With Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates “Soc” Villegas as the newly-elected president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, surely the hurdling conflict regarding the controversial Republic Act No. 10354, better known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act, does not stop here.
Villegas was announced the new CBCP leader to take over Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma after the latter declared giving up his post which will end on the first of December. He may be new in the position, but the 52 year-old Villegas has been a veteran in waging a long-time fight against contraception.
An avid supporter of the late President Corazon Aquino, Villegas ironically is one of the greatest critics of the former’s son incumbent Chief Executive Noynoy Aquino. The clash was made even deeper as the younger Aquino signed and approved the enactment of RH into law. Once asked in an interview last February, he said that the relationship between the Church and the current administration was “far from ideal.”
Known to be Sin’s protégé, Villegas said to the youth amid the debate on RH bill last year that “contraception is corruption,” citing it as a possible way to legalize abortion in the country. While the name of the act itself provides responsible parenthood, the clergy mistook it for being pro-abortion and called contraceptive pills and devices abortifacients.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly indicts that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable yet the prelates vaguely recognized it. The ecclesiastical members attended the opening hearing in the Supreme Court as “conscience troublemakers” to rule out the RH law’s constitutionality last Tuesday. They even held a Mass and prayer vigil to support anti-RH advocates on the same date.
Meanwhile, it may be a good idea for the Church to be more open-minded on giving the poor access to contraceptives as a measure to control the state’s population growth. With the ongoing friction between these two entities, it is merely our personal choice whether which side to take or if we should take side at all.
On the other hand, oral arguments were conducted in the SC main session hall which lasted for about five hours hearing mainly the voices of those challenging the now suspended legislation. The proceedings will resume this coming July 23.
And so the battle continues.
Back to Home
Headlines/News
Opinion
Sports
Features
Villegas was announced the new CBCP leader to take over Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma after the latter declared giving up his post which will end on the first of December. He may be new in the position, but the 52 year-old Villegas has been a veteran in waging a long-time fight against contraception.
An avid supporter of the late President Corazon Aquino, Villegas ironically is one of the greatest critics of the former’s son incumbent Chief Executive Noynoy Aquino. The clash was made even deeper as the younger Aquino signed and approved the enactment of RH into law. Once asked in an interview last February, he said that the relationship between the Church and the current administration was “far from ideal.”
Known to be Sin’s protégé, Villegas said to the youth amid the debate on RH bill last year that “contraception is corruption,” citing it as a possible way to legalize abortion in the country. While the name of the act itself provides responsible parenthood, the clergy mistook it for being pro-abortion and called contraceptive pills and devices abortifacients.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly indicts that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable yet the prelates vaguely recognized it. The ecclesiastical members attended the opening hearing in the Supreme Court as “conscience troublemakers” to rule out the RH law’s constitutionality last Tuesday. They even held a Mass and prayer vigil to support anti-RH advocates on the same date.
Meanwhile, it may be a good idea for the Church to be more open-minded on giving the poor access to contraceptives as a measure to control the state’s population growth. With the ongoing friction between these two entities, it is merely our personal choice whether which side to take or if we should take side at all.
On the other hand, oral arguments were conducted in the SC main session hall which lasted for about five hours hearing mainly the voices of those challenging the now suspended legislation. The proceedings will resume this coming July 23.
And so the battle continues.
Back to Home
Headlines/News
Opinion
Sports
Features
RSS Feed