Prayer Before Reading Our Blog

Come Holy SpiritCome Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love.

V. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created.

R. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations, Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.

Prayer for Enlightenment

O Holy Spirit, divine Spirit of light and love, I consecrate to Thee my understanding, my heart and my will, my whole being for time and for eternity. May my understanding be always obedient to Thy heavenly inspirations and the teachings of the holy Catholic Church, of which Thou art the infallible Guide; may my heart be ever inflamed with love of God and of my neighbor; may my will be ever conformed to the divine will, and may my whole life be a faithful following of the life and virtues of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and Thee be honor and glory for ever. Amen.

Friday, August 31, 2012


Unopened Balut

Good day...

I would also like to submit my following question(s) to the INC-M author of the posted topic that has, I think, some bearing on the subject- eating of blood. But first let me state what I knew about the subject.

The INC-M forbids the eating of blood because of certain passages in the Book of Acts. The prohibition that have started and was imposed to the Israelites. They(INC-M)have been claiming that it is still prohibited in the Christian era base on the book that have been referred.

Granting without conceding that their claims is true, still I am raising the question regarding the eating of BALOT.

I am submitting here that I have heard some sort of "defense" from them regarding balot. Which I still found so unconvincing because it appears to be more like an alibi than reasonable defense.

These are the following FACTS regarding balot.
- It has, say, 'sisiw'.
- This 'sisiw' has blood.
- That blood in it is "real and truly blood".

So, since logic and reason is the effective vehicle for truth, i would like to know from them through logic and reason why balot, which has blood in it, is not forbidden?

Here, I submit the following "defense" I heard from their kinds.

- They 'defend' that "blood is life" which means that the life of a living being lies in the blood.

[Some would even point out that it is "blood" that Christ poured ONLY for them.]

- Since "life is in blood", and the chick in balot HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED BEING ALIVE(which never, humorously, fails to remember in my mind abortion), thus having no life, can be eaten even WITH BLOOD.

The problem that I see with this is the "sisiw have not experience living". Which, I think, what they really mean is "not born". Not born equate to "having no life"; having no life equates to having blood "but not truly blood"; thus can be eaten with clear conscience.

(And some may be noticing some flaw from the above reasoning when the same, with some modification, and be use in subject like abortion.)



[Note: i have been phrasing my words in accordance with-in the INC-M mindset]




- AND/OR THE BLOOD IN IT IS NOT TRULY BLOOD.[Again, I remember their defense that Christ was called GOD in one of their old PASUGO, but add that He is not "TRULY GOD"(or the true God)]

Sunday, August 26, 2012

A non-Catholic admits 666 [Anti-Christ] is not the Pope

The Pope is NOT the Antichrist - Summary of 'Is 666 the Pope?'

source: click here

"I can't believe this accusation has persisted despite history proving it false!  It's kind of like the claims that Elvis is still alive or that the moon landings were all a hoax or that the Holocaust was a myth.  They are false, yet the rumors won't quit!  It's infuriating!  If you can help spread the truth about the Pope not being the Antichrist, please do.  Whatever your personal opinions are of the Catholic Church, they should not be falsely accused in this way. -Genny, Born Again"
I'm writing this as a summary of my series, "Is 666 the Pope?"  But if you haven't read the series yet, this article would make a great preview for you. 

Part 1 of this series examined the sources theWorld Mission Society Church of God uses to support their claim against the Papacy.   I saw that they continue to have problems (like they did with their claims about the cross):
  • misrepresenting information by taking it out of context
  • presenting (or inventing?) 'facts' that are not in the referenced resource
  • not being specific enough with their source so it can be verified
  • selecting some information but neglecting to mention other important information from the same source

Part 2 established my focus, since the WMSCOG claims the Pope is the Antichrist whose number is 666.  Rather than looking at the general definition of an antichrist, I narrowed in on the Antichrist from Revelation 13, the beast from the sea whose number is 666.  In other words, the question became, "Is the Pope (Papacy) this Antichrist?" rather than "Is the Pope an antichrist?"

Then I examined the Scriptures and history to see how they matched up with the claims of the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching.  Scripture and the historical record give plenty of evidence to show that the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching is false, especially when combined with the particular doctrine of the World Mission Society Church of God.

Here is a summary of those claims compared to reality, and in relation to Revelation 13:

Rev. 13:1-2  The beast has 7 heads with 10 horns and 10 crowns.

similar to Dan. 7:7-82024  The beast had 10 horns, and another little horn came up among them and plucked out 3 of the first horns.

Claim: When the Roman Kingdom fell, it split into 10 kingdoms.  Three of those kingdoms did not follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church and were subdued (or destroyed) because of that.  The last of them (Ostrogoths) was destroyed in A.D. 538.

Reality: When the Roman Kingdom fell, many kingdoms arose from it, but not the same kingdoms (or the same number) as claimed.  The Ostrogoths were still strongly defending themselves after 538 and were not defeated until 553.  By then, of the claimed 10 kingdoms, 5 kingdoms (not 3) had been subdued, and 1 of the kingdoms still had not entered Roman territory.  Also, adherence to Catholic doctrine was not a factor in whether or not a kingdom was conquered.

Read Part 3 for detailed information.

Rev. 13:3-4  The beast suffered a fatal wound that was healed.

Claim:  The papacy suffered a "deadly wound" in 1798 when the Pope was captured by Napoleon's general.  The wound has been healing since then.

Reality:  There are many occasions in the history of the Catholic Church that could be considered "deadly wounds" that have healed.  The verse implies only one fatal wound, not a series of struggles.  There is no reason to pick the particular wound of 1798 over any other.

Read Part 4 for detailed information.

Rev. 13:5  The beast was given authority to rule for 42 months

Claim:  This 42 months is 1260 days, which prophetically mean 1260 years.  The rule of the Catholic Church (papacy) began in 538 and continued until the "deadly wound" in 1798--exactly 1260 years as prophesied.

Reality:  There are several years that could be considered the beginning of the rule of the Catholic Church, but 538 is not one of them.  Significant historical markers of the Catholic Church do not fit into a prophecy of 1260 years.  Also, events that were supposed to be happening during these 1260 years would contradict other World Mission Society Church of God doctrine.

Read Part 5 and Part 6 for detailed information.

Iglesia ni Cristo's claim written in Pasugo
Rev. 13:6 / Dan. 7:25  The beast speaks blasphemy and tries to change the times and law.

Claim:  The Pope is made equal with God, and Catholic priests are said to forgive sin.  Both of those are examples of blasphemy.  The Catholic Church has changed the sacred calendar (substituting Sunday for Saturday Sabbath, Easter for Passover, instituting Christmas) and has tried to change God's law (omitting and changing some of the 10 Commandments).

Reality:  Official Catholic doctrine does not support the charge of blasphemy.  Calendar issues are dealt with in other posts on this blog.  The 10 Commandments are actually composed of 14 command statements.  The Catholic Church still holds to all 10 Commandments, but they have combined them differently.
Read Part 7 for detailed information.

Rev. 13:18  The number of the beast is 666.

Claim:  The Pope's mitre is inscribed with the title "Vicarius Filii Dei."  When you add up the values of the Roman numerals in this title, the total equals 666.

Reality:  There are many people whose names can add up to 666, depending on the method of computation.  Since the Catholic Church doesn't match the description of the beast as claimed, it doesn't matter whether or not Vicarius Filii Dei is an official title of the Pope or what number it forms.

Read Part 8 for detailed information.

Conclusion: The 1260 years in the prophecy more likely refers to a future, literal 3 1/2 year time period.  Could a Pope of the Catholic Church fulfill the prophecies of the beast in the future?  Possibly, but so could many other world leaders.  We can only speculate when thinking about the future.  The theory of the Catholic Church already fulfilling the prophecies of the Antichrist fails.

A Personal Note 

To tell you the truth, when I started researching for this series I didn't know what I would find.  I am not Catholic.  I wasn't very motivated to clear the Pope (and Roman Catholic Church) from these accusations of being the Antichrist, the beast whose number is 666.  I had heard the claim before, had even read the specific reasons, and thought it was a bit intriguing, but that's as far as I got.  I didn't think it really mattered to me.

The main reason I decided to research the claims was because some of you readers wrote and asked me (thank you for that!).  Now that I've done the research, I'm glad I did--not just because of the facts I've found, but also because I've learned something very important:

When you are confronted with a sensational claim such as this, don't just accept someone else's "research" about it--do your own!

I can't believe this accusation has persisted despite history proving it false!  It's kind of like the claims that Elvis is still alive or that the moon landings were all a hoax or that the Holocaust was a myth.  They are false, yet the rumors won't quit!  It's infuriating!  If you can help spread the truth about the Pope not being the Antichrist, please do.  Whatever your personal opinions are of the Catholic Church, they should not be falsely accused in this way. 

Source: A non-Catholic admits 666 [Anti-Christ] is not the Pope

Wednesday, August 15, 2012


Congressman Robert "Ace" Barbers

Sotto finds ally in Barbers vs pending passage of RH bill

Ace Barbers
MANILA, Philippines—Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III is not alone in his misery and pain over the possible passage of the Reproductive Health bill now pending before both Houses of Congress.
Nacionalista Party spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers on Tuesday said that he, too, had lost his supposed first-born, a son like the ill-fated child of Sotto after he and his wife made the wrongful choice to resort to birth control pills.
Barbers, former governor and congressman of Surigao del Norte, said he and his wife Badette lost “Robert Lance” after the frail infant struggled through “sudden infant death syndrome” for four months at the Manila Doctors’ Hospital in 1992.
“Those were painful four months for myself, my wife, and most specially for my father (former Sen. Robert Barbers),” he said.
The younger Barbers recounted how his usually stoic and bravado-filled father, a Surigao del Norte representative then, wept after he received news that Robert Lance died.
“You know Daddy. He was the macho-type. He wanted his first grandson to live. But after four months, Robert Lance couldn’t take it,” Ace said.
Ace recounted that he and his wife, both in their early 20s then, had engaged in birth control planning but were surprised to find out that Badette became pregnant with their first-born.
“But my son turned out to be weak. He couldn’t cope anymore after he was born and we eventually lost him four months after,” Barbers.
Lance would have been 20 now. Sotto said, in his privilege speech before the Senate Monday, his son whom they named Vincent James, would have been 37.
Thus, Barbers underscored that the failings of birth control are no more evident now as the RH Bill comes near to its passage. It has actually extended through generations. Sotto lost his son in the 70s while he lost his in the 90s.
“That’s why I dare question those who push for the passage of RH Bill: ‘Do you still need to have a long list of weak babies to just get your Bill passed? How about my Lance’s life?” Barbers asked.
Learning from that tragedy, Barbers and his wife were able to move on, producing four more sons, namely: King, Jack, Joker and Spade.
“I would have had Lance at the head of my First Five. But he’s not there anymore. I am proud of my sons but I cannot but look back at how Lance could have made our lives happier,” Barbers said.


Monday, August 13, 2012


Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo supports the RH Bill which promotes abortifacients 
(photos of Mr. Manalo are from the Pasugo)

[This is the fourth part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while my comments are in black.]
Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).
Earlier, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo makes this statement: “We support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient.”
That statement is neither here nor there. He is supporting the RH Bill on one hand yet qualifies that support by stating that only those modern artificial methods of contraception that are “empirically not abortifacient” are the ones he support. Excuse me, but has Mr. Manalo really read and understood the RH Bill?
The RH Bill, which Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo and his church strongly support, actually promotes abortifacients. What is an abortifacient? Abortifacient means “causing abortion,” “an agent that induces abortion,” “an instrument or material capable of terminating a pregnancy.”[1]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo is neither here nor there
For Mr. Manalo to fully understand how an abortifacient works, he has first to learn when human life begins. Unfortunately for Mr. Manalo (and the Filipino people), the RH Bill (House Bill 4244) does not deliberately define when human life begins. But as we discussed in another article, the 1987 Philippine Constitution holds that human life begins at conception which means fertilization.[2] Medically, what happens at fertilization? The answer is obvious – the beginning of human life:

“If and when a sperm does penetrate the shell of the ovum, it sheds its tail, and will proceed slowly into the center of the ovum. Its 23 chromosomes will line up next to the ovum's 23 chromosomes, thus constituting a new cell, a fertilized ovum of 46 chromosomes. From the entrance of the sperm until the first cell division is a period of about 24 hours.

What is present at fertilization is an entire new human body, even though it is yet a single cell. This is the most complicated cell in the universe, for it contains within itself all of the information that is needed for this human to develop into a mature adult.

The embryo then floats freely down through the mother's tube. During this first week, the one cell divides until this new being constitutes millions of cells. When this new human is one-week-old, he or she plants within the lining of the mother's uterus, burrows into the spongy, nutritive wall of her womb, contacts the mother's blood stream and sends a chemical, hormonal message. This message goes to a gland at the base of her brain and tells the mother's body that there is a new occupant. Accordingly, this gland sends hormones into the woman's body that prevent her from menstruating.”[3]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo was once like these

To belabor the obvious, at fertilization, haploid gametes combine together to form a diploid zygote, a genetically different individual from the parents. This zygote now has 46 chromosomes – a new life! Textbooks on embryology attest to that scientific fact, thus:

“The male and the female sex cell or gametes … unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”[4]

Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte(egg) and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)...

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte (egg) ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent (multi-potential) cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[5]

More textbooks and manuals on embryology can be cited but the above references are enough for Mr. Manalo to get the point. At any rate, the Philippine Medical Association affirms that life begins at fertilization.

Fertilization: Life starts here
Where do abortifacients come in? The RH Bill which the Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports defines “reproductive health care” as referring “to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems” (Sec. 4, H.B. 4244). Moreover, the RH Bill, once enacted into law, mandates that “[a]ll accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods(Sec. 7).[6]
What are included in the “full range of modern family planning methods” which INC religious leader Eduardo V. Manalo supports? Answer: ABORTIFACIENTS. That’s why Mr. Manalo’s statement that “[w]e support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacientdoes not make sense because the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports actually includes abortifacients! And the RH Bill makes these products and supplies for “modern family planning methods” as “essential medicines”[7] to be regularly purchased by national and local hospitals and other government health units (Sec. 10).
What are these abortifacients included in the “full range of modern family planning methods” in the RH Bill and categorized as “essential medicines”? These are mainly the intrauterine devices (IUDs), pills and injectables which have post-fertilization effects; hence, abortifacients.

"We support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient," according to Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo
1.    Intrauterine device (IUD)

The IUD or intrauterine device is available in two different types in America. The hormonal IUD called Mirena, and the copper IUD called Paragard. Mirena releases levonorgestrel, which is a progestogen. Its primary function is to prevent implantation by the tiny developing human (embryo).

Preventing ovulation appears to function as a distant second. A study of women, one year after inserting the IUD, showed about one-half (45%) of women were still ovulating. After four years, 75% of women were ovulating. Obviously, the greater the number of women ovulating means the higher the chance for fertilization to occur. Other mechanisms of Mirena include thickening the mucus of the cervix, thus not allowing sperm to enter the uterus, or affecting the mobility or survival of sperm.

If fertilization occurs, most likely the tiny unborn child will be prevented from attaching to the lining of the womb and he or she will die. This is a very early abortion.

The copper IUD's effectiveness comes from a continuous release of copper into the uterine cavity; however, they aren't sure why this works. The general consensus is that this is accomplished by preventing implantation of the human embryo.

With both forms of IUD, if the woman becomes pregnant, she has a greater chance of having an ectopic or tubal pregnancy. This is when the tiny developing baby attaches to the lining of the fallopian tube and may threaten the woman's life.

The IUD is not considered safe for women if they have not first given birth to at least one child, have a history of or had breast cancer, or have multiple sexual partners.”[8]

Health risk to women: CT Scan showing translocated IUD that perforated the rectum 

2. Oral contraceptive pills –

The first effect of oral contraceptive pills is to stop ovulation although this doesn’t happen all the time. The second effect is the prevention of sperm from migrating to the fallopian tube. The first and second effects are not yet abortifacient. But the third effect is. The third effect of pills is that they prevent implantation of fertilized egg when breakthrough ovulation occurs considering that prevention of ovulation is not 100% effective. The third effect makes the pills abortifacient. More so with emergency contraceptive pills (like Plan B) which prevents implantation or rejection of an implanted embryo; hence, chemical abortion happens. The following are examples of oral contraceptive pills:

“The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."

The pill kills! The third effect of the pill is that it prevents the fertilized egg from implantation

Plan B or Emergency Contraception is designed for emergency use and not recommended to be used as a regular method of birth control. Plan B One Step is a single pill containing a high dose of progestin, and is available to women without prescription if they are 17 or older. It claims that if taken within 72 hours of "unprotected" sex, it will prevent ovulation, but it also prevents the already conceived embryo from implanting in the endometrium, causing an early abortion.

According to the pro-abortion blog site, Reproductive Health Reality Check, Plan B isn't as effective as first touted, which has caused financial backers to put funding on hold. In addition, the blog site acknowledged that women are "abusing" Plan B by repeatedly using it instead of other birth control methods.

Yaz and Yasmin are not the same thing; however, they are very similar. Both are classified as a fourth-generation birth control pill that contains two synthetic hormones: progestin and ethinyl estradiol. There is only a slight difference in dosage of the two drugs. Yasmin has a slightly higher level of ethinyl estradiol than Yaz. Both Yasmin and Yaz function identically. They prevent ovulation, thicken the mucus of the cervix and make the endometrium more hostile to implantation. This medication is also used to treat the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Yaz and Yasmin have proven to be even more controversial than NuvaRing. Consumer advocates have called on the FDA to recall the drugs. The FDA has accused Yazmin of misrepresenting their products and downplaying adverse side effects in their advertising. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yaz products on behalf of 74 women who have developed severe health problems from these drugs.

Yasmin under fire for its scary side effects

The Minipill is similar to the regular birth control pill, except that it contains only progestin. As a result, this pill must be taken every day of the month, compared to the regular birth control Pill that requires only three weeks. The Minipill still operates using the three common mechanisms of hormonal contraception: preventing ovulation, thickening the mucus of the cervix and making the endometrium more hostile to implantation, which is a very early abortion. It is considered less effective than the combined progestin and estrogen pill.

The progestin-only pill is considered to be Continuous Birth Control. This usually results in stopping the woman's menstrual period (a selling point of the drug). Types of birth control pills that are considered Continuous Birth Control are Seasonale, Seasonique and Yaz.”[9]

3. Injectables –

Depo-Provera is like the Minipill, a progestin-only drug, but it is injected every three months into the woman's arm muscle or buttocks. Since it is progestin only, it functions in the same way the Minipill does, including the prevention of implantation.”[10]

Look at how they market Depo-Provera!

Let us now hold Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo to his own word: “Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).” As already demonstrated, the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports includes abortifacients as among the full range of modern family planning methods. If indeed Mr. Manalo is sincere in what he says, and if he truly obeys the commandment of God, Mr. Manalo has no other recourse but to emphatically reject the RH Bill and enjoin the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo to do the same. Unfortunately, Mr. Manalo continues to support the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids (Exo. 20:13). What does that make of Eduardo V. Manalo? An enemy of God.

Enemy of God: Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo, Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids 

[4] W.J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livinstone, 1998) pp. 1-17.
[5] K. Moore  and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1998 [6th Ed.]) pp. 2-18.
[7] It may be asked Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo: “Why are contraceptives included as essential medicines? What do they cure? Pregnancy? Does Mr. Manalo support the idea that pregnancy is a disease?”
[10] Ibid.

"Let me live": The unborn pleads to be born. Is Mr. Manalo listening?


Portrait of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo

[This is the third part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in green while my comments are in black.]
Page 1 of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo's position on the RH Bill 

What are the moral aspects of the proposed bills that we support? We believe that it is moral imperative for parents to watch over all their children and provide them with food, shelter, and clothing, as well as proper education and religious and moral training.
This stand of the Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo is not original. In fact, this is where his Iglesia ni Cristo and the Catholic Church concur. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, echoes this traditional and perennial teaching of the magisterium.[1]

Page 2 of INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo's position on the RH Bill 
Hence, parents today have a moral obligation to plan the number of their children and keep it under control.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI discusses responsible parenthood which means that parents may prudently and generously have more children or decide not to have additional children for a certain or indefinite period of time for serious reasons and as long as moral precepts are respected and God’s will obeyed. The Pope states:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.[2]

Pope Paul VI: The Pope of Humanae Vitae

The Bible states that a parent who does not provide for the needs of his own household is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8).
The Catholic Church in no wise disagrees of disobeys this Biblical teaching. Echoing this Biblical imperative, the Catholic Church exhorts Christian families and societies:
The family should live in such a way that its members learn to care and take responsibility for the young, the old, the sick, the handicapped, and the poor. There are many families who are at times incapable of providing this help. It devolves then on other persons, other families, and, in a subsidiary way, society to provide for their needs: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (No. 2208, CCC).
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Since modern methods of contraception—by preventing married couples from having any unplanned pregnancies—assist in supporting this Christian principle, we support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient.
Here, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo clearly supports the RH Bill because of its promotion of modern methods of contraception which prevent married couples from having unplanned pregnancies. He goes on to state that this supports the Christian principle that parents must provide for the needs of its own household. This thinking of Mr. Manalo lacks sophistication. He in fact indirectly makes a fallacious assumption that those who practice modern contraceptive methods are the ones who provide the needs of his own household. What about those who don’t use modern methods of contraception, are they incapable of providing for the needs of their family? Clearly, Mr. Manalo’s assertion is a non sequitor – it does not follow. Couples who may have never used any contraceptive may be responsible parents as long as they provide for the needs of their family. Therefore, the use or non-use of contraceptives inherently has nothing to do with responsible parenthood. Mr. Manalo’s simplistic thinking misses that very elementary fact.
Secondly, the Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo seemed to have not read the bill. Or if he has, he may not have understood it completely. Otherwise, he should have not made this statement: “Since modern methods of contraception—by preventing married couples from having any unplanned pregnancies” (emphasis added). Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo operates under the false assumption that the modern means of contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill can be availed only by married couples. He is never more wrong.
Truth to tell, the RH Bill itself explicitly provides in Section 28 (Prohibited Acts):
“The following acts are prohibited:
(a) Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(3) Refuse to extend health care services and information on account of the person’s marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, or nature of work; Provided, That, the conscientious objection of a healthcare service provider based on his/her ethical or religious beliefs shall be respected; however, the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another healthcare service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible who is willing to provide the requisite information and services; Providedfurther, That the person is not in an emergency condition or serious case as defined in RA 8344 otherwise known as “An Act Penalizing the Refusal of Hospitals and Medical Clinics to Administer Appropriate Initial Medical Treatment and Support in Emergency and Serious Cases.”[3]

Who violates the separation of Church and State?: Pres. Benigno Aquino III and INC Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo talk on a highly political issue like the impeachment (Photo: grab from GMA News)
Hence, even single individuals can also avail of these modern methods of contraception. The RH Bill categorically provides that single individuals cannot be discriminated against in the availment of contraceptives. The healthcare service provider who refuses to extend healthcare services (i.e., providing contraceptives) to an unmarried person runs the risk of criminal prosecution.
I think Mr. Manalo is aware, assuming he knows his Bible correctly, that unmarried individuals who engage in sexual activity even with the benefit of contraceptives are committing fornication. Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill which does away with any distinction between married and unmarried individuals in the availment and use of contraceptives. Clearly, Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill which in turn promotes and/or facilitates fornication.

What Eduardo V. Manalo does not know
To compound the problem, the RH Bill, as presently worded, also does not discriminate against age (see the provision above). Hence, even minors can avail of modern contraceptive methods! Mr. Manalo supports the RH Bill because according to him, modern methods of contraception prevent married couples from having unplanned pregnancies. But, the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports unabashedly provides that singles and minors can avail of these contraceptives! Where is morality in that? Clearly, Mr. Manalo loses big time as a religious, spiritual and moral leader. The moral bankruptcy of Mr. Manalo’s position is there for all to see.
To be consistent with his support for the RH Bill, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo and his ministers must therefore distribute condoms and pills to the single and minor members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. I wonder if Mr. Manalo would do that. If he won’t, then it simply means that Mr. Manalo knows, instinctively, that there is something wrong – morally wrong – with the RH Bill.

Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof knows the ill effects of contraception on morality which religious leader Eduardo Manalo does not know