used for projects that will truly uplift our lives, especially the lives of the poorest of the poor. 10 billion is just too big an amount to lose. Imagine what 10 billion could have bought! According to research, here is a list of what 10 billion pesos can buy:

370 million kilos of well-milled NFA rice (P27/kilo)

55.6 million kilos of pork (P180/kilo)

185 million dozens of chicken eggs (P54/dozen)

83 million kilos of “galunggong” (P120/kilo)

823 million 155-gram cans of sardines (P12.15/can)

1.59 million 50-gram packs of instant noodles (P6.30/pack)

400 kilometers of standard two-lane roads (P25 million per km)

417 bus terminals similar to the newly built Southwest Interim Transport Terminal in Parañaque City (P24 million for the terminal)

5.6 million PhilHealth members (P1,800/year)

248 million textbooks (P40 per textbook)

8,000 classrooms in two-story buildings (P1.25 million per classroom)

13,699 classrooms in single-story buildings (P730,000 per classroom)

(sources: Philippine Daily Inquirer Archives, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry, Sona Technical Report 2013)

Will 10 billion pesos make a big difference in our lives and in the lives of the poor? Yes, of course!

What if I told you that there is a law that will cost more than this 10 billion-peso scam? Yes, it is the RH law.

If you oppose PDAF on those terms above, you might as well oppose the RH law as well. Think about it.

Under the Pork Barrel Scam, 10 billion pesos were taken from us by the legislators involved. Under the RH law, 13.7 billion will be taken from us, taxpayers, whether we agree with RH or not.

We complain that the 10 billion embezzled money could have been used for other things like food, classrooms and textbooks , and roads and highways.  We complain that the money that should have been used to leap us into progress was used to make a few people filthy rich.

By the very same logic, we should also be up in arms because the RH law would be asking more from us - to the tune of 13.7 billion pesos annually. Let us make good use of that 13.7 billion to make sure that the poor have access to:

1. Clean water and clean surroundings,

2. Quality education and skills training to make them productive citizens,

3. Quality hospitals and skilled doctors, nurses and midwives so that all deaths, including maternal deaths, are lessened.

They say that RH is for the poor to have a choice – but what choice does RH offer except the choice to have or not have children? The Pro-life answer entails that we lift the poor from their poverty altogether, so that the poor, once fed, educated, and given a job, can be free to make more choices that will have profound and lasting effects in their lives. Certainly, we think that there is more to the life of the poor than just being able to choose how many children we want.

Take note that the legislators who vigorously advocated for the passage of RH also stand to receive much for giving so little to those who need most. They have foreign lobbyists that back them up – including groups that are bent on legalizing abortion in countries where abortion is still illegal. The president has already rewarded Janette Garin by way of an appointment, as DOH undersecretary.

Take note that there were persistent rumors that the president would withhold the PDAF of congressmen who would not vote for RH. This rumor was reinforced during the voting on the second reading of the RH bill back in December, when the president’s henchmen Edwin Lacierda, Butch Abad, and Mar Roxas went to congress apparently to remind the congressmen to tow the line, or else. The result was one of the most undemocratic passage of a bill. 

Both the PDAF and RH are living symptoms of this cancer we call corruption. They do not help the poor, nor does the ordinary Juan stand to benefit with these corrupt practices and laws. I ask that you remember that feeling you had when you had to endure hours of traffic, potholes on roads, inept administration of government officials, high prices of commodities and little to almost no wage increase, and a small, humid airport with stinking toilets. You had to endure all these things because the money that was intended for progress was either siphoned to the pockets and bank accounts of these greedy officials, or will be used to purchase condoms.

Can you live with that?  I can’t. That’s why I oppose both PDAF and RH, and will fight unceasingly until they are abolished and repealed forever. Social justice demands nothing less!

The Top 5 Most Absurd and Persistent Comments in Social Media

Through the years I have read a lot of articles, blogs, Tweets, and comments from Facebook to other sites. I found out the hard way an undeniable and glaring truth: the use of social media does not guarantee intelligence nor common sense. In fact, I think that the internet should be called Idiot Box 2.0. I have gathered some of the most uninformed and uneducated comments and status updates out there, and take note that these comments are pretty common comments made by a lot of people, not just some bloke who happened to think too far outside the box. These absurd comments have a way of spreading around, and people tend to pick them up without even thinking them over, hence you see a lot of people using the same comment. What’s worse is that those making these comments actually think they said something brilliant. Without further ado, here they are, ranked according to absurdity and persistence, and some explanation on how to respond to these comments.  

5. The Church is medieval, backward, and archaic

This comment is used to make the Church look like some collection of old farts and hillbillies who know nothing about science. Fact is that many priests and members of the clergy have degrees in various fields in academics, including the sciences. Even prominent scholars like Thomas Woods say that the backbone of our modern civilized society is the Catholic Church, who was responsible for the spreading and preserving of knowledge after the Roman era (through the monks who collected and reproduced books and taught and tutored so many people during these times.) The Catholic Church was also responsible for the scientific method and the university system. Nicholas Copernicus was a priest. George Lemaitre was a Belgian priest who came up with the Big Bang theory. In fact, many of our famous scientists were Catholic: Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, André-Marie Ampère, Gregor Mendel, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Marin Mersenne, Alessandro Volta, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Roger Boscovich, Pierre Gassendi, and Georgius Agricola, to name a few.

It is also worth noting that many of our modern laws originate from the Ten Commandments. For a good reference on how to debunk the argument and other comments related to this, watch in YouTube “The Catholic Church, Builder of Civilization.”

(Related arguments: The Crusades, The Inquisition)

The Catholic Church is against science, you said? Copernicus is not impressed. 

(Related arguments: The Crusades, The Inquisition)      

4. Pedophile Priests

This is a common retort of those who don’t have anything intelligent or relevant to contribute to the conversation. It is also used by the supposed smart ones to buttress their argument, especially after using #5 – The Church is medieval, backward, and archaic. Of course, the fact that there are priests who abused children and minors is not to be denied, but anyone using some common sense here can sense that the media has blown this out of proportion. Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

·                   ·         All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious                  group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

·                 ·         Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.

·         Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.

·         Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.

• Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucrative to sue.
• The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.
• What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.

Again, while we do not deny the existence of priests who have committed atrocious sexual crimes against minors, we have to put things into context in order to come up with the truth. Professor Jenkin’s book is for sale here.              

3. Jesus taught us to love, not to hate

Used by those who advocate homosexual acts and same-sex marriage. Same-sex union proponents often make the excuse (a heretical excuse if I may add) that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that homosexual acts are wrong. Ironically, the ones who make these comments are the ones who have either rejected Christianity or the ones who are totally ignorant of it. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always maintained that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong. This is the same tradition that was handed to Jesus, and the tradition that Jesus lived in. Sure, Jesus taught love, but Jesus also taught to “sin no more.”

There would always be people and groups who will twist the scriptures and the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to validate homosexual relationships. In my opinion, however, we need to be extra understanding to our brethren with Same Sex Attraction; not to the point of tolerating the sin, of course, but to understand that they must have encountered something very wrong in their childhood, something very painful, for them to have SSA.

Here are the teachings on Homosexuality and the homosexual act based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Father, forgive them for they think they're cool by doing this. 

In a nutshell: No, we as Catholics can never approve of homosexual acts and same-sex marriage because it is by itself wrong, and goes against natural law. However, we need to free people with SSA from unjust discrimination, and treat them with the utmost respect. The person with SSA is thereby called to a life of chastity, just like every Catholic. That’s the clear and unmistakable stand of the Church. There should be no hate, nor judgment, nor bigotry involved; just a genuine desire for our brethren with SSA to lead meaningful and holy lives.

(Related arguments: Catholics are homophobic haters and bigots who do not support equality)       

2. You Catholics Worship Images!

This is one of the more common ones, and anti-Catholics do not seem to understand their scripture, or even basic human nature. If I were to look at the portrait of my mother, and say “Mum, I love you”, did I mean that I love the portrait, or my mother?

The website Catholic Answers explains the issue very thoroughly:

"Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31). 

The Ark of the Covenant. Found by Indiana Jones. Kept at Hangar 51.

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues. 

Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! 

 God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20). 

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels. 

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."  

The Religious Uses of Images

Moses apparently did not get the memo about
not making images. Hmm. 

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. 

1. The Catholic Church opposes RH so that there are more babies, ergo more collection during baptism and more future mass-goers

This is so absurd that I hesitate to even answer this argument whenever I encounter it. It’s an argument based on ignorance, malice, arrogance, lack of common sense, and hasty judgment. Of course any parish or church would need funds in order to survive. That is the basic reality of this world: you have to pay the bills, pay your workers, repair damaged buildings, and purchase all the necessary things like food. The argument is malicious because it implies that the clergy are making their services as fund-raisers. While it is true that some abuse their authority, again we have to understand that there are temporal matters to consider.

A related argument I see often is: Why doesn’t the Pope sell the Vatican and give the money to the poor? Sarah Silverman made the same argument in a video 4 years ago. Okay, let’s say we do sell the Vatican, collect around 500 billion, and feed the poor of the world. How long can that money last, you think? Not very long, we all know. Meanwhile, we have not addressed the real issues that cause poverty, and the same people we have helped this year with the 500 billion will still be poor the next year – and the Church, the biggest charitable organization in the world, reaching out to more people than any government can, is out of funds.

The same can be said of the RH law. Give them condoms and pills, but not address the real problems exacerbating and causing their poverty, then you have just wasted billions of taxpayers’ money on contraceptives.

So, is your friend still keen on selling the Vatican? If he says yes, then I have good news for him: Judas thought along the same lines.

I fondly remember my English teacher back in 4^th year high school who said, “Intelligence is like underwear. If you don’t have it, it shows.” We should be committed to the truth always. Practice humility at all times, especially during heated discussions. If you see more common and absurd comments, please type them at the comment box below, and let us all discover the truth (and laugh uncontrollably) together.