When "commonly-shared values" are not enough: A diocesan priest's response to Ateneo De Manila

From Katolikong Pinoy:

Sept. 23, 2012
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ATENEO MEMO ON THE PRESENT RH BILL
by Fr. Neil Gavan Tenefrancia

Full text of the MEMO here: 

https://www.facebook.com/ateneodemanila/posts/10152037439845153

“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.”

CHURCH OBJECTION: BASED ON DOCTRINE

I think, it is best to add to the reasons cited above (threats to constitutional rights & to commonly shared human and spiritual values) the non-negotiable basis of the Church’s objection to the present form of the RH Bill: it is objecting based on DOCTRINAL reasons to a proposed public policy that will significantly impact the freedom of its constituents with regard to their Christian moral witnessing.

This DOCTRINAL ground is the area where the Church is most competent to speak on, namely- the objective immorality of artificial contraception (aside from the questionable mandatory sex education in schools which is contrary to the inalienable, immediate, and primary right of parents to the upbringing of their children).

Basing the objection to the RH Bill on “commonly shared human and spiritual values” (aside from the constitutional implications) can be misleading. This is because “commonly-shared values” can be understood to be founded on, mediated by, or a result of CONSENSUS which can never be, according to the Catholic understanding of divine Revelation, the infallible and immutable foundation of moral and existential certainty.

In the Church, we receive God’s will as REVELATION which is faithfully transmitted and interpreted by the Teaching Office of the Church (the Magisterium), itself gifted by the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. All of us will not want to follow a blind and erroneous guide.

God’s will, therefore, cannot be based on human CONSENSUS or on “commonly-shared values” if these values are understood as arising from CONSENSUS.

“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.”

SOCIAL COMPASSION OF INTELLECTUALS VS. SOCIAL COMPASSION OF THE CHURCH?

I wonder how the “social compassion” of intellectuals can lead themselves to positions contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church, herself a world-expert in organized charity, cannot be accused of being insensitive to and ignorant of the various human forms of physical and spiritual poverty.

I think the questions to be asked are: Can Catholics innovate for themselves their own understandings and practices of CHARITY and do them outside the mission of the Church? Can we set up our own understanding of MINISTRY within the Catholic Church which is contrary to the very nature of the Church, to the nature of divine Revelation, and exercise them outside the supervision of our Church leaders?

Operare sequitur esse. The Church’s mission necessarily flows from its specific identity. You cannot tinker, therefore, with matters relating to the Church’s MISSION without inevitably tinkering with the Church’s very own IDENTITY.

The proper and healthy alliance of FAITH and REASON, a source of “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,” should imply that ‘intellectual liberalism’ will be employed at the service of the integrity of the Church’s identity and mission and not be used to relativize the truth claims of its doctrines nor to create cleavages and gray areas in matters that are non-negotiable.

“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.”

TEACHING THE CATHOLIC POSITION ALONGSIDE OTHERS

I think there is a need, so as to avoid misunderstanding, to emphasize the nature of the CATHOLIC POSITION alongside the other views. All Catholics should know that the truth-claims of Catholic doctrines on matters of faith and morals are essentially different from that of the others. They are expected to be infallible and binding on all who claim that they are Catholics. And here, intellectual liberalism cannot be considered a virtue. Yes, let us teach the Catholic position but let us also teach the infallible and necessarily-binding nature of this Catholic position.

—————————–

Finally, some words from St Ignatius of Loyola:

“Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one’s own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy…

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same.”

[RULES FOR THINKING WITH THE CHURCH, From the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola in Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Henry Bettenson, ed., pp. 364-367.]

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!