Portrait of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo
A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE
MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL
PART III
[This
is the third part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister
Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while
my comments are in black.]
Page 1 of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo's position on the RH Bill
What are the moral aspects of the proposed
bills that we support? We believe that it is moral imperative for parents to
watch over all their children and provide them with food, shelter, and
clothing, as well as proper education and religious and moral training.
This stand of the Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo is not original. In
fact, this is where his Iglesia ni Cristo
and the Catholic Church concur. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, echoes
this traditional and perennial teaching of the magisterium.
Page 2 of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo's position on the RH Bill
Hence, parents today have a moral obligation
to plan the number of their children and keep it under control.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope
Paul VI discusses responsible parenthood which means that parents may prudently
and generously have more children or decide not to have additional children
for a certain or indefinite period of time for serious reasons and as long as
moral precepts are respected and God’s will obeyed. The Pope states:
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social
conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and
generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious
reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional
children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood,
as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount
importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God,
and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the
exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a
right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves,
their families and human society.
From this it follows
that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting
life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to
follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do
corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and
its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells
it out.”
Pope Paul VI: The Pope of Humanae Vitae
The Bible states that a parent who does not
provide for the needs of his own household is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim.
5:8).
The Catholic Church in no wise disagrees of
disobeys this Biblical teaching. Echoing this Biblical imperative, the Catholic
Church exhorts Christian families and societies:
“The family should live in such a way that
its members learn to care and take responsibility for the young, the old, the
sick, the handicapped, and the poor. There are many families who are at times
incapable of providing this help. It devolves then on other persons, other
families, and, in a subsidiary way, society to provide for their needs:
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to
visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from
the world” (No. 2208, CCC).
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Since modern methods of contraception—by
preventing married couples from having any unplanned pregnancies—assist in
supporting this Christian principle, we support their use as long as these
methods are empirically not abortifacient.
Here, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo clearly supports
the RH Bill because of its promotion of modern methods of contraception which
prevent married couples from having unplanned pregnancies. He goes on to state
that this supports the Christian principle that parents
must provide for the needs of its own household. This thinking of Mr. Manalo
lacks sophistication. He in fact indirectly makes a fallacious assumption that
those who practice modern contraceptive methods are the ones who provide the
needs of his own household. What about those who don’t use modern methods of
contraception, are they incapable of providing for the needs of their family?
Clearly, Mr. Manalo’s assertion is a non
sequitor – it does not follow. Couples who may have never used any
contraceptive may be responsible parents as long as they provide for the needs
of their family. Therefore, the use or non-use of contraceptives inherently has
nothing to do with responsible parenthood. Mr. Manalo’s simplistic thinking
misses that very elementary fact.
Secondly, the Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo seemed to have not
read the bill. Or if he has, he may not have understood it completely.
Otherwise, he should have not made this statement: “Since modern methods
of contraception—by preventing married
couples from having any unplanned pregnancies” (emphasis added). Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo operates under the
false assumption that the modern means of contraceptives promoted by the RH
Bill can be availed only by married couples. He is never more wrong.
Truth to tell, the RH Bill itself explicitly
provides in Section 28 (Prohibited Acts):
“The following acts
are prohibited:
(a) Any healthcare service
provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(3) Refuse to extend health care services and information on
account of the person’s marital
status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work; Provided,
That, the conscientious objection of a healthcare service provider based on
his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the
conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and
services to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one
which is conveniently accessible who is willing to provide the requisite
information and services; Provided, further, That the
person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in RA 8344
otherwise known as “An Act Penalizing the Refusal of Hospitals and Medical
Clinics to Administer Appropriate Initial Medical Treatment and Support in
Emergency and Serious Cases.”
Who violates the separation of Church
and State?: Pres. Benigno Aquino III and INC Executive Minister Eduardo
V. Manalo talk on a highly political issue like the impeachment (Photo:
grab from GMA News)
Hence, even single individuals can also avail
of these modern methods of contraception. The RH Bill categorically provides
that single individuals cannot be discriminated against in the availment of
contraceptives. The healthcare service provider who refuses to extend
healthcare services (i.e., providing
contraceptives) to an unmarried person runs the risk of criminal prosecution.
I think Mr. Manalo is aware, assuming he knows
his Bible correctly, that unmarried individuals who engage in sexual activity
even with the benefit of contraceptives are committing fornication.
Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill which does away with any distinction between
married and unmarried individuals in the availment and use of contraceptives.
Clearly, Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill which in turn promotes and/or
facilitates fornication.
What Eduardo V. Manalo does not know
To compound the problem, the RH Bill, as presently
worded, also does not discriminate against age (see
the provision above). Hence, even minors can avail of modern contraceptive methods!
Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill because according to him, modern methods of
contraception prevent married couples from having unplanned pregnancies. But,
the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports unabashedly provides that singles and
minors can avail of these contraceptives! Where is morality in that? Clearly,
Mr. Manalo loses big time as a religious, spiritual and moral leader. The moral
bankruptcy of Mr. Manalo’s position is there for all to see.
To be consistent with his support for the RH
Bill, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo and his ministers must therefore distribute condoms
and pills to the single and minor members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. I wonder if Mr. Manalo would do that. If he
won’t, then it simply means that Mr. Manalo knows, instinctively, that there is
something wrong – morally wrong – with the RH Bill.
Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof knows
the ill effects of contraception on morality which religious leader
Eduardo Manalo does not know
