The fight between pro and anti RH Bill proponents is getting nastier. At least in the press. The Catholic Church threatens civil disobedience by urging her followers not to pay tax should the controversial bill is approved. The president counters that he will jail those who don't pay their due to Juan de la Cruz. Sen. Miriam Santiago, a top caliber lawyer as far as I'm concerned says that civil disobedience is a legitimate avenue to protest.
If one only goes through discussion fora in the internet about the Reproductive Bill, some of us have funny, irresponsible if not simply stupid reasoning.
One opinion says that sex is not only a right of married couples but also a responsibility and that in every marital act; the Catholic Church teaches that it must always be open for the possibility of the transmission of new life.
A John Doe says that in Italy where Vatican City is, there are abortions, artificial contraception, red district, divorce and the like which the Church teaches as morally wrong if not evil. Then s/he says that the Church should respect the people's right of conscience and not impose anything --- that priests should only shepherd their flock in the church.
But why do the crime from other places in your backyard when you know that they are already crime? If one goes to hell, why follow him?
The Catholic Church does not impose anything to anyone. There is an absolute freedom of conscience. The Church simply fights unceasingly for what is right
Christ could have stopped Peter in denying Him for the second time. Christ could have stopped Judas Iscariot in betraying Him. Christ could have told His disciples not to leave Him when He was crucified. Christ did not force doubting Thomas to believe or not to believe that He is the risen Christ. Jesus only explained by showing His wounds.
The Church simply tells what is right and what is wrong and it is up to the individual to decide. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of conscience for the decision of the will is based on what one knows. A well-informed conscience is not arrogant and is willing to be enlightened.
The Church is not only understood as a physical structure but the faithful as well believing in Christ professing one faith as in the case of Catholics. Thus, it is the role of the clergy to “evangelize” not only inside a basilica or shrine but also their beyond, in the communities or society itself.
It is sad and scandalizing to know that some priests are really bad. This is a Church setback in her mission to evangelize. Bad as they are, why are we bothered with their bad deeds or examples? Just like all of us, they are answerable to God. Do something holy not because of a priest or anyone else but do it out of love to the Almighty. No matter how bad or evil a priest is, the sacraments he performs are always valid.
Another opinion asks how could an impotent or septuagenarians “do” their obligation in having sex and in transforming the possibility of a new life?
Impotency is a valid ground for annulment although I am not competent at this time in discussing the complexity of the issue. Was there an impotency before marriage? Did impotency occur after marriage?
For the second point, how could an old, fragile and dried up couple be still capable in transmitting a new life although sex could still be possible?
So, this is the kind of reasoning we Filipinos sometimes have that we bring out of sync, funny if not stupid ideas just to say or insist that our opinion is correct instead of taking sufficient time to study, ponder and reflect on what one tries to convey especially when what is on the plate are issues that cannot be decided by a majority or minority vote.
Truth is objective and not subjective.
No comments:
Post a Comment