A Pro-RH Bill priest

[cho_pilo]

The bishops have spoken. They are against the RH bill. Their opposition is based on moral theology and on doctrines of the faith.

Now, let me point you to a priest who support RH Bill.

I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, I am considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings.

First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!

Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”

Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12)

Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge.

Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.

Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision.

Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved.

Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.

Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.

Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics

opinion.inquirer.net/5340/my-stand-on-the-rh-bill

I’d be interested to see the reactions of the practicing faithful Catholics on this.

 

[Willy_Jose]

An Opus Dei priest, Fr. Julio Penacoba of Sampaloc Manila replies:

I will limit myself to the issue of the Bill promoting contraception. This is presented mostly in points First and Second of Fr Bernas article.

As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.

His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.In my understanding that line of argument is very valid for religious issues that is, for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules coming from his worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday, or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non Catholics.

However, Fr Bernas line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. On those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.

In my perception, Fr Bernas position seems to treat contraception as it were a religious issue (a Church’s rule) rather than an ethical issue. For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing ones religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues. Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169); it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.

Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, may I quote now from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the debate going on.

All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions

 

[Willy_Jose]

I have some of my own additional comments:
Fr. Bernas says:

“Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.
…]
Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.”
/
Fr Bernas’ seventh and tenth points, taken together, points to an unmistakable conclusion:

Public money may not be spent by the government for the promotion of contraceptives that harm sacred life at any point after fertilization.

This conclusion can be taken from a strictly legal and secular standpoint as it stands on a purely scientific and constitutional grounds. It is therefore a mystery why a lot of equivocation is brought out by the eminent Constitutionalist Fr Bernas in this particular column. All his other points are unnecessary and tangential to this main issue. The RH bill’s essence as far as its main sponsor Congressman Lagman admits to, is all about “access to contraceptives”.

Thus, if we follow Fr Bernas’ arguments in his 7th and 10th points correctly, the only logical conclusion we can make is that the RH bill cannot be licitly passed without violating the Constitution. I wonder why he did not spell out that conclusion himself.

 

[cathoichelp]

that’s wonderful … good for him!

 

[cho_pilo]

that’s wonderful … good for him!

Whom?

 

[Santi2]

On the letter of the Jesuit priest, there are two issues which I find and

First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do.

Why cast doubt on Catholic teaching?

Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

Irresponsible? Catholic priests have a duty to remind parishioners that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370). And then, he goes on further to discredit those priests with: *Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics. *

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m for artificial contraception. The world’s ten largest cities have the following populations.

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000
6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000
7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000
8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000
9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000
10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,000

Sixth on the list is Jakarta, with about 19 million people. Someone on another forum has pointed out that there are many poor people begging in this city just to live.

Does the Church ever offer constructive advice as to how this issue should be addressed, or does it simply commit itself to a solution of an ever growing population?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m for artificial contraception. The world’s ten largest cities have the following populations.

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000
6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000
7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000
8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000
9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000
10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,000

Sixth on the list is Jakarta, with about 19 million people. Someone on another forum has pointed out that there are many poor people begging in this city just to live.

In many ways, Bob Crowley raises a good point. On this forum, you get a lot of Catholics who have no qualifications whatsoever in economics/maths or similar fields arguing that the U.S. economy is ailing because of a “lack of children” and that the only way to revive the economy is to simply ban birth control. I’ve never seen such a naive opinion before. In the same light, you do not see these same Catholics rushing to the Philippines in search of a better life but are very happy to stay at home.

I’m very glad the given Catholics’ influence is miniscule at best, and confined to that of a forum

 

[cho_pilo]

Hi Santi2,

A lawyer responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas regarding the RH Bill.

fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2011/03/lawyer-responds-to-fr-joaquin-bernas.html

 

[Santi2]

Thanks, ChoPilo. Judging by the comments on the link you provided, it seems to be the case that Father Bernas’ article has only pitted Catholics against Catholics in the country rather than helped clarify the Church’s position. What a sad state of affairs.

 

[Cojuanco]

I’m for artificial contraception. The world’s ten largest cities have the following populations.

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000
6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000
7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000
8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000
9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000
10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,000

Sixth on the list is Jakarta, with about 19 million people. Someone on another forum has pointed out that there are many poor people begging in this city just to live.

Does the Church ever offer constructive advice as to how this issue should be addressed, or does it simply commit itself to a solution of an ever growing population?

Yes - actual improvement of the lives of the people - give them access to food, clean water, education and employment, and most of all, the government should crack down on the corruption that besets the Third World. You can’t eat a condom, after all, or learn to read or write from an IUD. The Church has been advocating that since the early part of the last century. The only problem is that a lot of these people in the government would lose their position in society if they enacted real social reform - it usually takes somnething big, like the Second World War, to change their perceptions. And even then, not always - after all, Manila was second only to Warsaw in devastation during the war.

As to population growth, well, employment has historically brought fertility rates down, even without access to contraceptives (you can’t engage in the marital act and work at the same moment).

So yes, the Church has been offering constructive advice - it’s just that the people who matter find it too hard on their privilege to take it.

 

[cho_pilo]

Yes - actual improvement of the lives of the people - give them access to food, clean water, education and employment, and most of all, the government should crack down on the corruption that besets the Third World. You can’t eat a condom, after all, or learn to read or write from an IUD.

Seems that the message you were trying to convey is what people need are basic necessities and sex stuffs are not necessities.

 

[cho_pilo]

Thanks, ChoPilo. Judging by the comments on the link you provided, it seems to be the case that Father Bernas’ article has only pitted Catholics against Catholics in the country rather than helped clarify the Church’s position. What a sad state of affairs.

Fr. Bernas said using contraceptives is not attempted murder.

Look at this…

MANILA, Philippines - A Catholic priest has laughed off the claim made by those opposing the reproductive health (RH) bill that using contraceptives is attempted murder.

In a blog post, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, JSD, said he found the claim “hilarious.”

“Whoever said that deserves a medal for I know not what,” said Bernas, who is an amicus curiae of the Supreme Court and was among those who helped draft the present Constitution.

Manila 5th District Rep. Amado Bagatsing said last month during the lower House interpellations on the proposed RH bill that using contraceptives to prevent pregnancies is abortion.

“Ang contraceptives ay humaharang… humaharang para huwag magbuntis, huwag magkita ang egg at ang ovum (sic),” said Bagatsing, who is against the RH bill. “Iniistop mo ang pagkikita. Pagka hinadlangan mo, sa Ingles, ina-abort mo,”

Bernas said the one of the concerns on the RH bill is a constitutional issue that revolves around the right to life. “It involves trying to identify when life begins and when there is contraception and when abortion,” he said.

In his blog post, the Jesuit priest rejected generalizing all contraceptives as abortifacients.

“There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation,” Bernas said.

“So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely Postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes,” he stressed.

“The charge is made that the RH bill will destroy the Filipino family. On the basis of more than 25 years of pastoral and social work in Payatas, and some seven years sponsoring natural family planning programs, I can say that the family is already at great risk—and not because of contraceptives,” said Bernas, quoting a sociologist

abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/06/02/11/using-contraceptives-not-murder-fr-bernas-says

 

[manualman]

On the letter of the Jesuit priest, there are two issues which I find and

Why cast doubt on Catholic teaching?

How to say this and be charitable? There are ways to get your message across in a clear fashion and yet be able to deny intending that message if challenged. It’s not for me to judge this priest’s heart nor intentions, but that portion is a classic case of attempting to undermine Church teaching while simultaneously tacking on lawerly CYA language in case of ecclesial disciplinary measures. In other words, Jesuits always have made great lawyers…

 

[Willy_Jose]

I’m for artificial contraception. The world’s ten largest cities have the following populations.

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000
6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000
7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000
8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000
9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000
10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,000

Sixth on the list is Jakarta, with about 19 million people. Someone on another forum has pointed out that there are many poor people begging in this city just to live.

Does the Church ever offer constructive advice as to how this issue should be addressed, or does it simply commit itself to a solution of an ever growing population?

First of all, the Church teaches responsible parenthood which allow the couple to space their children or postpone pregnancy, using moral means (read NFP). There are basically four factors the married couple must seriously consider when responsibly planning their families. This much was already elaborated upon in the 1968 landmark Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.

Secondly, the Malthusian myth of population explosion has long been debunked. Time and again, productivity has outpaced population growth. Distribution of goods is another matter.

Yes, the Church does offer constructive advice on how to manage the resources of the world for the common good. One only needs to look into the generous guidance found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. One must bear in mind however, that the dignity of man and the sacredness of life in all its stages must not be placed on a lower plain in all initiatives undertaken for the common good.