The RH Law and the Promotion of Unnatural "Rights" - An Important Position Paper

A Two-part Critique of the RH Law 

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!

My two articles for Catholic World Report on the RH Bill

The Tipping Point. An aggressive campaign to promote contraceptives picks up steam in the Philippines  -- published in the November 2011 issue of Catholic World Report

A Two-Child Policy in the Catholic Philippines? That day approaches, as the legislative assault on the country’s moral traditions accelerates. -- published in the May 2009 issue of Catholic World Report

Catholic Alumni United for Life

Position Paper: Catholic Alumni United for Life
http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends.

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043’s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

HB 5043 violates explicit Catholic teaching

Catholic doctrine has always held human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has also taught that artificial contraception is a grave evil for as far back as can be historically traced. The early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and many others all condemned contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church prohibits it. In the 20th century, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968 affirmed this teaching, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii decades before, in 1930. The Pontifical Council for the Family reiterated this teaching in 1997, through the document Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life.[4]

HB 5043, however explicitly promotes the use of artificial and abortifacient contraceptive methods and devices, and provides funding for their procurement and distribution. In fact, HB 5043 mandates that contraceptives shall be classified as “essential medicine”. The claim, therefore, that the Bill is pro-life and is consistent with Catholic doctrine is totally false. No Catholic can support HB 5043 without violating the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

HB 5043 violates the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine Constitution, in Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception. It states:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

An abortifacient, however, causes the eventual destruction of the fertilized egg — of newly-conceived life. HB 5043, as stated earlier, promotes and funds such abortifacients. It therefore violates the Philippine Constitution.

HB 5043 is anti-women and anti-poor

While HB 5043 claims to prevent maternal death, its supporters fail to grasp that the great majority of such deaths are caused by the lack of proper medical facilities and care. Instead of using resources on controversial contraceptive methods and services, more good will be done by using such funds for basic health care, eliminating the real cause of maternal deaths. The Bill, however, does not address this lack of basic health care services, and will allow the problem to persist while it wastes funds on abortifacients and other ineffective reproductive health measures.

HB 5043 is coercive and violates freedom of speech

Section 21 (e) of the proposed bill lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.[5] It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients and other contraceptives to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000! HB 5043 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.

A call for Catholic unity and fidelity to Christ

No Catholic can support HB 5043 and remain faithful to the teachings of Christ, given to the Apostles and handed down through the centuries by the Church. To claim otherwise is deceptive and involves distortions of authentic Catholic teaching and flawed reasoning, if not outright falsehood.

For these reasons, we vigorously oppose HB 5043 and call on our respective alma mater — respected Catholic institutions — to unambiguously, unequivocally and publicly take a stand against HB 5043.

We also call on all Catholic educational institutions to rigorously examine their own different situations to determine whether the education they impart to Catholic students in their charge is faithful to the Magisterium, and to take steps to correct any contradictions being taught in the name of the Church.
December 2008

In Christ,

The Signatories

Emmanuel R. Amador

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Communication Arts (1984)

AB Philosophy (1985)

Marietta M. Aguado

Xavier University (1958)

Maryknoll College (1960)

De La Salle University (2006)

Bernard Bagaman

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Communication Arts (1984)

Philip V. Beley

Ateneo de Manila University

High School (1976)

Ricardo B. Boncan

Ateneo de Manila University

Grade School (1979)

High School (1983)

Tomas Borromeo

De La Salle University (Taft)

High School (1968)

Anna Filomena V. Generoso

School of the Holy Spirit (Q.C.)

High School (1986)

Jose Miguel R. Gomez

Ateneo de Manila University

AB Interdisciplinary Studies (1983)

Carlos Antonio Palad

Angelicum School (1994)

Holy Trinity Academy High School (1998)

Atty. Jan Ralph Y. Perez, CPA

University of San Carlos

High School (1995)

BS-Accountancy (2000)

Bachelor of Laws Batch (2005)

Endnotes
1. One such study, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,”(http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126) came to the following conclusion:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
2. CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:

“IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”

Another study by Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, “Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects,” which appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, notes:

“There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”
3. Section 9 of the Bill subsidizes IUD insertion, among other things. Section 10 classifies hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and injectables as “essential medicines” and subsidizes their procurement.

4. A short listing of some of these early Church Fathers, along with quotations from their writings, can be found in the January 1996 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. This article may also be found online at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM The relevant sections of The Catechism of the Catholic Church are Part Three: Life in Christ, Section Two: The Ten Commandments, Chapter Two: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, Article six: The Sixth Commandment, #2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370. These sections are online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htmAn english version of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
An english version of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
An english version of the Vademecum may be found online at the Holy See’s website:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

5. As Cong. Pablo John Garcia said: “Section 21 (e) is plainly stupid, placed there, I believe, by a ‘pikon’ author. RH bill proponents complain of the ‘religious pressure’ brought to bear. Section 21 (e) seeks to elevate the RH bill into a state-mandated religion.”