Posts Tagged Anti-RH Bill
– Aran Cabreros
source: [click here]
[Naniniawala ako na mangyari ang overpopulation sa loob ng isang pamilya at yon ay kung yong resources ng parents ay di angkop doon sa pangangailangan ng kanilang mga anak. Say ang resources ng pamilya e ang kaya lang bigyan ng pagkain, mga gamit at panggastos sa pag-aaral e dalawa pero lima ang naging anak, may overpopulation doon. Ganoon ang sitwasyon sa buong Pilipinas. Punta ka sa eskuela sa Maynila at makita mo na dalawang batches sa isang araw na di naman dati ginagawa. Yong mga upuan sira-sira. Mga CR mabaho dahil kulang sa tubig at hindi kaya ang lahat na mag-aaral. Kulang sa titsers. Yong campus wala ng open space dahil puros building na. In short walang room for further development. Yong sinasabi mong corruption and sanhi ng paghihirap ng bansa, tanggap ko yon up to a point. Pero mas mabigat sa akin ang overpopulation b]
this is appealing to emotions. We all know that the Philippines suffer from poverty not because of the so-called overpopulation but because of the massive corruption of the government. You cannot blame to the Filipino people the problems that we are facing today. Our bad mentalities like crab mentality, mamaya na, shortcut etc etc makes us more poor if we will not change ourselves from within. That must be the mission of the church and the state since the two sectors aim for that progress to happen. But If the state will meddle in the moral and spiritual life of the faithful and will only favor those people of whom they think they can benefit [especially that the RH bill will have contracts to condom/pills producers] is a selfish act.think about it.
[ilang dahilan ng paghihirap natin. Kung bakit kasi ang mga Pilipino dinadagdagan ang anak e ang hirap na nga ng buhay sa kasalukuyang number ng kanilang supling. Back doon sa corruption. Walang kaseguruhan na masugpo ang corruption dito sa bansa natin. Matagal nang usapan yan at walang nangyayari maski sa administrasyon ni Pnoy. Kaya sa ganang akin, the wise thing to do is to rein in the population growth to manageable levels habang wala pang solusyon sa corruption para naman di sasahol pa ang kahirapan sa bansa. ]
Our population growth actually declined from 3.5 in the seventies down to 1.9 last year, and as what I gave you a while ago, the projected population growth rate will reduce to 1.87 because many Filipinos are now realizing that we shall have proper discipline concerning Family Planning, irrespective to what method you wanted to use. We do not actually need the RH bill because the laws that are inside the bill are already covered in the existing programs in our government, the question is on how come it wasn’t been implemented properly. Ask yourself and I know your answer actually is…CORRUPTION.
[If the economy can only give decent life to such and such number of Filipinos, then let’s strive to slow down the population growth so as not to make things worse for us until such time that the economy improves and we could afford more children to join us in the islands.
Sa ganang akin lang, dapat walang inosenteng maipanganak para maghirap sa buong buhay niya dahil hindi magkasya ang kinikita ng magulang para mabigyan siya ng maayos na buhay at kinabukasan.]
as I said, the only solution as on how our country will progress is the proper governance and we can see it already in our government today [though actually we still have the lowest credibility in accepting foreign investors because of CORRUPTION]. Proper implementation of the existing laws and sustain more good education to every Filipino. If we will do the shortcut way, you will see how Thailand had suffered the so-called premature demographic winter because of their own version of RH Bill. Look at Japan now, though having the progress, is now suffering from the demographic winter that is starting to lurk in their society. They are now starting to have lack of manpower in their country that is why businessmen are realizing to transfer their factories to emerging economies like the Philippines because we have more manpower as to sustain their needs in their industry. I actually observed that because I am a seafarer and I see how countries are affected in the demographic winter and they suffer a lot and now, they are asking for immigrants to transfer in their aging nation. I don’t want to happen that in our country.If you are a “makabayan”, you should prevent that to happen.
[Kung anong kaya ng ekonomya, gobyerno at lipunan na bigyan ng disenteng buhay, yon lang dapat ang populasyon ng Pilipinas. At sa ganang akin, sobra na ang populasyon natin sa ngayon kung yon ang batayan because proof of that are the 4.3M who have gone hungry in a recent survey. Proof of that are the millions of children who will never reach college. Dapat tutugma ang kaya ng bansang bigyan ng magandang buhay sa populasyon nya. Yaman din lang na ganito na ang populasyon natin, sikapin na lang natin na controlin ang pagdami natin so as not to make things worst than they already are. Replacement level na lang dapat at kung may mga magulang dyan who could forgo child bearing since hindi nila kayang buhayin ng maayos maski isang bata lang, pabor yan sa lipunan at sa kanilang mismong sarili.
Kung kaya ng magulang na ilimit ang kanilang anak sa kaya nilang suportahan sa pamamagitan ng natural family planning, walang kaso sa akin yon. Pero kung wala namang kaso sa kanila ang gumamit ng contraceptives, dapat lang suportahan ng estado in the same manner that it will also support the teaching of NFP. Ang importante, dapat walang ipanganak na bata na zero ang preparasyon para sa kanyang pangangailangan at kinabukasan.]
alam mo ba ano ang sagot diyan? DISIPLINA. walang masama kung susundin mo lang yan at ang gobyerno ang siyang magbibigay ng suporta para sa mga Pilipino. Hindi nadadaan ang pagiging mayaman sa “instant” na pamamaraan. hindi yumaman ang mga mayayamang bansa sa shortcut.
ang kurapsyon ang dahilan igan, dapat itong pigilan, hindi yang babawasan ang numero ng taumbayan.
uulitin ko sa iyo ang tanong na ito: ilan ba ang dapat na dami ng populasyon para sa ating bansa? puwedeng paki-hain dito?
kung wala ka pong masagot, maging honest po tayo kapatid. at maiintindihan ko yan bilang isang katoliko.
Replying a Pro RH Advocate [Estanislao Albano] concerning the article in Manila Standard Today Part II
Part I [paki-click]
[Asan ang verses na sinaasabi mo? Maski yong si Haydock na sarili nyong commentarista sinasabing lihis ang interpretasyonmo sa verses na binanggitmo tapos sasabihinmo narefutemo ang sinasabi ko? ]
no on can serve two masters. Have you read that? And by the way, I already gave you the exegesis sa Mark na ginamit mo. Ano na ngayon ang sagot mo? Meron ba? Wala. Remember Proverbs 3:5
btw, Haydock did not mention anything in negation to the stand of the church to protect its people from the immoralities that the PRO RH would want to pin down in the minds of the people especially that majority of this nation are Catholics and you have to understand the situation. I have replied already to your post regarding his commentary but it seems you are misrepresenting the inner interpretation in his statement. And even If you think he negates to the stand of the church [as if naman kung totoo], he is not the magisterium of the church. Intiendes?
Let me go on where in the church’s teaching that she is involved when it comes to political affairs especially morality, The clearest articulation of this is found in Pius XI’s social encyclical, Quadraqesimo anno, promulgated in 1931, when the world was in the throes of a depression. In paragraphs 41-3, Pius explains. The Church proclaims the moral order of the human universe. She is to proclaim and explain every aspect of the moral order. The moral order is something like the plan of an architect for a great project. God is the architect, and the human race is His great project. God has a design for His human universe. We are free agents, with intelligence and free will. We can discover the moral order and choose to abide by it, or we can ignore it and make up our own plan. Attempting to improve upon God’s moral order is a dangerous undertaking. We have seen many examples of social engineering in this century alone, and know the disastrous results of Nazism, Fascism, and Marxism. See? The church is against any political oppression when it comes to negating the church in their Moral stand and you cannot deny that the RH Bill throw over the morality that the church teaches concerning contraception.
[May sagot ka ba sa mga clear na clear na pronouncements na mga disipulo kasali si Pedro na ayon sa inyo e unang Pope na mga ito na nagsasabing di dapat makisawsaw ang mga Kristiyano sa politiiko?]
let me go on talking about St. peter about the law of men Acts 5:29,But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. Why did St. Peter said this? Because he knows that politics or the law of men is temporal so rather than following the law of men, follow what God had told us to do, and this generation, the church is advocating to not follow the RH Bill because it is a law of men and is not God-breathed. Understand?
[“Let every soul be subject to government authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-3).]
come on, this speaks on Civil Obedience. This also explains that man must be obedient on the forms of legal laws that are in connection to the law of God. Other versions uses not government authorities but HIGHER AUTHORITIES. Pastor Anderson of the Baptist Church explains that the higher Authorities is not meant that the Church have no role in maintaining the spiritual and moral life of the people. In the verse you quoted, it even affirms that the eternal authority can only be seen in God. Meaning, according to Pastor Anderson, there is a domino effect on which a man is being appointed by God to rule the people either in the government or in the church. So meaning, they both share the same goal of which is to make the people obedient in the society and the Church that molds their moral and spiritual well-being [obviously, this can be contained in the Philippine Constitution]
[“Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme. Or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (I Peter 2:13, 14).]
fine! read the verse, it says “…for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good”, are you not reading the verse you quoted? It says for the punishment of evildoers. So since the Church proclaimed that RH Bill is an evil thing in moral aspects, then we submit to the government our opposition in the RH Bill. The church already proclaimed that Contraception is evil, so why the heck it is not understandable for you? Continue reading verse 15-17
“For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. “
so now, is the RH Bill honoring God according to the Church’s principle? Tell me.
[Eto ang pangontramo sa ma maliwanag na verses na mga iyan:
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.
Marunong ka bang magbasa? Naiintindihanmo ba na si Haydock e dalubhasa nya sa Bibliya, iho? Kung sabagay di kita masisisi dahil seaman ka nga sabi mo.]
again you are misleading the people, since Jesus said that what is Caesar is to Caesar and what is God is to God,this only shows the boundaries of the church and state in governance to the people. The governance of the civl government is temporal and that includes financial, physical and developmental forms of leading the people while the church governs the moral and spiritual aspect of each human being. That does not defy the stand of the church against the RH bill because that may even affirm to what the church is advocating for so long. Don’t you get properly what the verse is really about?
[Nagpapasalamat ako sa iyo, Mr. Seafarer, at napasok ko ulit ang kuta nyo at magkaroon ulit ako ng tsansa na ipamukha sa inyong lahat sa Facebook group nyo na hindi turo ni Kristo ang paghimasok ng mga diumanoy mga alagad nya sa mga usaping politika. ]
talaga lang ha. Kakasagot ko lang. Busy ako lately kaya hindi mo maasahan ang automatic na reply ko.
[Maliwanag nga mga pinagsasabi nong mga verses na nabanggitko sa last post ko at kayo naman almost one month nang di makahanap ng isang legitimate verse to counter the verses I have cited. To highlight the untenability of your position, naghagilap ka pa ng kung ano-anong verse dyan na wala namang kinalaman sa usaping church and state at dineklaramong refuted na ako. Lukr 16:13 depensa laban sa bumabatikos sa Roman Catholic sa kanilang paghihimasok sa government affairs? Talagang out of this world ka, Mr. Seafarer. Sa Linggo, tanunginmo sa pare sa parish nyo kung tama yong citation mo.]
nasagot ko na dre, akala ko ba marunong ka ng exegesis. lol
[Sa palagayko ang nangyari dito e homemade ang defensemo. Hindi mo nakita sa website. Dalhin mo rin yong mga verses na naquoteko specifically “Let every soul be subject to government authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-3). “Therefore submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme. Or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (I Peter 2:13, 14). Tanungin siya kung may counter ang simbahan laban doon para hindi ka naman magpulot kung saan pahina ng Bibliya at sabihing yon ang counter-reference doon. ]
nasagot ko na yan. Self-refuting ang mga bersikulong gusto mong iparating. Sino ba pastor mo, hindi ka yata marunong ng exegesis. Proverbs 3:5 puwede bang basahin?
[May payaman ng simbahan at yaman ni Caesar ka pa kung ano man ang ibig sabihin mo don. Para naman maimprove ang mga argumento mo baka sakaling may makasalubong kang tumutuligsa sa interference ng simbahan nyo sa purely government matters, punta ka sa Wikipedia. Hanapin mo kung anong sinasabi nya sa “Render unto Caesar.”]
aba, hindi mo kasi masagot dahil obvious naman ang ibig sabihin diyan. It is self-explanatory, you are trying to assume that what you posted is ok lang kahit ililiteral mo. Hmm..doesn’t even know exegesis eh. Contextual analysis ang kelangan diyan. Gets?
[Aran Cabreros My question to you is to whom does legislation pertain – to the state or to the church? Now if you say it’s the state’s, how come you insists interfering when it is clear from what St. Athanasius wrote that the two spheres should not overlap? (St. Athanasius quotes the following strong words from an epistle of the famous confessor Hosius, to Constantius, the Arian emperor: “Cease, I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal. Fear the day of judgment, and meddle not with ecclesiastical matters; neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us. To thee God hath committed the empire; to us he hath committed what belongs to the Church. And as he who, with a malicious eye, hath designs upon thine empire, opposeth the ordinance of God; so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written, Give to Cæsar, &c. Therefore, neither is it lawful for us on earth to hold the empire, neither hast thou, O emperor, power over incense and sacred things.”) And Pope Clement XIV said that Christians should accord respect to temporal authority: “Be careful,” says he, “that those whose instruction in the law of the gospel is committed to your charge, be made sensible from their very infancy of their sacred obligation of loyalty to their kings, of respect to their authority, and of submission to their laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.” There are no ifs and buts in the text like you want to make it appear. The pope merely echoes what the Bible says that Christians should submit to temporal laws. ]
the temporal laws shall also abide on the teachings of the Church which is God breathed, I told you already that the Church have the power to condemn what is wrong for the nation-building. Take for example the propagation of Marxism in the Communist countries, why did Pope Pius XI wrote Quadraqesimo anno in response to the social responsibility of each Catholic clergies and Catholics as well in protecting their rights especially that Marxism had brought many Catholics and other theists into atheism because of the massive indoctrination and inhumane actions of their leaders? Why? Are we not allowed also to do that in this nation where the church wanted to protect the people from being indoctrinated on the culture of Contraception of which the church teaches to the people that it is actually wrong?
In the case of the legislation of the RH Bill, the state have the right to legislate because we all know that it is their responsibility to make laws that are beneficial but do not contradict on all sectors of our society[except for evil-doers]. But it is your misfortune that this country is predominantly Catholic and nowhere you can find any legislation that should only fit for certain groups-alone. Read properly what St. Athanasius said: “ so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written” this can be applied to the state promoting what is evil in the eyes of the church. Again, since the church saw that the government had OVERLAPPED their role which is to meddle the morality of the church concerning Contraception, it shows the church have the advantage to that,not the state. Intiendes?
[Granting that your Atty. Abbas is correct about his interpretation of Article II Section 13 and 1986 Constitution, just where is the specific republic act which defines the specific role of the church in this context? Now, when and if Congress passes such law to define the role of the church, I doubt if it will include a portion whereby it says the church can participate in legislation because it is clear that the act of legislation belongs to the state and just like I already pointed out to you, the same Constitution states that the separation of state and church shall be inviolable. ]
again, who builds the spiritual aspect of the church? Would that still be the state? Who will teach the people about the moral values of the people? Would that still be the state? Can the state teach that? Tell me., that is an obvious reality of which you are trying to get things literal in the social understanding of the context. What the separation of the church and state only clears out that the state doesn’t own the treasures of the church and vice versa that the church doesn’t own the treasures of the state. Intiendes?
[Aran Cabreros (nasagot ko na dre, akala ko ba marunong ka ng exegesis. Lol)
Pakiulit ang sagot mo. Diko maalaala. Pakibigay na rin yong exegesis ng Luke 16:13 tapos kung sinong authority gumawa. Alam mo naman, tayong mga magkatunggali sa RH Bill, we tend to make self-serving explanations and analysis. Kaya kailangan natin ng authority di ba? Fair enough?]
nandoon na ok,let’s go talking about Luke 16:31 ready?
Ok, verse 31, this speaks on the difference between God and money. According to Challoner, Mammon signifies riches. They are here called the mammon of iniquity, because oftentimes ill gotten, ill bestowed, or an occasion of evil; and at the best are but worldly, and false; and not the true riches of a Christian. Now, let me connect it to the case of the church and state, the state wanted to implement the RH Bill in order to earn something from the people. They wanted shortcut progress without considering the impact of this by confusing the people [especially Catholics] in giving them a choice of doing those provisions that are evil in the church’s teaching. Meaning, we are making a double standard life in the society and the faithful will be given the choice to do something inhumane even if the church already condemned it. Get the sense?
[(nasagot ko na yan. Self-refuting ang mga bersikulong gusto mong iparating. Sino ba pastor mo, hindi ka yata marunong ng exegesis. Proverbs 3:5 puwede bang basahin?)
Let’s see your exegesis and interpretation of the above verses. Interesado ako tapos we go to available commentaries available in the Internet para maliwanag sa ating dalawa at saka sa mga kapanaligmo sa Facebook page nyo.
(aba, hindi mo kasi masagot dahil obvious naman ang ibig sabihin diyan. It is slef-explanatory, you are trying to assume that what you posted is ok lang kahit ililiteral mo. Hmm..doesn’t even know exegesis eh. Contextual analysis ang kelangan dahil ang sinasabi diyan is not literally explained by symbolism. Gets?)
To have a meeting of minds, hindi naman masama kung punta ka sa Wikipedia. Neutral naman yon at hindi homemade and explanations nila. ]
sure, I already answered, how about you?
Replying a Pro RH Advocate [Estanislao Albano] concerning the article in Manila Standard Today Part I
– Aran Cabreros
[First paragraph: No comment sa ngayon. ]
sagot: sa ngayon? sige na nga pagbibigyan kita
[Second paragraph: Ang sinabi ko sa iyo e kung bigyang pagkakataon ang mga Pilipino na mamili kung saan manirahan sa Italya o sa Pilipinas, may aayaw bang papunta sa Italya? Granting na may setbacks ang RH, mas matindi hamak ang epekto ng malaking populasyon na di kayang suportahyan ng ekonomya, gobyerno at lipunan. Tungkol naman doon sa sinabi mong advantage ng laborforce na majority ay kabataan, makikita ba natin yon sa mga kabataan natin na walang pinag-aralan dahil sa kahirapan na ang ugat e ang pag-anak ng kanilang magulang ng mas marami sa kaya nilang tustusan?]
sagot: nakalimutan mo ang kurapsyon, walang pagbabatayan na ang populasyon ang may kasalanan bakit tayo naghihirap, ang sinasabi mo lamang na lumulobo ang populasyon, ang tanong, ano ba ang dahilan bakit naghihirap ang ating bayan? dahil ba sa populasiyon? kitang kita kasi na pinipilit mo ang propaganda ng RH para lamang maipasa iyang kagustuhan mo. Walang kinalaman ang pagkakaroon ng maraming anak kung bakit tayo naghihirap kung hindi dahil sa matinding kurapsyon at hindi pag-iimplement ng tama sa mga eksistidong batas na nakikita natin sa gobyerno. Bakit nga ba sila nagkaroon ng maraming anak? dahil hindi maayos at hindi ginamit ng maayos ang mga resources na binigay ng gobyerno para sa mga health centers under DOH, ilang milyon ba ang ginastos ng gobyerno para sa tamang edukasyon patungkol sa reproductive health? tanungin mo bakit feeling ng gobyerno kulang ito kahit actually malaking halaga na ang naipundar ng gobyerno para sa Kalusugan?
[Third paragraph: Wala akong nasabi tungkol sa koneksyon ng kabawasan sa numero ng tao at korapsyon. Ang dalawang huling pangungusapmo a gusto kong sagutin. May dalawang pamilya na parehas ang resources and are equal on all other things beside resources like the values of the parents, etc. Ang isang pamilya may sampong anak. Ang isa naman may tatlo. Sino a mas magandang buhay? Sino ang mas mahirap?]
sagot: ano ano ba ang factors bakit naghihirap ang isang pamilya? dahil ba sa dami ng anak? hindi! dahil walang sapat na resources ang binigay ng mga LGUs para sa mga pamilya. Marami sa mga Pilipino ang naka-ahon sa kahirapan kahit marami ang kanilang anak. alam mo ba kung bakit nakaahon sila? DISKARTE! papaano sila magkakaroon ng diskarte? TAMANG EDUKASYON. ngayon, wala bang EDUKASYON ang ating existing na batas para sa PAMILYA? meron. bakit hindi ito EPEKTIBO? pakisagot po kung bakit.
[Tungkol naman sa Article II Section 13 and 1986 Constitution, walang parameters na nabanggit si Atty. Abbas kung hangngang saan yang uniting iyan at kung hanggang saan ang pagprotekta sa moral at spiritual well-being ng kabataan. Could it mean that the church will dictate which laws the government will pass? I do not think so dahil maski si Abbas naman seguro e nabasa ang SEKSYON 6., Article 2 of the same Constitution which states ” Hindi dapat labagin ang pagkakahiwalay ng Simbahan at ng Estado.”]
sagot: ano ba ang SPIRITUAL AT MORAL? ang gobyerno ba ang magtuturo nito sa SAMBAYANAN? hindi dinidikta ng simbahan kung ano ang dapat na gawin ng gobyerno. Ang sinasabi diyan ay MAGTULUNGAN. tama si Atty. Abas diyan, na dapat magkaisa na magtulungan ang dalawang sektory para sa ikakaunlad ng MORAL, ESPIRITUWAL at PISIKAL na well being ng isang tao. Sinu-sino ba ang nagcocompose ng tao sa gobyerno? Sinu-sino din ba ang nagluklok ng mga tao na uupo sa gobyerno? ang gobyerno ba mismo? o ang taong nasa Simbahan mismo? yan hindi mo kasi iniintindi ang kontekto. Ang interpretasyon mo kasi ay ganito:
ang simbahan ay walang role sa estado habang ang estado ay walang role sa simbahan.
isang kahabagan iyan. dahil nga sabi ng ating konstitusyon, ang simbahan at estado ay MAGTUTULUNGAN para sa ikakabuti ng TAO.
Sa RH BILL, tinatapakan ng GOBYERNO ang role ng SIMBAHAN para sa LIPUNAN kaya nito KINUKUNDENA ang proposal ng GOBYERNO. gets?
[Pope Clement XIV:
Ver. 21. Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s. He neither directly decided the question, nor offended the Herodians. They admired his wisdom, were quite disappointed, and retired with confusion. (Witham) — The reasoning of Christ appears to be this: As you are the subjects of Cæsar, which you plainly acknowledge by admitting his coin, upon which he inscribes himself lord of Asia, Syria, and Judæa, &c. it is but just you pay him the tribute due from subjects to their sovereign; nor have you any reason to object on the plea of religion, since he demands of you for the exigencies of the public service only temporal things, and such as are in some respects already his own, by being stamped with his own image and superscription.]
This statement refers as how politics in this world is only temporary and has nothing to do with the Spiritual things in this world, it is supported in the Philippine Constitution that since politics is temporary, the Church is needed for the people to guide the Spiritual and Moral aspects for the Filipinos..and that is eternal. As what I pointed you out, Atty. Abas stated relevant provisions in the constitution on the importance of the Church in politics particularly in the order of Moral and Spiritual Aspects of its people.
[But spiritual things, which belong to God alone, as your souls, stamped with his image, divine worship, religious homage, &c. God, not Cæsar, demands of you. “Give therefore to Cæsar what belongeth to Cæsar, and to God what belongeth to God.” (Tirinus) — What our Saviour here commands us to give to God, is nothing else but our heart and affections. Here our divine Lord likewise shews us, how we are to steer the middle course between the two extremes, into which some persons fall. Some say that all must be given to God, and nothing to Cæsar, i.e. all our time must be given to the care of our soul, and none to the care of the body; but Christ teaches that some must be given to the one, and part to the other. (Origen) — Although Christ clearly establishes here the strict obligation of paying to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, yet he is afterwards accused, as we have mentioned above, (see note on ver. 17) as if he forbade tribute to be paid to Cæsar. ]
if you have only the common sense to understand the context, Pope Clement XIV cleary points out on the obligation of the people to understand the church and also obey the rules that the government implemented as long as it abides on the Moral, Physical and Spiritual needs of the person. You see, the Philippine Constitution according to Atty. Miguel Abas pointed out that on the three words stated in the law, Two words are swiftly connected on the role of the church to maintain this such for the betterment of the people.
[In like manner, in spite of the most explicit declarations of the Catholic Church, respecting her loyalty and subjection to temporal powers, her enemies fail not to calumniate her doctrine as inimical to the state, and subversive of due subordination. But let our opponents attend to the following authority and public declaration of Pope Clement XIV.]
you see in the words, it says temporal, meaning what their powers have now is just temporary and has nothing to deal with the meddling of the spiritual and moral aspects of the person. You might be thinking as on why Pro RH atheists never and do not deal with morality because their morality is intrinsically evil as what they wanted to insert in our society the culture of Contraception. What happened to the role of the church in the spiritual and moral aspects of a person? Are we to reject what the constitution says or not?
[ addressed to all Catholic bishops in the Christian world. “Be careful,” says he, “that those whose instruction in the law of the gospel is committed to your charge, be made sensible from their very infancy of their sacred obligation of loyalty to their kings, of respect to their authority, and of submission to their laws, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.” — But princes should not exact, and subjects should not affect to give them ecclesiastical jurisdiction.]
see? You are trying to connect that since the church opposed the RH Bill will they are asking for any ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the bishops. This kind of role is the subjection of the clergies on what the government had implemented with regards to the sustainable policies that are related and needed for the people. So since the RH Bill is not needed and is immoral to our society, the church suggests and strongly opposed any law that will stamp on the morality that the Filipino people had kept for so long.
[St. Athanasius quotes the following strong words from an epistle of the famous confessor Hosius, to Constantius, the Arian emperor: “Cease, I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal. Fear the day of judgment, and meddle not with ecclesiastical matters; neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us. To thee God hath committed the empire; to us he hath committed what belongs to the Church. And as he who, with a malicious eye, hath designs upon thine empire, opposeth the ordinance of God; so do thou also beware lest, by an improper interference in ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a great crime. For it is written, Give to Cæsar, &c. Therefore, neither is it lawful for us on earth to hold the empire, neither hast thou, O emperor, power over incense and sacred things.” (St. Athansius, ep. ad solit. vitam agentes.) — And St. Ambrose to Valentinian, the emperor, (who by the ill counsel of his mother Justina, an Arian, required of St. Ambrose to have one church in Milan made over to the Arian heretics) saith: “We pay that which is Cæsar’s to Cæsar, and that which is God’s to God. Tribute is Cæsar’s; it is not denied. The Church is God’s; it cannot verily be yielded to Cæsar; because the temple of God cannot be Cæsar’s right. Be it said, as all must allow to the honour of the emperor, for what is more honourable than that the emperor be said to be the son of the Church? A good emperor is within the Church, but not above the Church.” (St. Ambrose, lib. v. epist. Orat. de Basil, trad]
see? This statement shows how the church reacts on the meddling of the government to the affairs of the church in the moral teachings that they taught for so long. So we can relate it to the RH Bill since this kind of bill welcomes opposing ideas on the church’s stand of Contraception. We have to accept the fact that the Philippines is dominantly Catholic by population, so since the RH Bill is introducing methods that were only favorable to the immoral minorities in our society, you have to deal with the majority of which our country belongst. If you only have the knowledge in reading On the Development of Peoples of Pope Paul VI(1967), and John Paul II in his On the Social Concerns of the Church (1987) , you see how the church responds to any measures that a government will do to defy the church in their society.
Do you know anything about these encyclicals? I think you are not aware in these.