Monday, April 21, 2008


The passage of Davao City’s Local Development Program for Children (LDPC) in the second reading last April 15, 2008 disheartened the local Church and some Catholic groups that opposed to it. Davao Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla said as quoted by Sun-Star Davao, that the ordinance is "dangerous and detrimental to the moral and spiritual welfare of the people."

SSD quoted Archbishop Capalla: “I say 'dangerous and detrimental' because in the guise of 'reproductive health and safe pregnancy', the plan mocks parental authority, belittles the value of family, denigrates the virtue of chastity, makes available all contraceptives to children from 0-18 years old and promotes pre-marital sex and promiscuity. The plan therefore offends our Catholic faith and the religious sentiments of our people."

The councilors who voted for it during the second reading were Nilo Abellera, Ma. Belen Sunga-Acosta, Victorio Advincula, Wilberto Al-ag, Leonardo Avila III, Samuel Bangoy, Karlo S. Bello, Louie John Bonguyan, Danilo Dayanghirang, Paolo Duterte, Edgar Ibuyan, Diosdado Angelo Mahipus, Tomas Monteverde IV, Myrna Dalodo-Ortiz, Halila Sudagar, Angela Librado-Trinidad, Jose Louie Villafuerte and Rachel Zozobrado. They believed in the merits of the proposed ordinance for our children so that they ignored the Church here.

In a statement to the media and as reported by SSD, the Regional Sub-Committee for the Welfare of the Children in Southern Mindanao said that: "The LDPC is remarkably comprehensive as it addresses the four broad categories of child rights, namely, survival, protection, participation, and development." The group admitted that there were issues in the LDPC that are objectionable to some sectors here but, to quote the SSD report again, “it does not lessen the value of the law much less render the entire document unacceptable.”

Well said. But I think our beloved councilors should have considered exhaustive dialogue and in-depth discussion with her (Church) leaders. That is my point. How can we implement that successfully when there is a mounting objection to it? Afterall, we are in the democratic country and so everyone should be heard. Unless, we decide to ignore the role of the Church in this society.

In the SSD’s report, Capalla impliedly threatened to withhold the sacraments from those who supported the ordinance. While I live that issue to our Catholic councilors (10 out of 18 who voted are RCs), I found it childlike.


Ozy said...

The church has meddled to much with the Philippines.

Eventually the Philippines will be a case study of how Catholicism ruined a nation.

micketymoc said...

Bishop Capalla was invited to the committee hearings and he never showed up.

"Exhaustive dialogue and in-depth discussion" is most fruitful only when you're dealing with a party who's amenable to compromise.

Bishop Capalla's actions show that he is not one of these parties.

In fact, his actions have been patently undemocratic - organizing rallies, bullying legislators, attempting to do an end-run around the legislature when it was obvious that the councilors weren't going to buckle quickly.

"I object to this usurpation of authority of the Government by the Bishops." I didn't say it first - an Irish MP did, under quite the same circumstances. Do you find this objection unreasonable?