We Highly Oppose The RH-Law because of the Evil of CONTRACEPTION (Gen38:8-10).
Moral Corruption po ang hindi pagsunod sa mga magulang natin sa Tunay na Simbahan o Iglesia (Matthew18:17).
Parang tinuturoan ng mga Pro-Contraception ang mga tao na maging hindi masunorin sa mga magulang natin sa simbahan.
Natutupad ang hula sa bibliya. Na ang mali ay gagawing tama ng karamihan sa mga tao. At ang tama naman ay gagawin nilang mali. Ito ay mababasa natin sa aklat ng Isaiah 5:20.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isa5:20-KJV)
Dalawang halimbawa sa lahat ng mga katuparan sa hula ng bibliya na yan ay:
Una, tama na ginawang mali. The Roman Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ. Pero ang sabi ng karamihan ngayon, The True Church of Christ is Not The Roman Catholic Church.
Ikalawa, mali na ginawang tama. Contraception is Evil (Gen38:8-10). Pero ang sabi ng karamihan ngayon, Contraception is Good.
Proof from Catholic Answers:
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined.
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes6:20). Natural Family Planning (NFP)
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan,The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14).
This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370). “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception” (CCC 2399).
The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, “Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).
No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the “free love” movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.
Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Tanong: Tama ba ang sinabi ng iba, na ang dasal katoliko na may cross, ay walang kapangyarihan dahil nanalo ang RH-Bill?
Sagot: Ang analysis ko tungkol sa Pagkatalo ng Katoliko sa Evil RH-Bill:
Yon ay una, tinalikoran ni Manny Pacquiao ang kapangyarihan sa christian cross.
Ikalawa, hindi nagkakaisa ang mga katoliko sa pag-gamit ng kapangyarihan sa cross. Dahil ang ibang mga anti-RH bill na mga katoliko, hindi nila priority ang cross or religion argument. Ang karamihan sa kanila ay gagamit lang ng secular arguments. Para silang mahihiya kung religion arguments ang gagamitin.
At ang ikatlong rason ay, maraming mga katoliko ang hindi seryoso sa kanilang paniniwala. Ibig sabihin maraming mga katoliko ang immoral kaya hindi seguro sangayon makakapayag ang Dios na maipanalo ang tama.
Sa bibliya maraming beses natalo ang mga tao ng Dios. Hindi dahil walang kapangyarihan ang paniniwala nila. Natalo sila dahil sa kanilang mga mali o kasalanan na hindi pa nila napananagotan sa harap ng Dios.
Solusyon: DAPAT SERYOSO ANG MGA KATOLIKO SA KANILANG PANANAMPALATAYA SA KAPANGYARIHAN NG CROSS.
I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)
Patunay sa History… the Power of the Christian Cross during the time of Emperor Constantine at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge… http://youtu.be/4_P0FZfPlSA
If a country like the Philippines need to have a supreme court for unity. The Bible or the Church is in need also a supreme court, the magisterium in order also to have a unity of faith. The Bible says that it is really true: Luke10:16, Mat18:17, ITim3:15
Ibig sabihin hindi po makabubuti na sino-sino lang ang mag-interpret sa bibliya. Dahil kapag kung sino-sino lang ang mag-interpret nito, ay tiyak na watakwatak sa relihiyon ang mangyayari. At yan ang ating nararanasan ngayon. Kaya po ipinagbabawal ang private interpretation sa bibliya (2Pet1:20).
Kaya ang may authority lang ang final arbiter or interpreter sa bibliya (Mat7:29).
Tanong: Sino siya ang authority?
Sagot sa Bible: Si Jesus (Mat7:29).
Tanong: Dahil si Jesus ay matagal ng nakabalik na sa langit. Sino ngayon dito sa lupa ang nabigyan niya ng authority sa pagtuturo o pag-interpret? Ang Bibliya ba… o ang tunay na iglesia niya?
Sagot: Ang tunay na iglesia, at hindi ang bibliya (ITim3:15, Mat18:17, John20:19-23).
Tanong: Bakit hindi ang bibliya ang authority?
Sagot: Tao po ang authority (ITim3:15) hindi ang libro. Ang bibliya ay libro o kasangkapan lang sa pagtuturo sa tunay na iglesia (2Tim3:15-17).
Tanong: Hindi ba natin susundin ang mga batas ng gobyerno ng tao dahil ang simbahan lang ang authority o may kapangyarihan sabi ng bibliya?
Sagot: May kapangyarihan din ang gobyerno ng tao. Dahil binigyan din ng kapangyarihan ang gobyerno ng tao sa Dios (Rom13:1-7). Kaya sabi ng simbahan, kailangang susunod din tayo sa mga batas ng gobyerno na hindi lalabag sa batas ng Dios (Mark12:17). Katulad sa pagbabayad natin ng buwis at pagsunod sa traffic laws ng gobyerno.
Tanong: Kung lalabag na sa batas ng Dios ang batas ng gobyerno ng tao, sino sa dalawa ang dapat masusunod?
Sagot: Syempre ang Dios ang dapat masusunod. Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (KJV-Bible)
Conclusion: Dapat po malaman natin ang tunay na iglesia. Dahil iisa lang ang tunay na iglesia, hindi po ito marami (Mat16:18). Bawal ang hatihatian o watakwatakan sa iglesia (John17:11,21, Eph4:3-6, Rom16:17-19, IJohn2:19)
Sa totoo lang personally, hindi ko gusto ang ipangaral itong katotohanang ito. Dahil masakit talaga sa aking puso at isipan ang ipangaral ang, “iisa lang ang tunay na iglesia”… dahil ang daming masasaktan sa aral na ito. Dahil ang daming iglesia o relihiyon ngayon. Mahirap mangaral ng, “ang aming iisang iglesia lang ang tunay na iglesia”…
Pero, kahit na hindi ko kagustohan ang ipangaral ang katotohanang ito… e… dapat lang na hindi ang kagustohan ko ang masusunod (Mat6:10…”Thy will be done”). Ang kagustohan ng Dios ang dapat masusunod at hindi ang kagustohan ko.