Time to pause and reflect

During this Holy Week, it is more appropriate to focus our attention on our daily life as faithful followers of Christ rather than as citizens of this country concerned with the secular problems of our earthly existence. This is the last week of Lent when we commemorate more vividly the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who has been unjustly condemned to suffer and die on the cross. If He is just another human being like us, he would have certainly fought for his rights against this injustice done to him. But in order to reconcile us with God and gain for us the eternal life of bliss after our earthly existence, He chose to undergo the very excruciating pain of physical and even mental torture out of love for us, as the only Begotten Son of God “becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Letter of St Paul to the Philippians, 2:6-11).

As faithful followers of Christ therefore we must also try to emulate Him especially His readiness to always forgive. even if we think and we feel offended by the seemingly unjust and wrongful acts of others. As the priest in our Parish said in his homily last Palm Sunday, we should try our best to abandon the ways of this world where we are so concerned with protecting and exercising what we consider as our inalienable “human rights” and freedoms especially our alleged freedom of choice.

To experience the passion of Christ we can also try to start refraining or abstaining from our bad habits and/or from doing what we most enjoy and love doing to satisfy our purely human inclinations and appetites even if there is nothing wrong or harmful in them. In other words we should try to practice more self-control and discipline not only during this time so that eventually we may be able to practice it the whole year through. If for example we are fond of drinking or smoking or other worldly pleasures of life, we can start giving them up during this time and hopefully follow them through for the rest of the year. Indeed, this is one form of “dying” that does not actually result in the end of our life here on earth. It only means dying to ourselves like burying the hatchet of hatred and anger we have nurtured for so long against others because of our self righteousness.

In this connection, the following article entitled “Integrating our faith with Daily Life” appearing in “A year of the Laity Catechism” by Fr. James H. Kroeger, MM also gives us a timely food for thought during this Holy Week. He wrote

“Pope Francis in the Joy of the Gospel notes that the Church is necessarily concerned about the ‘baptized whose lives do not reflect the demands of Baptism’ (15) This same concern ‘the separation of faith from life’ is echoed by the Philippine Bishops in their document on the laity.

‘It is certainly a shameful proof of our failure to evangelize our country that our churches are filled with people, our religious festivities are fervent, our Catholic schools are many, but our country is mired in poverty and corruption. Many, perhaps the majority of the corrupt people in politics and business, are graduates of our catholic schools and are practicing Catholics’. “The Philippine bishops directly challenged the laity: ‘we urge you to promote a continuing education towards maturity of faith among our people, starting with our Christian families. But even more importantly, we ask you to make your faith bear on your day to day decisions and activities’ Can our Christian faith ‘make all things new’ here ‘in our beloved country?

************

In my article last Friday entitled “Unclear and Inconclusive” about the Supreme Court (SC) decision on the RH law, I made it appear or implied that it has not taken up the issue of “when life begins” But as it now turns out, the text of the SC decision on the RH law already discussed and answered this issue. In said decision p.51, the SC ruled:

“In all whether it be taken from a plain meaning or understood under medical parlance. And more importantly, following the intention of the framers of the constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.

For the above reasons, the court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. (Edcel) Lagman (former member of Congress and primary author of the original RH bill) that life begins at implantation. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object – it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes

Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH law but also to the constitution”

The answer to this issue is quite clear and categorical. Following such ruling on the matter, the SC should not have ruled as constitutional, Section 9 of the RH law, which includes “hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine (IUDS) devices, injectables and effective family supplies” These contraceptives have already been proven to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum and therefore considered as abortifacients.

Apparently the pronouncement of the SC on when life begins is inconsistent with its finding that SEC 9, of the RH law is constitutional. Even if it is only an obiter dictum,  the SC should clarify their ruling on this matter and reconcile the apparent inconsistency.

E-mail: [email protected]