Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

The following is the memo published by Fr. Jose Ramos "Jet" Villarin, President of ADMU, regarding the pro-RH declaration of 192 members of its faculty. My commentary comes right after this. 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

20 August 2012

Memo to: The University Community

Subject: HB 4244 

Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.

Now that the period for amendments is about to begin, I enjoin all in the Ateneo community to continue in-depth study of the present bill, and to support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective.

In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good. As there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.

Should the bill with whatever amendments be passed, we should neither hesitate to bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation.

If there is no easy answer to the concerns that the proposed bill raises or no facile unanimity among divergent views, this only proves the complexity, depth, and sensitivity of these concerns. Nevertheless, Catholic tradition has always taught that reason and faith are not enemies but allies in the service of God’s truth. From this tradition, we can draw strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people.

Jose Ramon T Villarin SJ

President

Now, for my commentary:

This blog is thankful that Fr. Villarin declares that the Ateneo De Manila University "does not support the passage of House Bill 4244." This blog also thanks the Ateneo De Manila University for coming out with this public adhesion to the Catholic stand versus the RH bill, something that too many Catholic colleges and universities have not (yet) done in their own name. Nevertheless, there are also some things in Fr. Villarin's memo that need to be discussed and brought under scrutiny; on these we cannot be silent. 

The first thing (or rather, the first absence of a thing) that seizes our attention is the lack of any reference to fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and the absence of any allusion to doctrinal investigations, as demanded over this past weekend by Msgr. Leonardo Medroso, Bishop of Tagbilaran. Those who signed the pro-RH declaration are even praised for their "social compassion and intellectual efforts". (May we remind everyone that this is an acknowledgment of intelligence and good intentions that the pro-RH side, for all its self-proclaimed tolerance, has scarcely reciprocated towards the opponents of the RH bill?) While the memo goes on to urge the signatories to "continue in their discernment of the common good", this can mean almost anything; it does not necessarily point to the need to think with the Church. However, the call to think with the Church is precisely what needs to be explicitly heard from the Jesuit Fathers right now. Ateneo, after all, continues to call itself a Catholic university. 

Some might object that at this stage, the dialogue between the leaders of the Church and of the Ateneo and the pro-RH section of its faculty has to be of a purely positive and persuasive nature, without any threats or commands to mar it; the shepherds must not shake their rods at the sheep, but only call to them with soothing words. Perhaps it can be argued that things have gone down so far in the Ateneo de Manila that the most that the voice of Catholic orthodoxy should hope for is to be allowed to have a say -- as but one among many voices -- within its walls. However, this is not a situation that is worthy of any Catholic university worthy of the name, even if it might be the reality in not a few Catholic institutions of higher education worldwide. As for the idea that heterodoxy must be fought with the rod, it is an unpopular and rarely-heard notion even within the Church, but it remains part of the Church's own thinking. As Pope Benedict XVI declared to the priests of the world on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 2010, " The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented. As if it were no longer God’s gift, the precious pearl which we cannot let be taken from us." To ask the Church to cease to exercise any discipline is to tell the Church that it should not protect its own identity. 

Second, the memo's language is insufficient regarding the true nature of the Catholic Church's opposition to the RH bill. While the memo rightly states that the leaders of the Catholic Church do not support the passage of House Bill 4244, and that this bill "contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values", it also calls upon Ateneo faculty to "support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective". Here we come upon a briar patch: naturally, an RH law with amendments that will prevent it from impeding the freedom of the Church and the conscience of Filipinos is better than an RH law without such amendments. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that any support for such amendments are of a purely pragmatic character; the stand of the Church continues to be that the RH bill, as it now stands and even with all the amendments currently proposed, remains too poisonous to the Filipino nation to be passed. As for the "positive elements" of the RH bill, these should be enacted into law separately, or be supported through the enforcement of already existing laws.

Last but not the least, the memo pleads that "all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done." We confess to being skeptical about the efficacy of this plea. The memo also claims that the Catholic position on the RH bill is being properly taught in Ateneo, but if this true, the overall silence of both Ateneo students and faculty in the struggle against the RH bill (with a very few honorable exceptions) belies it. On the contrary, some of the worst, most anti-clerical, and most insulting language and rhetoric against the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church in this whole debate has come from Ateneo's faculty and students, not to speak of alumni. It is a scandal not only to those who come from other Catholic schools, but also to those pro-lifers who come from secular schools such as the University of the Philippines (which, despite its secularist and anti-religious reputation and its own very large contingent of RH supporters, is also the alma mater and academic home of a disproportionate number of anti-RH and pro-life teachers, speakers, writers and activists, and the home to what is currently the largest student group devoted to fighting the RH bill). What have the Jesuits done about this? Perhaps they have done something about this privately, but given the nature of things they need to be heard publicly about this.

If the situation in Ateneo is such that Fr. Villarin cannot call upon its pro-RH contingent to reverse its support for the bill, could he not at least publicly and openly rebuke the shameful anti-Catholic rhetoric that is coming from some of them? If even this cannot be done, then how could the Ateneo "bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have" about the RH bill, and "be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation"?

I have no doubt that there are Ateneans who love the Church, who are faithful to the Magisterium, who will stand by the Church even as it is publicly mocked. Dear Ateneans, please, speak out! We need to hear your voices!

RH bill: a bill that assumes that men cannot control their passions

RH Bill deception: anti-reproduction, anti-women, anti-prosperity
Dr. Quirino Sugon

June 23, 2012 (from his blog Monk's Hobbit)

Reproductive Health Bill is a deception: it is not for reproduction but for contraception. A woman is sexually healthy if she can conceive a child. This is a simple, objective definition, so I don’t know why the RH Bill wishes to muddle this by adding the woman’s psychological and social well-being. Is pregnancy a sickness that must be cured or the hope of our nation that must be supported? Is pregnancy a privilege only of the rich and not of the poor? Is pregnancy an invention of man and not a gift to be thanked for? Many women who cannot conceive turn to IVF treatment costing fortunes but with low chances of success, resulting to many fertilized embryos dying or remaining frozen in test tubes. Many women who are rich do not wish to have children because this will divide their wealth and double their figure. And many women who wished to stop pregnancy with pills suffered breast cancer.

The RH Bill claims that it is pro-women, but it is actually anti-women. Contraceptives makes sex-before-marriage easier: the woman is not anymore assured of being married by the man, for there is no more pregnancy that shall act as witness to the promises of love made in the heat of the night. Contraceptives makes sex-outside-marriage easier: the wife is not anymore assured that his husband is faithful, because there is no pregnancy that shall cry out scandal in the entire neighborhood. Where does men enter into the picture in the RH Bill? Nowhere. RH Bill assumes that men are weak: they not strong enough to control their passions. RH Bill assumes that men are dumb: they can’t understand the mathematics of the woman’s fertility cycle. And RH Bill assumes that men don’t earn enough: they can’t support a family of eight. This is an insult to men in general and husbands in particular.

The RH Bill promises a prosperous future with only one or two children per family. But without children, there would be no laborers in the fields, workers in the factories, soldiers to defend our country, and priests to offer masses. There are only schools without children, industries without workers, barracks without soldiers, and seminaries without priests. Two children work hard to feed a family of six, which includes their parents and grand parents. The pension system collapses, and the government will be forced to raise the retirement age to 70 or 80 or even 90. It’s a bleak future: the collapse of the Western civilization due to its cultural suicide of not having babies. As Rachel cried out to Jacob: “Give me children or I shall die!” (Gen 30:1)

Thus says the LORD:

In Ramah is heard the sound of sobbing,

bitter weeping!

Rachel mourns for her children,

she refuses to be consoled

for her children—they are no more. (Jer 31:15)

Ateneo De Manila University's Official Stance on the RH Bill

Far from ideal, but better than maintaining silence. Still... when will Filipino Catholic institutes of higher learning for the laity begin enforcing Ex Corde Ecclesiae? -- CAP

Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 4244
date posted: 2011-03-25 06:35:37

24 March 2011

MEMO TO : THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FROM : THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT : STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL 4244

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is a recent article in the press that “UP, Ateneo Profs call for passage of RH Bill.” The article also lists the signatories from the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila.

A similar position paper was issued by Ateneo faculty on October 15, 2008 and, on that occasion, I issued a statement to the Ateneo community to clarify the stance of the University. In that memo, I said that the position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:

1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill.

2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University.

3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”

We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.

4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043. (This should be H.B. 4244 -- CAP)

5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.

6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.

The position of the Ateneo de Manila remains the same. In matters of faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus. At the same time, we recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University.

BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.

President

Talking Points for Reproductive Health Bill

We post this article on this blog for the sake of completeness in our presentation of various Catholic responses towards the RH Bill that do not involve any explicit rejection of Catholic doctrine. We do this with serious reservations about the soundness of this article, and with the intention of also airing the side of those Catholics who see deficiencies in the proposed talking points.

Talking Points for the Reproductive Health Bill

Below is a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues. This paper is intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96). Kindly read, reflect, and repost.

Thank you.

Roberto E. N. Rivera, S.J.

John J. Carroll Institute on Church & Social Issues Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights

1108 Quezon City, Philippines

Tel: +63-2-426-6001 local 4657

Fax: +63-2-426-6070

------------------------------

Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)

Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues

Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bi ll can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution

. The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.

. The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos

. At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]

. Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education

. The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents' right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.

. Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society

. Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.

. The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) "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;" (#169): "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."

. It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.

. Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision

. The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient's marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?

. Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn't private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?

Employers' Responsibility

. Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.

. Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals

. The Church's objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.

. Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

Freedom of Speech

. Proposal: The Bill's provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes "malicious disinformation," or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

Implementing Norms

. Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

Ateneo De Manila Statement on RH Bill 5043

Ateneo de Manila University

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

23 October 2008

MEMO TO : THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FROM : THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT : STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL 5043

——————————————————————————–

Yesterday, the Manila Standard had a headline story entitled "Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill." The article is based on an October 15, 2008 position paper issued by individual faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila, "Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience." A shorter version of this position paper is attached.

In reply to a request for clarification from His Excellency Most Rev. Angel N. Lagdameo, D.D., President of the CBCP, I wrote him yesterday, October 22, as follows:

First, that "the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position."

Second, that I was asked to respond to this concern a few weeks ago by Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Bishop Gabriel Reyes and I wrote them on October 2, 2008 regarding our position on the Reproductive Health Bill 5043:

As in all matters that are connected with faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.

I am familiar with the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.

I trust that this will help clarify our position. At the same time, together with the CBCP and the Philippine Province, we favor and encourage honest, sincere and mutually-respectful dialogue on the important issues taken up in the bill.

In my letter to Archbishop Lagdameo yesterday, I also said that several Jesuits would be meeting with the Ateneo faculty members yesterday in a dialogue on this important matter. The dialogue yesterday was forthright and mutually respectful and we pointed out that, while we respect their deep concern for the poor and appreciate our mutual dialogue with them, it is necessary for the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, to state clearly our position on RH Bill 5043. The position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:

1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill.

2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University.

3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is "the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold."We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.

4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043.

5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.

6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.

BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.

President

Catholics Cannot Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience

CATHOLICS CANNOT SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE

A response to the position paper

Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience

To the community of the Ateneo de Manila University:

We, alumni of our alma mater, wish to respond to the position paper authored by 14 members of our faculty. We laud our professors for a wide-ranging presentation on the Philippine social situation, most especially the undesirable effects of an unmanaged population growth to women, the poor and our young people. We commend their dedication to the integral human development of the Filipino people in these troubling times. However, with respect and fraternal charity towards them, we respond that Catholics cannot support the RH Bill in good conscience.

The question of which method Catholics can and should use in the regulation of birth has been resolved in the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (quoted as HV)of Pope Paul VI. “…the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles” (HV 16).

Several questions—and indeed objections—arise from this teaching. We ask, “Is this teaching of the Holy Father definitive?” While the fact remains that Pope Paul VI did not issue the above-mentioned encyclical ex cathedra, it is also a fact that the Pope and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium 25). “The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teaches the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2034).

We therefore distinguish between a solemn magisterium of the Church and an ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Code of Canon Law 750). Catholics are exhorted to believe those things which are “proposed as divinely revealed either (italics ours) by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium” (ibid.). “All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines” (ibid.). Since Humanae Vitae is an exercise of the ordinary teaching faculty of the Holy Father, we can rely on it to be a truthful and faithful interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

A second question arises, “How did Pope Paul VI arrive at such a pronouncement?” An extensive commentary on the encyclical is beyond the scope of this letter, but it will suffice for the moment to say that the Holy Father considered two points: the social situation of his time (and indeed of ours) and an authentic interpretation of the moral law. Very early in the encyclical, Pope Paul VI recognizes that “the changes that have taken place are of considerable importance” (HV 2). He comments on the rapid increase in population and the incommensurate increase in resources, and therefore the difficulty of raising a large family.

However, he is quick to clarify that while the Church encourages parents to be responsible in planning their families, responsible parenthood “concerns the objective moral order which was established by God and of which a right conscience (italics ours) is the true interpreter” (HV 10). Neither the Church nor the Pope can invent the truth about the sanctity of human life and the divine gift that is the sexual faculty. They can only articulate and clarify it, but never create it. In our effort to be a Church for the Poor and to look at reality from the poor’s perspective, we remember that it is only Jesus who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6) and we look to the Church and the Pope, to whom the keys were given, for guidance and counsel.

A third objection surfaces, “What of the primacy of conscience?” The position paper of the professors states, “Catholic social teachings similarly recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities” (page 13). While it is true that our conscience always bids us to follow its voice, “in the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him in obedience” (Gaudium et Spes 16).

Following one’s conscience is therefore not a matter of what one “feels” or “thinks” to be right or wrong. Rather, conscience must stand as a “witness to the authority of truth (italics ours) in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 177). The Catechism quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman who says, “[Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives” (ibid. 1778). The task of conscience is therefore not to invent truth, but to discern what is true by listening to the voice of Jesus echoed by and through the Church.

It is important to understand that this argument does not lead to a “wooden compliance to directives.” Our faith, in St. Anselm’s words, is a faith that seeks understanding, fides quaerens intellectum. Catholics therefore do not blindly obey teachings just because they come from the Church. Rather, their faith bids them to seek to understand the mind, heart and spirit of the Church and make them his own.

In the Gospel of St. John, when the Lord told the crowd, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (6:51), some of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can accept it?” (6:60). “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him” (6:66). GK Chesterton poetically articulated this attitude when he said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

We are similarly faced with a “hard saying”—a faithful and true saying, but hard nevertheless. The Church is not blind to the plight of women, the poor and our young people, but as Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales recently affirmed, this issue is not simply a matter of demographics, economics or sociology. “It’s an ethical issue… It’s a moral issue.” The Church cannot alter the truth about the sanctity of life and the sexual faculty to provide a ready answer to our social dilemma. Catholics whose consciences are good and well formed, and are docile to the honest but firm voice of the Church are bound by conscience not to support the RH Bill. Rather, faced with strong opposition from every side, they turn to our Lord together with St. Peter and exclaim, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!” (John 6:68).

Paul Christopher Cheng

AB Economics-Honors 2008

paulcheng29@yahoo.com

Varsolo Sunio

BS Physics-CE 2007

var_sunio@yahoo.com

Gino Antonio Trinidad

AB Political Science 2008

gtrinidad@myway.com

From the website of the Archdiocese of Manila