Wednesday, July 16, 2008 Wenceslao: Population as scapegoat By Bong O. Wenceslao Candid Thoughts
I don't think Catholic priests can deny Rep. Benhur Salimbangon or other solons or persons the Holy Communion. That right is best reserved to Christ, claims of priests being Christ's representatives on earth notwithstanding.
Priests are, after all, people with biases, thus, if given God-like power will mess with it. Remember the Inquisition?
If I were Msgr. Bong Wenceslao, I would be Achilles Dakay. I would follow the line of leaving it to the conscience of a Salimbangon or to “pro-Deaths” lawmakers or to sinners generally whether they take communion during mass despite their “trespasses” or not. I would just warn them they could burst in flame one day while taking the Holy Eucharist.
By the way, Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer, the leading pro-lifer in this burgh, used to be, if I remember it right, with a chapter of the Movement for United Studentry in Southwestern University when we were in college. I was with the rival Positive Thinkers Society. So like in the past, I would stand on the other side on this issue. I would go easy on “pro-Deaths” lawmakers.
Whoever coined “Deaths” should be given an award for sheer geius. It sums up pro-life issues---divorce, euthanasia, abortion, total population control, homosexual union and sex education---and is a good tool for name calling.
Compare that with “Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development.”
Is the acronym my friend Bullecer's handiwork? Anyway, I don't favor labeling because it is subjective and is thus unfair to the persons labeled.
Some pro-lifers may actually be pro-death while some “pro-Deaths bill” solons may actually be pro-life. One does not see the totality of a person, like say Salimbangon and Soon-Ruiz, in labels.
I therefore agree with calls by concerned sectors to raise to a higher level the debate on the “Deaths” bill. It should be based on logic and the interest of the majority and not on name calling and character assassination. This is especially a call for the Church and the laity. Didn't Christ attract attention by the gentleness of his ways?
Meanwhile, I am starting to find the use of poverty as argument to popularize population control grating to the ears. I consider the point raised by Rep. Pablo Garcia compelling: the living standard was low, whether the Philippine population was seven million or 88 million. Population is a minor factor in the country’s impoverished state.
Over dyLA the other day, Salimbangon talked about the poor in his district in relation to population control. I was an organizer in the far south years ago and found out that unequal distribution of wealth is the reason why people there are suffering. Hacienda workers are poor not because their families are big but because they get starvation pay.
Cebu’s wealth can actually feed its population many times over, but unfortunately a big chunk of that wealth is controlled by only a few people. In the countryside, for example, the few landlords are the ones who are rich while majority of farmers are poor. In the urban areas, the capitalists are the millionaires while majority of the workers are barely surviving.
I am not even mentioning there the corrupt in government who are blaming population growth for our economic woes when their parasitic ways are really the reason why this country is in bad shape. I mean, why use population as scapegoat?
(khanwens@yahoo.com/ my blog: cebuano.wordpress.com)
